So, why isn't Canon 'cool?'

[Big Hairy Bee]

What does it mean if I have Nikon MF film cameras but a Canon DSLR?

 

[skucera]

Cool is as cool does, but it's hard for me to put the "cool" label on an entire brand. Individual products are cool, but entire brands usually have enough duds that I don't automatically feel their coolness. What the heck do I mean?

I've had EOS cameras for years starting with an EOS 650, and continuing with an Elan IIe. They're convenient and take pretty pictures, but the image quality out of them lacks something. The images are bright, contrasty, and colorful, but flat. I've wanted to explore other lenses to see if I can get around this flatness, but the continuing popularity of EOS glass makes experimentation prohibitively expensive. That's not cool. Many features on these cameras are cool, but overall the systems come off as utilitarian, competent, but not quite cool.

My Leica M3 and the three lenses I got with it all turn out extraordinary images, bright, contrasty, colorful, and full of depth. The camera is an ergonomic joy to use too. That is cool.

My old Olympus XA rangefinder is similarly cool, especially since it and its flash drop into my pocket so easily. My Olympus Auto 110 and its many lenses also make beautiful little pictures. It too is cool. I've owned and used both for decades, and the "cool" hasn't worn off of either.

I've got a cool lens for my dad's Konica camera, a Vivitar Series 1 70-210 macro zoom. It on its own is cool, making amazing images. The Konica T3n is almost cool, and my dad certainly thought it was cool, but something about the ergos keep it from being totally cool for me. Maybe it's the kludgy way you have to compensate for backlighting... I don't know....

I own lots of other gadgety cameras (you can see the increasingly long list in my sig), but one aspect or another of each prevents each from being cool.

Scott

 

[Mackinaw]

Not really. It was (and is) quite common for manufacturers to buy in lenses from specialist lens manufacturers. Kodak, for example, used Rodenstock and Schneider lenses while Rollei used Zeiss and Schneider. I don't know whether there was any other relationship between Nippon Kogaku and Canon beyond buyer/supplier, but I certainly wouldn't treat the presence of one manufacturer's lenses on another's cameras as any sort of clue, let alone a good one, that they were "joined at the hip".

Peter Dechert, in his Canon rangefinder book, touches on the connection between Seiki Kogaku (Canon) and Nippon Kogaku, in the 1930’s. As Dechert puts it, “….during 1935 - 1937 and in many respects for several years thereafter, Seiki Kogaku became little more than an operational subsidiary of Nippon Kogaku, who demanded among other things the right to appoint the Seiki factory manager……”

Dechert's book is THE book on Canon rangefinders. Well worth the read.

Jim B.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Peter Dechert, in his Canon rangefinder book, touches on the connection between Seiki Kogaku (Canon) and Nippon Kogaku, in the 1930’s. As Dechert puts it, “….during 1935 - 1937 and in many respects for several years thereafter, Seiki Kogaku became little more than an operational subsidiary of Nippon Kogaku, who demanded among other things the right to appoint the Seiki factory manager……”

Dechert's book is THE book on Canon rangefinders. Well worth the read.

Jim B.

Dear Jim,

Ah, thanks.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Ken Ford]

Girls, girls - you're *all* pretty.

LOL

 

[zhang xk]

Meaner, leaner, and cooler.

 

[wakarimasen]

What does it mean if I have Nikon MF film cameras but a Canon DSLR?

It means you are in exactly the same boat as me!

 

[sevo]

As Dechert puts it, “….during 1935 - 1937 and in many respects for several years thereafter, Seiki Kogaku became little more than an operational subsidiary of Nippon Kogaku, who demanded among other things the right to appoint the Seiki factory manager……”

But that was wartime, a period during which the Yasuda clan, which owned Canon, was effectively disowned, for having backed the opposition. However, they were reinstated after the war. Leitz was in a fairly similar situation during WWII - which did not make them a Zeiss subsidiary either....

 

[GarageBoy]

Canon has a lack of cachet? Pioneering with aspherical and fluorite lenses long before anyone knew what they were for, put canon high up there. Sure the early slr bodies were a little bit fragile, but the F-1 is one svelte tank.

Yes, the 80s gave us boring cameras like the ae1 and the T series, but the New F1 and T90 quickly made up for those.

Also, Olympus might have been cool with the OM series, but they weren't nearly as hardy as a pro series Nikon (a lot of OMs went through Nippon Photo Clinic doors)

 

[David Murphy]

Dear Brett,

Gamma Duflex 1947: instant return mirror, auto diaphragm, right way up/right way round viewing, but via mirrors not pentaprism (late Duflexes apparently had pentaprisms). In the same year (1947) Wray filed patents for a pentaprism SLR but this wasn't present when the Wrayflex came to market.

I completely agree that the 1953 Praktina was one of the most advanced system SLRs of its day, and far more important for innovation than the Praktica. It sold more than the Gamma Duflex but not as many as the Praktica. But don't forget Alpa: Alpa and Exakta both offered interchangeable pentaprisms in the same year, 1950.

Pentax showed a prototype through-lens meter at photokina 1960, which led to their partially honest claims about being "first", but they did not make a production camera with through-lens metering until 1964, the same year that the Alpa 9d offered through-lens metering. The first to market was the Topcon Super D/RE Super in 1963.

Cheers,

R.

Interesting to see the rarely discussed Praktina system mentioned in this thread at least twice. I have a good deal of actual experience using Praktinas. The variety and ingenuity of accessories and lenses made for the Praktina system is amazing and they are wonderful to collect. In fact many of the lenses available in Praktina mount are superb. The Praktina body does, however, fail on two notable accounts. With the eye-level finders, the view is terribly dim compared to anything except maybe an Exakta - almost useless in fact, which is why KW has a plain 50 mm finder on their bodies. Secondly, like a lot of East German cameras, the Praktina shutters are not reliable. They need servicing about once a year if used regularly. They are very easy to work on however (according to my tech).

If one can live with the aforementioned difficulties, which in the classic camera realm we are often wont to do, they can be fun to use and collect. With some effort and taking advantage of their wide range of great German lenses they really can take wonderful pictures. By comparison though, a Nikon F, while seemingly retro now, is light years ahead of Praktina in terms of usability and reliability. In my mind, despite notable prior efforts, the F marks the dawn of the modern SLR and yes it is "cool" for that reason if nothing else (at least as far as SLRs are concerned).

 

[Roger Hicks]

Canon has a lack of cachet? Pioneering with aspherical and fluorite lenses long before anyone knew what they were for, put canon high up there. Sure the early slr bodies were a little bit fragile, but the F-1 is one svelte tank.

Yes, the 80s gave us boring cameras like the ae1 and the T series, but the New F1 and T90 quickly made up for those.

Also, Olympus might have been cool with the OM series, but they weren't nearly as hardy as a pro series Nikon (a lot of OMs went through Nippon Photo Clinic doors)

Hardly. Aspherics go back to the 17th century.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Interesting to see the rarely discussed Praktina system mentioned in this thread at least twice. I have a good deal of actual experience using Praktinas. The variety and ingenuity of accessories and lenses made for the Praktina system is amazing and they are wonderful to collect. In fact many of the lenses available in Praktina mount are superb. The Praktina body does, however, fail on two notable accounts. With the eye-level finders, the view is terribly dim compared to anything except maybe an Exakta - almost useless in fact, which is why KW has a plain 50 mm finder on their bodies. Secondly, like a lot of East German cameras, the Praktina shutters are not reliable. They need servicing about once a year if used regularly. They are very easy to work on however (according to my tech).

If one can live with the aforementioned difficulties, which in the classic camera realm we are often wont to do, they can be fun to use and collect. With some effort and taking advantage of their wide range of great German lenses they really can take wonderful pictures. By comparison though, a Nikon F, while seemingly retro now, is light years ahead of Praktina in terms of usability and reliability. In my mind, despite notable prior efforts, the F marks the dawn of the modern SLR and yes it is "cool" for that reason if nothing else (at least as far as SLRs are concerned).

Dear David,

Highlight: no question. But to quote Jason Schneider, "There's always some obscure Lithuanian tinsmith who did it before".

This is why I have little time for those who are convinced that their limited researches trump the knowledge of those who actually have some small idea of what they are talking about, often as a result of research using primary sources.

Cheers,

R.

 

[BlackXList]

Whatever brand, a DSLR is not really the best thing to shoot cine with - codec and format problems aside, they are a massive lump of useless (for the task) packaging around a sensor, and adding cine peripherals grows them into a unergonomic, fragile mess. People use them because they have nothing better, but hardly because they are desirable. I know of no cinematography student who'd pick a DSLR (of whatever brand) if he could also lay hands on dedicated video cameras like the Blackmagic PCC or up.

And yet Editors hate Blackmagic products.

I've looked at a couple of their products, but seen so much annoyance directed their way from professional editors, that I'd avoid them on the principle.

 

[Terry Christian]

Five different lens mounts in my lifetime? Or did I count wrong.
LTM
Canonflex
FL
FD
EOS

Don't forget the exceedingly odd EX mount! I have the Canon EX-EE and all the lenses made for it.

 

[David Murphy]

Don't forget the exceedingly odd EX mount! I have the Canon EX-EE and all the lenses made for it.

I believe the "Canon Dream Lens" had it's own mount (for the Canon 7). I seem to recall, and I could be wrong, that some of the very long Canon SLR telephotos were made for certain cine or TV camera mounts (as long as we're nit picking minutia!). The bottom line is that mount longevity and consistency does influence the commercial success of a camera system - Nikon and Leica probably rule in that regard.

 

[johnf04]

The most common mount in my collection is M42, spread over 7 camera brands. Successful?

 

[Sarcophilus Harrisii]

Interesting to see the rarely discussed Praktina system mentioned in this thread at least twice. I have a good deal of actual experience using Praktinas. The variety and ingenuity of accessories and lenses made for the Praktina system is amazing and they are wonderful to collect. In fact many of the lenses available in Praktina mount are superb. The Praktina body does, however, fail on two notable accounts. With the eye-level finders, the view is terribly dim compared to anything except maybe an Exakta - almost useless in fact, which is why KW has a plain 50 mm finder on their bodies. Secondly, like a lot of East German cameras, the Praktina shutters are not reliable. They need servicing about once a year if used regularly. They are very easy to work on however (according to my tech).

If one can live with the aforementioned difficulties, which in the classic camera realm we are often wont to do, they can be fun to use and collect. With some effort and taking advantage of their wide range of great German lenses they really can take wonderful pictures. By comparison though, a Nikon F, while seemingly retro now, is light years ahead of Praktina in terms of usability and reliability. In my mind, despite notable prior efforts, the F marks the dawn of the modern SLR and yes it is "cool" for that reason if nothing else (at least as far as SLRs are concerned).

David, I acquired two Praktinas last year and they've become some of my favourite cameras, I'm using them once a week or so, depending on where I'm going and what I'm up to. They've exceeded any expectations I had about usability and quality. I could go on, but they are not Canons, or Nikons so off topic here I suppose. If you're inclined to start a thread about them I'd be happy to contribute though.
Cheers,
Brett

 

[Spavinaw]

The Canon EX mount is an M39 LTM mount. What's exceedingly odd about that? Maybe where it's used is odd, but the mount definitely isn't.

 

[kuuan]

... The bottom line is that mount longevity and consistency does influence the commercial success of a camera system - Nikon and Leica probably rule in that regard.

Pentax fares well too. Their very first SLRs and lenses from 1952 had M37 mount, changed to M42 in 1957 and Pentax K mount in 1975. All have the same register distance and even the earliest M37 lenses and all M42 lenses can be used on all subsequent Pentax cameras, even on the latest digital SLRs of today, with the aid of simple, small adapter rings. Similar to a LTM to Leica M adapter ring these rings can be left on the lens to effectively convert it, M37 to M42, M42 to K esp. the two rings stacked a M37 lens into a K lens.
see http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/...ner-help/173206-asahiflex-lenses-k-mount.html
and https://mycameracabinet.wordpress.com/2012/02/09/pentax-m42-to-k-mount-adapter/

 

[wakarimasen]

Pentax fares well too. Their very first SLRs and lenses from 1952 had M37 mount, changed to M42 in 1957 and Pentax K mount in 1975. All have the same register distance and even the earliest M37 lenses and all M42 lenses can be used on all subsequent Pentax cameras, even on the latest digital SLRs of today, with the aid of simple, small adapter rings.

From what I understand, the register distance for FD bodies was critically different to the EOS mount, meaning that a simple adapter for the former was not possible. Instead an adapter with integrated lens was necessary to mount FD lenses on the EOS bodies, which impaired optical performance. I think this was the really crucial difference, rather than the physical mount itself.