So, why isn't Canon 'cool?'

[CliveC]

Canon is the Toyota of cameras. Reliable, performs well, but uninteresting. They probably feel like they don't have to be interesting to be successful. To a large extent, that's probably true. To go back to look for a cool Canon, you'll probably be looking at the Canon Photura, if not the Canon Dial half frame.

 

[CK Dexter Haven]

When i was shooting for my high school newspaper and yearbook in the early 80s, i had a Minolta XG-M. The 'head' photographer had a Nikon. I coveted it. It was black. Mine was chrome.... Nikon wa9s the 'pro' choice.

Later, after college, when choosing my first 'pro' camera, i automatically thought first of Nikon. But, i decided to find out what systems my favorite (fashion) photographers were using, and 10-to-1 it was Canon EOS. I read the (prime) lenses were better for that kind of work, and the AF was great, as evidenced by all the sports fotogs shooting them. I bought an EOS 1-something.

But, even though i still have a Canon as the longest-tenured piece of gear, i always coveted Nikons. So, along the way, i made excuses to buy Nikon film cameras. I just always preferred the way the bodies were designed, and i liked the heritage that survived with the lens mount. I started with an FE2, which i still have. Later tried the F4. An F100, then an F6, then back to the F100 which i still have. An F80. The FG i wanted when i was a kid.... And, even though, with the EOS3 and then 5D, 5D, i remained 'a Canon guy,' I've had many more Nikon bodies than Canons.

Cool? If you're a fashion pro, you're likely using a 5D or above. But, those 5Ds, as ubiquitous and functional as they are, just aren't 'cool.' Canon decided to put an 'idiot dial' on a $3000 camera, a choice i will never respect. I understand they don't want to poach 1-series sales, but the thing costs three grand+ — it shouldn't look like a Rebel. On the other side, Nikon's mid-priced cameras still look serious and professional. Which matches their marketing strategies....

Canon always advertised for consumer appeal. The Newcombe AE-1(?) and Agassi Rebel crap.... And, Nikon was going to the Moon and such. That imagery lasts, as kids grow up with it and become consumers of higher-priced gear.

Not sure if the FD > EOS mount is really responsible. I have had every opportunity to go back and buy an F1 or something. They're beautiful cameras, too, but there's no lore or mythology about them. I barely have interest. I'd rather have an FM3a at this point. Black.

 

[johnf04]

Canon is the Toyota of cameras. Reliable, performs well, but uninteresting. They probably feel like they don't have to be interesting to be successful. To a large extent, that's probably true. To go back to look for a cool Canon, you'll probably be looking at the Canon Photura, if not the Canon Dial half frame.

God forbid that we only have cameras to take pictures with.

 

[Pablito]

Canon is the cool brand now because of the white lenses. Pure fashion.

I tell my photo students to get what they prefer because both are essentially equally good at taking pictures. They overwhelmingly get Canon.

 

[back alley]

the t90 changed the shape of cameras, literally!
that was a cool camera...

 

[CliveC]

the t90 changed the shape of cameras, literally!
that was a cool camera...

Also doubles as a bludgeon if you encounter a mugger. 😛

 

[back alley]

Also doubles as a bludgeon if you encounter a mugger. 😛

multi purpose is good...

 

[wakarimasen]

When i was shooting for my high school newspaper and yearbook in the early 80s, i had a Minolta XG-M. The 'head' photographer had a Nikon. I coveted it. It was black. Mine was chrome.... Nikon wa9s the 'pro' choice.

Later, after college, when choosing my first 'pro' camera, i automatically thought first of Nikon. But, i decided to find out what systems my favorite (fashion) photographers were using, and 10-to-1 it was Canon EOS. I read the (prime) lenses were better for that kind of work, and the AF was great, as evidenced by all the sports fotogs shooting them. I bought an EOS 1-something.

But, even though i still have a Canon as the longest-tenured piece of gear, i always coveted Nikons. So, along the way, i made excuses to buy Nikon film cameras. I just always preferred the way the bodies were designed, and i liked the heritage that survived with the lens mount. I started with an FE2, which i still have. Later tried the F4. An F100, then an F6, then back to the F100 which i still have. An F80. The FG i wanted when i was a kid.... And, even though, with the EOS3 and then 5D, 5D, i remained 'a Canon guy,' I've had many more Nikon bodies than Canons.

This is very similar to my outlook. I've had an AE1 Program, an AE1, an A1, a T90 and a new F1 but sold all of them in preference of the FE, F2S and F3 that I have today. I have two 1Vs but cannot seem to sell the F4 that I have: even though the Canons are - in my option - better all-round performers.

I bought a 1D MarkIin over a D2HS or D2XS based on the (at least on paper) better performance. It was great, and I have transitioned - via a 1D Mark III - to the 1D Mark IV that I have today. Yet I still bought a D700 (which was sold to fund the latest 1D) which I loved using with the AI lenses that I have. Indeed, I thought in some ways, this combination was very satisfying to use: a mixture of the MF that I love with the convenience of digital. I even considered calling Wex and buying the camera back!

Even now, I'm looking at the D4 prices and wondering whether to sell all of the Canon gear and move firmly into the Nikon camp.

This was the reason for starting this thread: just what is the appeal?

 

[David Murphy]

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/

Agreed - Pentax maintained a degree of forward compatibility in a manner similar to Leica.

 

[Contarama]

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.

 

[filmtwit]

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.

 

[nobbylon]

I loved my AE1. That was a cool camera. I bought it new in 1978 and it never missed a beat. I then had an AE1 program that let me down multiple times underexposing and I switched to Nikon in 1995.
Cool Canon for me are, both F1's, EF, A1, Ftb, Eos1 series. All great cameras but I'd lost faith and that was it for me.

 

[Michael Markey]

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.

Yes ... I use Pentax K and Zeiss C/Y on mine.

 

[CameraQuest]

Watching the Canon and Nikon camera lineups post WWII, my own feeling is that

Starting with the first Canon EOS, Canon's commitment was and is to selling the maximum amount of widgets for the maximum amount of profit.
That the widgets in the camera division are cameras is an inconsequential detail.

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.

Stephen

 

[Mackinaw]

.......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.

Stephen

I agree with this.

Using automobiles as an example, there are “car guys,” or people who really love cars; and the rest of the population who view their vehicle as nothing more than an appliance. Nikon, as a company, seems to be run by a bunch of “camera guys,” or guys who truly love photography. Canon seems like it’s run by a bunch of bean-counters.

Though I do like Canon FD gear. The FD lens line, F-1, FTb, EF, etc., are all top-notch cameras. The A-series, T-series and EOS models, less so.

Jim B.

 

[Fraser]

Watching the Canon and Nikon camera lineups post WWII, my own feeling is that

Starting with the first Canon EOS, Canon's commitment was and is to selling the maximum amount of widgets for the maximum amount of profit.
That the widgets in the camera division are cameras is an inconsequential detail.

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.

Stephen

I maybe wrong but the other thing about canon is they make lots of other thing like printers photocopiers etc. Are Canon a bigger company?

 

[Fraser]

I agree with this.

Using automobiles as an example, there are “car guys,” or people who really love cars; and the rest of the population who view their vehicle as nothing more than an appliance. Nikon, as a company, seems to be run by a bunch of “camera guys,” or guys who truly love photography. Canon seems like it’s run by a bunch of bean-counters.

Though I do like Canon FD gear. The FD lens line, F-1, FTb, EF, etc., are all top-notch cameras. The A-series, T-series and EOS models, less so.

Jim B.

Thats just falling into Nikons marketing trap, pure photography, the pro photographers camera etc.

 

[user237428934]

I maybe wrong but the other thing about canon is they make lots of other thing like printers photocopiers etc. Are Canon a bigger company?

Wikipedia says Canon has almost 200.000 employees, Nikon has 25.000 and it's true that Canon has the much bigger product offering.

 

[Mackinaw]

.....Are Canon a bigger company?

Canon is a much, much bigger company. They do a lot more than make cameras. Look at their website for more info.

Jim B.

 

[Mackinaw]

Thats just falling into Nikons marketing trap, pure photography, the pro photographers camera etc.

I bought into the Canon FD system way back in 1971. I still have, and use, an F-1 I bought in 1977.

Today, I primarily use Leica's (both film and digital) though I have quite an assortment of old 35mm film gear, all which sees use.

Jim B.