DPR Forum

Welcome to the Friendly Aisles!
Register now and use your old dpreview username.
Enjoy this modern, easy to use software. Look also at our Reviews & Gallery!



Good morning all of you.

I am given a good oportunity on a EOS 1n RS.

Now i am looking for the user manual.
Anybody knows where could i find one maybe in PDF format for downloads?

Many thanks in advance.

ps. Also any users experience, tips and tricks, opinions and first hand comments about this camera would be utmostly apreciated!!!!
What about reliability? Any known issue? Dust on the mirror? So on....


Hi Gianluca,

You're lucky because Canon publish manuals for their discontinued products. They appoint a distributor in each territory, e.g,. in the UK it is a company called Robert Scott whom I have ordered from them three times and in every case the manual has turned up by first class post just one or two days after placing the order. The cost was quite modest too at around GBP10. If you ring Canon in Italy I'm sure they'll be able to give you the details of your local equivalent.

I don't know much about the RS except that I have heard dust on the mirror shouldn't be too much of a problem as long as it's not excessive, because it doesn't appear in sharp focus in the final image (unlike dust on a digital camera's sensor).


-= mike =-


> Dear Mr. Nunan Thanks a lot for your attention. Very useful indeed.

Only a curiosity: are you the same person who wrote the review of the Minolta DIMAGESCAN 5400 ON Photo-i.co.uk? If so many many compliments for the good job.


Yeah, that's me, Thanks for the positive feedback! I'm now looking forward to the new Nikon range, not because I'm unhappy with the 5400 but because I want something that will make a good job of medium format film. I don't know whether I will be so lucky as to get a unit ahead of the reviewers this time around though.

-= mike =-


> I would be interested to hear about a comparison between the Minolta Dimage Scan 5400 and the new Nikon Coolscan V. They are similarly priced, and similarly spec-ed. On paper the 5400 seems the better performer quality-wise.


> Dear Mr. Nunan

You have the power of reading people' minds!!!

I am also very curious about the COOLSCAN 9000 also if it will be surely an overkill compared to my photographic skills... well also overpriced! :)

So i will be looking forward to read your deep and great review.

Best regards and a merry Christmas!

ps. sorry for my incompetent english


Kevin, there is a thread on Photo.net where this has been discussed, and somebody mentioned that Chasseur D'Images were publishing a comparison test:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

I don't have time right now to follow the suggested link to the site, but you may find the information you seek on their forums there. If you do find an answer, please post a link or summary here as I'd be interested to see what they thought.

It has been interesting to read the comments of other users since I did my original review. There appear to be many complaints about the quality of the software, which I would agree is not in the same league as Nikon Scan let alone Silverfast. There have also been comments about unsatisfactory noise levels, which makes me wonder what people have been using as a comparison point since the noise control seems pretty exemplary to me. The Nikon has only a 14-bit ADC and no multi-s&ling, which ought to give the Minolta a clear advantage in the noise department. If I would consider the Nikon it would be for the light source. I still find the Minolta just <i>bangs</i> up the contrast for B&W, and while it is possible to correct this using curves, the basic look of the scan is pretty hard and grainy. (I think possibly it's this property that people are actually talking about when they say it's "noisy".)

Hi Gianluca! I don't know if I'm a mind reader yet, but I do think there should be no embarrassment about spending money on a good scanner. If you want good results it will be hard enough even if you do go for the best desktop unit you can afford. Too many people judge digital prints in isolation instead of comparing them against the results of traditional methods. For ex&le, my girlfriend is an actor and occasionally I produce standard head-shots for her and her friends. These shots are carefully set up using optimal technique (sharp lens, tripod, ISO100 B&W film etc), scanned with the 5400 and printed on an Epson 2100. I've been pleased with the results, and so have the actors. Recently my girlfriend decided she wanted a different "eye" for a set of alternative shots (some comments from her agent were to blame!) so she went out and paid for a shoot by a commercial specialist. She brought back three traditional prints, and I have to say they absolutely humiliate my Epson prints in terms of the reproduction of the fine details. Not because they are absolutely sharper (although they are at least as sharp), but because the digital prints show some pixel dither where the silver prints contain only smooth tone.

I remember the first scans I performed using my original Nikon LS-30, and how disappointed I was to see so many digital artifacts in the output images, to the point where I thought there must be something wrong with the unit. Looking around the web, I found that the unit itself was normal, it was just the level of acceptance for mediocre results that was to blame. The 5400 is far, far better but there is still a way to go before we can expect those with skills in the traditional methods will stop looking down on us, IMO.

Merry Christmas to you and the other board members too!

-= mike =-

PS. Don't apologise for your English, it's infinitely better than my Italian, and there's no excuse for that considering my mother came from C&obasso...