Canon and their "Pro" Bodies

The T90 was positioned as an advanced amateur SLR and was the last before Canon shifted to the all electronic EF mount. I don't know if journalists used the T90, but I know cyclists, rock climbers, skiiers, kayakers and even Everest summiters who took a T90 with them! I used one for a couple of years with the highly-fancied 35-105mm f3.5 zoom.

In answer to the second query, yes.
AF virtually rang the death knell for manual focus, but at that time it was in need of improvement (speed, accuracy).
Canon's first pro-level SLR in the EOS line was the EOS 1, and it was the extensive feedback from active professionals (in media, sports) that saw so many refinements and upgrades that came out in the EOS 1N in 1994, retailing at AUD$3,999 body only. AF speed (AI-servo, particularly: follow-lock subject) was good but limited in spread on the 1, but several times better on the 1N with greatly revised algorithms linked to 5 focusing/prime metering points instead of 3, 16-zone evaluative metering and optimisation (backward and well as forward) of L-series lenses that were available at the time, and coming out in the future. That is the reason why such an old camera works so well with all of the incarnations of the L-series lenses.

Not many T90 cameras are seen today. I have not seen any for a couple of years. Their advanced age and legacy problems probably deter many people, but they can be fun to use as a way of exploring how these top-level cameras of the day worked a long, long time before the fast, highly automated beasts we have today (which are also quieter than the T90!). Still plenty of manual focus FD lenses out there though.

 

I shot professionally for 10 years with a Canon Eos 1 , from early 1990's till early 2000's. Previously I had used Olympus OM4ti so it was a complete system change.

The Eos 1 was a great work horse and the L lenses a pure delight to use. What struck me was the build quality of the Eos 1. It had rubber seals on the buttons so it was splash proof and could take some rain (I live in Ireland so it was tested good) and the most important thing, it always worked. In the 10 years I shot with it, I never has one problem. (ok I had it serviced every year). Infact I still have it and it still works.

 

As ~Garyh has said, the T90 was an advanced amateur camera and a very good one at that.
I could not afford one at the time of its release and continued to shoot with my FTb and EF.
I bought one about five years ago when they were almost being given away and it performs faultlessly to this day.
Interestingly so do the FTb and EF, but the EF get less use now.
An excellent camera if you can find one
T

 

Chip,

The EOS pro bodies are what made Canon THE professional cameras from about 1990 onward. During the manual focus era, Nikon ruled, but Canon's AF system was better in the early AF cameras and they really took over the pro market. So, yeah, pros definitely used AF cameras!

 

If you consider only Canon FD then the new F1 was the last. I wouldn't consider the T90 as a pro camera. If you consider the EOS too then all versions of the EOS-1 are pro cameras. EOS-1, EOS-1N and EOS-1V.

 

I know nothing about Canon T90. Sounds like soviet tank to me. But I owned briefly Canon EOS full body SLR which was just as professional as current 1 series of Canon. Except it was film and with eye focus option.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EOS-3
I didn't have one like in the link, but body with dual grip. It was huge and heavy, maybe I'll get one less professional with regular body.
It should pair nicely with my 16-35L professional zoom, which is on EOS300 for now and its plastic lens mount is not giving me enough confidence.

 

[QUOT, all metal, it was in my view a step above the F1new. E="Paul Howell, post: 2114717, member: 3862"][/QUOTE]

I owned a Canon T90 for about 25 years I sold it a couple of months ago it certainly wasn't "all metal" or it would have been too heavy to pick up, I have also owned three Canon New F1's for the same period of time they are "all metal" and have been supremely reliable. I always felt that the T90 was a gee-whiz camera whose specifications were drawn up by The Canon Corporation's advertising agency to blind the man in the street with science to encourage him to buy them. My T90 never gave me the feeling of confidence that the New F1s did and still do that I would come back with pictures and not excuses which I.M.O is what a professional camera should do

 

The T90 was advertized as "a catalist for the creative mind". Its main feature was its exposing meter, with features likely redundant for the average news photographer, but interesting for the rest of photojournalist.
I think an important point is that professional photographers do not buy a new camera each year anbd the T90 was only on the market for about one year.

 

Well, a lot of the time that wasn't my state of mind free-wheeling down hills on my bike with a broken chain (re-linked with florist wire...), one operating brake ("where did my brake shoes go to??") and panniers akimbo. No matter, all in the name of "adventure"!! A clear recollection in memory last night has it that I summited my home State's tallest mountain, Mount Bogong (1,986m) in 1988, toting the "bloody heavy!" (the righteous opinion of the walk leader) T90 and 35-105mm zoom while everybody else had tiny Ricoh or Olympus rangefinders! Another recollection has me clambering up cliffs in the Grampians in the winter of 1987, which would be soon after I bought the camera.

In 1992 I summited the Bogong (aboriginal name for "Big Fella") again, but that time it was with a Minolta Dynax 9000i -- the least pleasing of any "futuristic" camera, keeping it for all of 2 months before moving to an FE2!

Gary and T90,
Briggs Bluff, the Grampians 1987