Canon and their "Pro" Bodies

[jjphoto]

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.

 

[Oren Grad]

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.

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.

 

[jjphoto]

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.

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.

 

[Oren Grad]

Although one of my bodies was the HS, ie with additional power booster.

That would certainly bring it much closer to the range that you specified.

Anyway, not a big deal - just a bit of historical trivia. More important: I have a pair of 1V's and agree that it's a very fine camera.

 

[wiltw]

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.?

The EOS-1V was launched in 2000. I still have a 2003 catalog from Calumet, and they wanted $1900 for a body.

 

[benjiboy]

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

 

[Toyo]

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

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

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

Dunno about that.
I earned my bread and butter for 20+ years wielding an EOS1N and, initially, just two lenses, which only grew to four in time — unlike others, I have no need nor desire to accumulate lenses and by association, weight!

The point is not what sort of camera you are using, but the quality of photography produced, especially prints. I printed everything to Ilfochrome Classic. Now everything is produced with a Pentax 67 to wide-gamut inkjet, but the 1N is always close by as a switch-to for those scenes that require, for example, an extreme wild angle view, in which case the 17mm is a delight to use.

 

[CMoore]

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.
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.

 

[Toyo]

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.

Yes, I get that, and understand completely.
T

 

[benjiboy]

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.

 

[NJH]

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.

 

[Ste_S]

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!!

Whilst not a pro body, I like the EOS 300x as it's quite small. Also as it was the last EOS film body introduced by Canon it's got newer tech than even the 1V, with a better matrix metering system. Shot some Provia with it recently and it was flawless with it's exposures, one of the few film cameras I'm more than happy to set to 'P' and snap away.

 

[blockend]

I don't know if journalists used the T90

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.

 

[flavio81]

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.?

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.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

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.

Photojournalists may well have been using the T90 in techno gadget-happy Japan for the task, but in Australia, the Nikon F3 in various iterations was still king -- look carefully and a smattering of Nikon's might be seen in action too.

I realise that the design of the T90, as with the EOS cameras, was polarising, but it is a shape and form that I have come to really, really appreciate over the decades, and I really do not have any niggles at all about the camera, the form or the layout and conventions of controls, including the oft-criticised custom function switching. I had the loan of a friend's F90X which was a later challenge to Canon's T90 (he wasn't taking the F90X rock climbing to the US) -- it didn't light my fire, so...

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

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.

Minolta!?
I took with me on a major peak expedition in 1992 a Minolta Dynax 9000i, and personally, the AF did not strike me as particularly revolutionary, or fast for that matter, perhaps a step forward of another angst-inducing blighty, Nikon's F401. Neither observation applies to Minolta's later offerings, or Nikon's, but in those distant days many people were happier with manual focus "boxies".

 

[johnha]

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.

The HyperProgram & HyperManual controls of the Pentax Z-1 (1991) are still used on all Pentax DSLRs and the 645D/Z, the only difference is that the 'IF' button is now the green button - they still offer seamless selection of P, Av, TV and Manual, with or without exposure compensation and/or meter lock. My only Canon experience was an EOS 5 that broke very soon after I bought it (mode dial) along with a 28-135 IS lens that also broke (IS switch).

The T90 was one of the few 'must-have' cameras back in the day, along with the Contax 167MT.

 

[AgX]

Concerning use by photo journalist, I do not remember seeing even one photo of a public event where a T90 was shown to be used.

 

[NJH]

Funny that because my only exposure to the T90 was the one loaned to me by a newspaper photographer back in the day.

 

[benjiboy]

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

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.
I don't believe most manufacturers make much of a profit on their pro. models they are mainly prestige products considering the huge research and development costs involved in bringing out a new model and the potential sales to a very small percentage of the market who are professional photographers. I bet that the Canon Corporation made many times more profit from the A and T series of cameras than the F series.

 

[AgX]

bet that the Canon Corporation made many times more profit from the A and T series of cameras than the F series.

Concerning sales:
On 1 F1 of any kind came 20 A's of any kind.

 

[choiliefan]

I've been playing with an EOS 3 with the small grip which takes a single 2CR battery.
It's a very comfortable camera to hold and not so terribly heavy to wield with my basic consumer grade 35-80mm EF lens.

 

[cooltouch]

Regarding Canon's takeover of the pro market segment, I have a little anecdote for you guys. Back in 1990 I bought into the EOS system after being a dia-hard Canon FD user and then briefly a Nikon user. It was only a Rebel that I bought for the wife so she'd have an easy camera to use to take pix of our new daughter. But as is often the case, I found uses for it and came to appreciate that little bugger. But on to the anecdote. As a photographer, when I watched football games on TV, I paid attention to the long lenses the photographers were using. During a game there would always be several shots of the still image pros with their bazooka-sized lenses --- typically 500mm and 600mm light buckets. Well, after becoming an EOS owner, I guess I started paying closer attention to the number of white lenses I saw on the sidelines. Back in the 80s, you almost never saw a white lens on the sidelines. Seas of black lenses. But by 1990 or so, I began to see a change. Suddenly there were a few white lenses competing against the sea of black. And as the years crept by, I noticed the ratio between the white and black lenses steadily shifted in favor of the white lenses. Such that, by the late 90s, the tables were almost totally turned. Occasional black lenses in a sea of white.

And then there was BHO's inauguration in 2008, where one David Bergman brought a newfangled device called a Gigapan to the occasion, and the rest was, as they say, history. He put together a 1,474 megapixel image of the event that you could even zoom in and out on. You'll pardon my mentioning a digital image, please. I do so only to point out the lenses the image captured. So, there we were in 2008, and that big photo showed all those monster-sized lenses on a big tower and more huge lenses in stands facing the Gigapan (and David Bergman) across the open area, as well as the lenses ringing the Gigapan setup -- and still, almost all of them are white. So despite Nikon's excellence it appears that Canon is still maintaining its lock on the pro market -- or at least it still was as of 2008. I wouldn't be surprised if that may change soon though with Nikon finally announcing a new mount. We'll just have to wait and see, I suppose. I think that, ultimately, the end user will benefit, regardless of which system the photographer is using. Cuz Canon's gonna fight to hold onto its market share now that it has a comfortable majority of pros using its products. And Nikon's gonna fight to upset the status quo. And most recently, a new dark horse -- we've got Sony out there now, kicking things up in a major way with its full-frame mirrorless offerings. So things are gonna start getting really interesting, I suspect.