Yes, but they were selling for less in the US, so I bought (two) bodies from there instead of Australia. I don't recall what they cost from Adorama/BH Photo at the time but I think it was between USD$2.5-3K each.
Yes, but they were selling for less in the US, so I bought (two) bodies from there instead of Australia. I don't recall what they cost from Adorama/BH Photo at the time but I think it was between USD$2.5-3K each.Holy Cow.....that is quite a bit of money in 2018, isn't it.,?
Pardon me, i am just a stupid American.....but what is that.....about 3700-3800 in USD.?
Yes, but they were selling for less in the US, so I bought (two) bodies from there instead of Australia. I don't recall what they cost from Adorama/BH Photo at the time but I think it was between USD$2.5-3K each.
I don't doubt you. I might be thinking of the price in Australian dollars instead of US, it was too long ago. Although one of my bodies was the HS, ie with additional power booster.The initial price of the EOS-1 when it first arrived at B&H in 1990 was about $1300. B&H sold off the last of its EOS-1V's not all that long ago for about $1700. IIRC the 1V went as high as around $1900 before film camera sales basically died. The 1N would have been in the same range.
Although one of my bodies was the HS, ie with additional power booster.
The EOS-1V was launched in 2000. I still have a 2003 catalog from Calumet, and they wanted $1900 for a body.Holy Cow.....that is quite a bit of money in 2018, isn't it.,?
Pardon me, i am just a stupid American.....but what is that.....about 3700-3800 in USD.?
Hahahaha - yes, I have to chuckle. We have all this discussion about how professional some cameras are and how much more professional this one is than that one.Speaking personally the Canon F1 in all it's three versions are all better cameras than I will ever be a photographer, and for my type of photography if I can't shoot good pictures with them it's my fault, not the equipment
Hahahaha - yes, I have to chuckle. We have all this discussion about how professional some cameras are and how much more professional this one is than that one.
I would think that almost no-one on this forum is reliant on any of these cameras in a professional sense - ie not currently earning their living by operating any of them.
So we are mostly hobby photographers.
If one can't take a decent image with a Canon FTb, then changing to an F1 won't make any difference.
T
I do not think most of us would dispute that.Hahahaha - yes, I have to chuckle. We have all this discussion about how professional some cameras are and how much more professional this one is than that one.
I would think that almost no-one on this forum is reliant on any of these cameras in a professional sense - ie not currently earning their living by operating any of them.
So we are mostly hobby photographers.
If one can't take a decent image with a Canon FTb, then changing to an F1 won't make any difference.
T
Yes, I get that, and understand completely.I do not think most of us would dispute that.
What IS of interest, to those of us that are old enough to have been around when these "Pro" Cameras were New and In Use, is to use what we could not afford at the time.
I never was a professional photographer and could never...on my income...justify the cost of a Nikon f2 or Canon F1 or Pentax LX, Etc etc.
Now, we can afford to look back at what "The Pros Used".
Kind of a pride of ownership thing.
There are LOTS of 1974 air-cooled Porsches, and circa 1973 BMWs around.
How many 1973 Ford Pintos do you see being saved.
It is simply an appreciation for past quality.
Indeed Chip, in the days that the Canon New F1 was current I worked at a professional camera dealer and the New F1 AE body was around £900 and even with my staff discount that was much more than I could afford although I could borrow a demo model at weekends which only made me want one more, but with a mortgage and two sons at university, the youngest one at an American one, now more than thirty years later I have three of them.I do not think most of us would dispute that.
What IS of interest, to those of us that are old enough to have been around when these "Pro" Cameras were New and In Use, is to use what we could not afford at the time.
I never was a professional photographer and could never...on my income...justify the cost of a Nikon f2 or Canon F1 or Pentax LX, Etc etc.
Now, we can afford to look back at what "The Pros Used".
Kind of a pride of ownership thing.
There are LOTS of 1974 air-cooled Porsches, and circa 1973 BMWs around.
How many 1973 Ford Pintos do you see being saved.
It is simply an appreciation for past quality.
The 1V is too big and overly-heavy for my small hands, which is the reason my EOS1N ($4,000 new in 1994) isn't going anywhere!!
The T90 gained a reputation as a photojournalist camera in the Japanese home market. It was renowned for its ability to take knocks. The old adage about any camera that earns the user money is a professional camera, is true. People's idea of what denotes a pro body is not set in stone. I suspect there are many more photographers making money today from their Nikon D700 to D850 than a D5, and the same proportion with a Canon 5D-something over a 1Dx. Olympus claimed their OM1/2 were professional cameras based on the lens range rather than any conventional pro body feature. Pentax didn't acknowledge making a professional body until the LX, though lots of people made cash from their Spotmatics and K2s before. The Nikon F6 didn't resemble previous Nikon professional bodies.I don't know if journalists used the T90
I realize a professional photographer can use ANY camera, but for lack of a better term.......did Canon make a Pro Body after the F1-New.?
The T90 gained a reputation as a photojournalist camera in the Japanese home market. It was renowned for its ability to take knocks. The old adage about any camera that earns the user money is a professional camera, is true. People's idea of what denotes a pro body is not set in stone. I suspect there are many more photographers making money today from their Nikon D700 to D850 than a D5, and the same proportion with a Canon 5D-something over a 1Dx. Olympus claimed their OM1/2 were professional cameras based on the lens range rather than any conventional pro body feature. Pentax didn't acknowledge making a professional body until the LX, though lots of people made cash from their Spotmatics and K2s before. The Nikon F6 didn't resemble previous Nikon professional bodies.
I owned a T90 from 2010-16, and admired rather than loved it, though it was a "lucky" camera (the highest accolade) and I got some memorable shots with it. One grievance was the location of controls was still evolving, but mainly it was a dislike of the jelly mould shape which endures for DSLRs to this day.
It would be difficult to substantially improve on the F-1 New, thus Canon switched to making the best possible AF system, which they finally achieved with the EOS 1, winning over Minolta (the pioneer in AF systems) and Nikon.
What is also interesting about Canon is that the HMI philosophy has barely changed over all these years. I went into the Custom settings on my 1V and set it up similar to my 60D (back button focus in particular). I can't think of many companies that keep such a level of consistency over the decades on such complicated electronics. The AF on that camera is really superb, better still than recent prosumer DSLRs, way better than my 60D for example.
To a large extent, I agree with this, but the reason that serious photographers whether amateur or pro prefer professional cameras are that they are not built to a price they are built to a quality standard in the materials they are manufactured from and the tolerances they are machined to that will sustain professional use and the availability of the attendant accessories that a pro. would require.Hahahaha - yes, I have to chuckle. We have all this discussion about how professional some cameras are and how much more professional this one is than that one.
I would think that almost no-one on this forum is reliant on any of these cameras in a professional sense - ie not currently earning their living by operating any of them.
So we are mostly hobby photographers.
If one can't take a decent image with a Canon FTb, then changing to an F1 won't make any difference.
T
Concerning sales:bet that the Canon Corporation made many times more profit from the A and T series of cameras than the F series.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?