So, why isn't Canon 'cool?'

[sevo]

If Canons are not cool, then how come the Canon F1-N sells for more money than a Nikon F2 and most F3s on the used photo gear market?

Where? I added a F-1N and New F-1 in the past years to my old beater F-1 as they were so ridiculously cheap (got them for about 10% of the going rate for the equivalent Nikon F2).

 

[sevo]

The Df is certainly unique in that respect. The problem is that the converse is not true. None of the current G lenses may be used on the classic manual focus film bodies (if you want aperture control) or on some of the earlier auto focus bodies.

G lenses do work in S and P AE mode on the F4, and will stop down to the smallest aperture on all manual focus bodies. Non AI lenses will not fit bodies with rigid AI coupler, and need a AI modification. And some lens/body combinations limit you to stop-down metering or disable all metering. Compared to the Canon issue of a incompatible register preventing focus to infinity these are relatively harmless.

 

[coelacanth]

I did use original 5D for work for a while, but that's all Canon I had over the years. I don't know why, really. I guess I'm somewhat "against" (not really!) Canon because it's the mainstream, THE serious photographer's choice. I like underdogs. Kinda.

When I raced motocross, I didn't like Honda because that was THE bike. I rode YZ. I like mechanical watches, but I don't like the mainstream Swiss brands. I go for smaller, less known German ones. Kind of like that I guess. Nothing really against Canon. I just find myself looking for an alternative to the most mainstream choice. It's fun and blessing to have choices.

 

[Thardy]

Cameras cool? To dorks I guess.

 

[xayraa33]

Where? I added a F-1N and New F-1 in the past years to my old beater F-1 as they were so ridiculously cheap (got them for about 10% of the going rate for the equivalent Nikon F2).

By F1-N I mean the last F1 model with the electro-mechanical shutter, they are certainly not bargain priced in Canada as used film gear and even Ebay prices are no bargain when compared to the deals to be found on Nikon F, F2 and F3.

Mind you, they probably sold way more pro level Nikon film SLRS than the Canon pro level film SLRS.

 

[Ronald M]

Why is C not cool. Same reason a Sears Roebuck socket set is average compared to Snap On.

I guess if you have not used Leica or Snap On you will be in the dark.

 

[Darthfeeble]

Just what the heck has "Cool" got to do with anything? I have three different brand cameras, each has a function, being cool isn't it.

 

[Fraser]

Cameras cool? To dorks I guess.

😀😀😀😀😀😀😀

 

[raid]

Shortly after Canon changed the lens mount from FD to EF, I changed to Leica.

 

[hendriphile]

Hm. If Canon started an ad campaign with this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2CDWV6o1o4A

and later brought out something like the DF, everybody would be laughing. If Nikon does this, it's cool.

The shutter clicks & everything goes black....

But wait -- it's their own advertisement! 😀

 

[YouAreHere]

Not a thread for scoring points or lobbing hand grenades. I'm just interested in why Canon - for whatever reason - does not seem to enjoy the 'cool' status enjoyed by Nikon. I read many threads extolling the virtues of the F2, F3, F4, F5 and F6 and precious few (in comparison) for the F series, T series or EOS cameras. In terms of history, quality and capability it's arguably a wash between the two, so why does Canon fair poorly in the comparison of mystique?

Is it because Canon is the bigger company (everyone loves an underdog), or because they abandoned a lens mount and permanently disaffected many users?

Opinions please, but keep it objective :roll eyes:

By the way - I speak as a user of both - and I can't figure it out....

The Nikon F is iconic. What does Canon, or any other 35mm SLR brand for that matter, offer by comparison?

 

[hendriphile]

In the 70s I invested in a Canon FD system. Liked the lenses and accessories and took hundreds of photomicrographs with it.
I had the same reaction as others here when they Cap'n Dunsel'ed the FD system. Eventually switched over to Nikon (8008 & F4).

BTW My fiancée, who was a devoted Nikonian until the oil-spots- on-sensor debacle, has a 5D Mk III and loves it. But she says it feels rather flimsy compared to her F4 (but then what doesn't?).

 

[Mackinaw]

The Nikon F is iconic. What does Canon, or any other 35mm SLR brand for that matter, offer by comparison?

The only camera that I can think if is the Olympus OM-1. Anybody 35mm photographer taking pics back in 1973 will remember how the outrageously small and light OM-1 completely turned the camera word on its ear. The Nikon F, with it’s huge Photomic prism, suddenly appeared large, heavy, fat and ungainly. To this day, there’s still a large following devoted to the Olympus OM series (witness the over 500,000 view “Zuikoholic” thread in the SLR sub-forum).

Jim B.

 

[LukeBanks]

In the AF era, Canon is very, very solid. Since they introduced the EOS-1 there is a steady progress: the 1n added more focuspoints, the 1v even more, the 1D added digital - but in essence, it is the same camera. No disruption, no quantum leaps. It is a bit boring and compared to Nikons they seem a bit too much technology driven. But the ergonomics is great of these cameras and they just work.

Nailed it. The progression between Canon bodies for me has always been what makes them 'cooler' or better. Working as a sports photographer I find the ergonomics to be perfect, I can adjust just about anything I want without having to look, and once you've learned the menus/settings/buttons you can essentially work blind. As soon as a new body is released I know that I can switch to it and carry on as before.

For me, the only exception to this rule is the 6D. There was no need to shoe in a body between the 7D and the 5D. A 'consumer full frame EOS body' shouldn't need to be a thing. Designing something to a pre-determined price point is, generally speaking, a terrible way to go. Just my opinion of course!

 

[Wulfthari]

By F1-N I mean the last F1 model with the electro-mechanical shutter, they are certainly not bargain priced in Canada as used film gear and even Ebay prices are no bargain when compared to the deals to be found on Nikon F, F2 and F3.

Mind you, they probably sold way more pro level Nikon film SLRS than the Canon pro level film SLRS.

Sssshhhh!

Don't tell the Nikonians that F-1Ns in good conditions fetch higher prices than ANY F3 (actually a cheap camera on ebay, Fm2s and Fm3s go for more) and most of the F2s (besides the F2AS).

The fact is than in the 80s Canon was definitely cooler than Nikon, at least judging the state of most F-1Ns on the market they look they had been used to death, probably the original F-1 wasn't as popular as the F2 but it feels much smoother than the Nikon counterpart.

In the 70s I think Canon sold milions (yes milions) of FTBs, today a camera very underrated so I assume they were very popular, and of course they changed the rules of the game with the A-1.

However I noticed that on this board there is in fact a sort of "Nikon cult", regarding certain lenses that aren't really special (like the Nikkor 50mm f2) and that keep in disregard any other brand...Canon is still lucky, Pentax is considered nothing (it appears most of the Nikonisti think it's a camera which breaks down just to stare at) and the others...let's forget about it.

In terms of "professional cameras" I have a F2A, a F2AS, a F-1n, two F-1N (one with standard with the motordrive the other with AE prism) and a LX...and I must say in terms of capabilities the F-1N is the most impressive, in particular the idea you can change metering changing screen is something that always stroke me.

While the LX is a little jewel Leica like the F-1N is a sort of tank that feels invincible and unbreakable.]

The Nikon F is iconic. What does Canon, or any other 35mm SLR brand for that matter, offer by comparison?

Contax invented the SLR, for example. Praktica the modular camera. Pentax introduced TTL metering and some of the best lenses ever (WAAYYY batter than the Nikkors of the time with all the barrel distortion they had), Canon gave all the FD cameras that are excellent, many improvements like aspherical lenses, flouride glass (the L series) and of course the F1N:

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/canonf1n/

Minolta invented the autofocus that works...I think that's sufficient for that brand.

 

[BlackXList]

Nailed it. The progression between Canon bodies for me has always been what makes them 'cooler' or better. Working as a sports photographer I find the ergonomics to be perfect, I can adjust just about anything I want without having to look, and once you've learned the menus/settings/buttons you can essentially work blind. As soon as a new body is released I know that I can switch to it and carry on as before.

Exactly, I can switch between my EOS 3, 5D and 5D mkIII and there's a commonality to them.

I also like the Elan range, and even the 100d for sheer portable use, and it's almost seamless switching between them.

I simply don't get the "ugly black blob" argument, the ergonomics are fantastic, and I'll take form dictated by function every time.

I do feel that they've got lazy in recent years, the same sensor in 5 different cameras, that they sell as updates is bad, and they sell some products that I don't think are up to the task, which annoys me.

On the whole though, I'm a fan

 

[sevo]

The fact is than in the 80s Canon was definitely cooler than Nikon, at least judging the state of most F-1Ns on the market they look they had been used to death

Going by the speed at which my New F-1 got brassed, it simply has a much inferior paint job than both black Nikons and the F-1.

Contax invented the SLR, for example. Praktica the modular camera..

Nope, that was Ihagee (Exakta), with a modular SLR a decade ahead of either.

 

[Wulfthari]

Going by the speed at which my New F-1 got brassed, it simply has a much inferior paint job than both black Nikons and the F-1.

That's the most ludicrous argument I heard on the F-1N, the matt finish is tough as a nail and surely the gloss paint of the old F-1 was more delicate (but more attractive, I would say). It's basically the black version of the hard chrome finish used since Barnack's time.

Nope, that was Ihagee (Exakta), with a modular SLR a decade ahead of either.

The Exakta doesn't look like a modern SLR at all, especially from an ergonomic point of view or perhaps you never noticed the lack of pentaprism or the position of the controls.

 

[Swift1]

That must be particular to the US. Hereabouts, only every fifth offer attracts a bid, and those that sell so so for an average 15-20€, compared to 80-120€ for the Nikon equivalent FE/FE-2.

In the US, from what I've seen, the Canon AE-1 is typically one of the more expensive of the range of manual focus SLRs that are generally recommended to people just getting into film nowadays.

 

[tunalegs]

The Exakta doesn't look like a modern SLR at all, especially from an ergonomic point of view or perhaps you never noticed the lack of pentaprism or the position of the controls.

You must have never noticed the Exakta's interchangeable finders and screens. That's the "modular" part of the equation. Praktica didn't make a "system camera" until the VLC (which was originally an Exakta).

I've never understood the hype Nikon gets. Those cameras are not as special as their fanboys think they are. The F is pretty cool, but it is also pretty clunky and way overpriced in today's market. Plus everybody just wants to keep a plain prism on the things anyway so all that modular flexibility just goes out the window. The Nikkormat likewise is pretty clunky compared to its contemporaries, and its legendary quality is enormously exaggerated. :angel:

Canon, BTW, does have "cool status" but only with genuinely cool people.