Canon EOS 500

Canon EOS 500 Review

WRITE A REVIEW

★★★★★

4.6 / 5

From 13 reviews

92% of users recommend this

Photograph Quality
Features
Ease of Use
Value For Money

zaheer.'s review of Canon EOS 500

★★★☆☆

WRITE A REVIEW

Canon EOS 500

“I have 10 years experience behind me to quote that...”

Written on: 13/03/2002 by zaheer.

Good Points
Good auto focus capability.

Bad Points
Its built in flash does very badly when u rely on it in all auto modes. I wonder if something is lacking in its A-TTL system?

General Comments
I have 10 years experience behind me to quote that some thing is lacking in the Canon EOS 500 35mm SLR camera when u use it with built in flash in any auto mode at night (green, P, A-dep). In all these modes where u want to capture the moments instantaneously, many many of my photographs turned out to be under-exposed. When i used it manually with another semi-auto flash (non canon, vivitar) thing came out excellent. Auto-focusing is excellent in the darkest times.

Features
Value For Money

Alex Pickyshopper's Response to 15843_zaheer.'s Review

Written on: 16/07/2004

Thanks for your comment, very interesting. I'm looking to buy the EOS500 as it seems to have a strong reputation.
<br>
<br>Could someone tell me how easy it is to get round the problem of underexposing pictures when using the flash in auto mode by just simply using the manual mode instead? Is it tricky to gauge what the appature and speed settings should be? This would enable good pictures to be taken with the flash without having to carry an external flash around.

Reply to this comment

Baadegg's Response to 15843_zaheer.'s Review

Written on: 24/08/2005

You will never get over the issue of underexposing shots in poor light with a "built in" flash, which is exactly why professional bodies dont even have a built in flash.
<br>You may as well ignore its being there unless you are using it to supplement low light levels, even then Id shy away from using it as it doesnt do the camera justice.
<br>Get a half decent flash unit instead.

Reply to this comment