So, why isn't Canon 'cool?'

filmtwit said:
Don't forget, you can use all that old Nikon, (most) Minolta, Leica R, and a slew of other slr glass on your modern EOS camera's. That was one of the selling points for me with Canon, you use nearly everyone elses glass on it (except older canon lenses), while with Nikon your choices are more limited.
Click to expand...

But only in stop-down mode....
 
CliveC said:
Canon is the Toyota of cameras. Reliable, performs well, but uninteresting.
Click to expand...

I think that is a bit unfair! I have several Canon lenses that are fairly special either in function or rendering (namely a 17mm tilt-shift, 50mm f1.2 and 135mm f2). Canon's FF system ergonomics are also pretty good, as much like Leica they are the result of gradual evolution over many years.

My only real complaint with Canon is the size and weight of the system, which is why I also shoot Leica (film) and u4/3 (travel and macro).
 
Not cool....?

Canon-EF---FD-50-3.5-macro-and-Canon-A1---FD-50-1.4.jpg
 
Contarama said:
The answer is simple to me. The F revolutionized the 35mm format camera. It changed the game drastically. They took the lead and held it for a long time. All the others played catch up.
Click to expand...
Minolta introduced the AF SLR, Canon introduced USM and IS lenses. In the AF era, Nikon was playing catch up...

CameraQuest said:
Nikon's commitment is arguably to photography and to Nikon Photographers. The best example of that is Nikon's reissue of the classic Nikon SP and S3 cameras.
Canon would never have done something like that - there is no profit in it
Click to expand...
Aren't those cameras just marketing like the Df is?

I always felt Nikons are over hyped and Canons are the workhorses of the photography world. Just IMHO.
 
HuubL said:
Not cool....?

Canon-EF---FD-50-3.5-macro-and-Canon-A1---FD-50-1.4.jpg
Click to expand...

VERY COOL!!!

Those are in really nice condition too. I love the old FD line, was crushed when Canon discontinued it.

And the black finish on the Canon SLR's, prior to the NEW F-1, were really beautiful. Had a gorgeous F-1n for years, which I stupidly sold, that was so beautiful to look at and hold.
 
Here is the deal: it depends on who you talk to. I was around a lot of people who were very good photographers in the late 1960s and 70s who shot Canon. Later hundreds of people around me were buying Canon AE-1s, and happy with them. My recollection is why I've always liked Canons. I don't chase the "I must use the most popular, expensive, and recognizable brand." Not with cars, dog breeds, guns, or cameras. I use what works for ME, and that's cool....to ME.

Don't worry about trying to copy or analyze what all the others say is the best. Find out yourself, and outdo them with what they say is no good.
 
Nikon was the top professional SLR until electronics took over the manufacturing process. When autofocus became standard, Canon's EOS system took a huge jump in popularity because their AF was better at the time. They were the cool cameras of the late 1990's. Since the, cameras have become like consumer electronics with little to distinguish one brand from another. This week one brand is on top but next week the technology will improve and another brand will take the lead and be Mr. Cool. At this point, who cares? Everyone makes good cameras. The cool factor doesn't mean squat for taking pictures.
 
Well, out of curiosity I mounted the front 50mm element from the Canon EX on a Canon VIt body and a Canon 50mm f2.8 lens on the EX body. Results: I couldn't get anything in focus with the EX lens on the VIt body, but with the 50/2.8 lens on the EX body an object an inch or so in front of the lens would be in focus.
 
Rokkors 'can' be used on EOS with the use of an optical adapter, e.g. the Fotodiox will multiply focal lengths of the lens by x1.4, or after modifying either lens or camera. MD/MC lenses can't be directly mounted nor be used on EOS by just a simple, glassless adapter. right?!
 
You have to pull the old mount and remount it with modified Eos mount. YEs, you'll get infinity. So it's not easy, but you can do it.

kuuan said:
Rokkors 'can' be used on EOS with the use of an optical adapter, e.g. the Fotodiox will multiply focal lengths of the lens by x1.4, or after modifying either lens or camera. MD/MC lenses can't be directly mounted nor be used on EOS by just a simple, glassless adapter. right?!
Click to expand...
 
Really the only cameras that I think of as being "cool" are Leica or anything more than 40-years-old.

I shoot Leica and Canon today and enjoy them both for very different reasons. For casual travel and street photography and even events and portraiture, my M-E and M Monochrom with 35, 50 and 90mm Leica lenses are all I could ever want. For longer trips where I might want real wide-angle, macro or to shoot in horrible conditions I wouldn't want to risk my expensive Leica equipment in I'm very happy with my Canon 6D.

For events I generally shoot with three lenses, those being a 35mm, a 50mm and an 85-100mm. Both Leica and Canon do that well, with the telephoto being far easier on the Canon with AF, and the wide angle far nicer on the Leica with the RF. The 50s work about equally well on both systems.

My Canon 6D with the 24-105/4 L is not even remotely cool or sexy, but I was in Vienna with it a few years in pouring rain, I just kept shooting without any thought or care for my equipment. I would have been far more protective of a Leica M9 generation camera or even an M240 with the non-sealed 35mm f/1.4 FLE.

I'm actually saving my pennies for the new Canon 35/1.4 L II, which (finally) adds weather sealing to the fast 35. The new optics are supposed to be better, but the old one was good enough. Now weather-sealing, combined with the well-tested weather-sealing on the 6D makes this my ideal travel kit, with the (also weather-sealed) 100/2.8 L Macro in a belt case, I've got most of the world covered. How cool is that?
 
asiafish said:
I`m actually saving my pennies for the new Canon 35/1.4 L II, which (finally) adds weather sealing to the fast 35. The new optics are supposed to be better, but the old one was good enough.
Click to expand...

Sounds very interesting.
I just have one lens the ubiquitous 70 -200 /2.8 IS L.

Very uncool but for what I use it for , bloody marvelous.
 
As a neophyte photography student in the 80's, I shot in high school with a silver Pentax K-1000...lots of the students did. They were very pedestrian...we could check them out, shoot our project, and check them back in. Our advisor, the photography teacher, had a black Nikon FE2 on a shelf over his desk...nobody was allowed to touch it. As you approached his desk, I could swear I heard angels weeping and trumpets blaring from that camera!! That made quite an impression on an impressionable teenager.

I think rarity makes something cool. I also feel that product placement makes things cool. Nikons were fewer in number, and the ones I saw were always black. Very cool. Saw them in movies...very cool. "Grab my Nikon" seemed like something a pro would say...not "grab my Canon."

So, in the film days, Nikon was the "it" SLR. Things change. I think in the digital world, I feel like Canon is associated with professional shooters. I see those white Canon banners at tennis matches, on the sidelines at football games and at the Olympic games. Open up National Geographic...my go-to inspirational magazine for travel photojournalism...and there's usually a Canon ad near the front. Perception is reality. I've owned both, and in fact owned film and digital Leicas, and medium format gear. When the rubber meets the road and I HAVE to get my picture, I reach for the Canon gear, an EOS 1DX now.

I'm pretty sure the guys on the ground during the apocalypse will be uplinking images shot with Canon digital gear. So I think Nikon was cool for film, but Canon is cool for digital.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom