So, why isn't Canon 'cool?'

wakarimasen

wakarimasen

Well-known
Local time
7:44 PM
Joined
Jan 3, 2009
Messages
1,010
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....
 
Canon actually had a period when they were cool, perhaps even a little bit cooler than Nikon - Pellix to EF/F-1 era. But right after that they stumbled over expanding by designing their consumer cameras to the same type of market research that brought us 70s/80s Japanese consumer car specifications. Which brought them a lot of sales, but stuck them with a portfolio of incongruous products which were much less well designed than the competition. Between the A and T series, they grew into the Honda rather than BMW of camera production. And the rare and expensive New F-1 and T90 did not really make up for the omnipresent AE-1program and T50 (any more than Honda could fix the Civic reputation by racing the Formula One)...

Throw in that they lost pretty much everybody who still had a sentimental attachment to Canon (plus anybody who had just invested into a T90) over the FD>EF switch. That had them drop to the worst reputation in their history for the start into the AF era of black blob SLRs - where the difference between makers diminished to the point that reputation gains for design classics did not happen any more.
 
I think that Nikon has (had) the luckier hand when it comes to marketing.
The central decision to keep a mount that doesn´t allow a useful connection of other worlds
lenses may have kept a lot of users to stay with the system.
 
none of the classic cameras that we think are really really cool today were made by canon. iconic designs, game-changing products, famous users, legendary optics...nothing really comes to mind for canon. the canonet ql17 giii is sought after in its class, and the canon p is a solid poor-man's leica, but that's not enough to build an enthusiastic fan base.

i love my new f-1, though. i'm glad that prices aren't being inflated by coolness.
 
I think the "cool" diamond in rough is the A1. People will maybe come around to appreciate that camera but really, Canon (and I use a multitude of cameras for different digs including my Canon with L lenses) seems more like a tool to get the job done. My Canon kit is my go to kit for most of my work because it's the real work horse. Nothing too fancy about it as it's a reliable setup. Everything else augments that main kit. Those pieces are the "fun" ones that don't carry the weight of getting the job done. At least that's how I feel about it.
 
That FD to EF thing was 30 years ago, give it a rest.

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. Nikon on the other hand went from the F3 to the F4 to the F5 to the D2 and the D3 with every time changing fundamentals.

Nikonians were reluctant to go AF and stayed with their F3's, making that a cult camera.
Nikonians were reluctant to go to the F5 for several reasons, making the F4 a cult camera.
Basically Nikonians don't like change, they stick with their old cameras and think they are cool :angel:

Whatever the reason why Canons aren't considered cool, they do sell the most DSLR's....
 
Historical accident: in the glory days of film reportage, especially the early glory days when the F was edging out Leicas in the 60s, Canons were quite second-rate. In the 60s, many might have guessed that Pentax had a brighter professional future than Canon. Later, with the Eos series, Canon were responsible for some horribly bloated cameras.

Also, the change of lens mount did them no favours. Younger photographers may dismiss it as ancient history. Those who were around when it happened feel differently. It takes decades for that sort of animosity to die down, and during those decades, people will be saying "Don't trust Canon".

Cheers,

R.
 
Yep, I agree with Roger. I can actually remember the days when "Made in Japan" was a death sentence for a product. Nikon came along and and was so good they blew up all the German stuff. Since that time my generation often never even considered any brand besides Nikon for film. I do own a Canon "Barnack" and many Leicas but the linage of the Nikon and the consistent lens interchangeability is hard to overturn. For me it has been the Pro choice for decades.
 
I still use Film on regular basis.

I was given a number of AE-1, Ae-1P,purchasing Av-1.
The cameras are really great.
The lenses, I was donated Canon lenses, as well.
Yes, I used the EOS system and hated it with passion.
It like most "auto focus", is not 100% reliable..
Where I have difficulty focusing, the AF screws up!

The Canon A series are super fun to use, great results.
I love my Pentax K-1000,KM,ME-super,Mv,Spotmatics.
The Canon A series way more cool to use.

Nikon has same mount, but that doesn't mean you CAN actually use,
those old lenses, easily or SAFELY, on newer Nikon bodies.

The Nikon-F is not nice to hold, has sharp edges,
But a most perfect professional camera,
that not only wounded Leica,
but wiped out German camera photo industry.

Looking at my Film log diary, The Canons most used so far 2016.
 
Roger sums up my feelings on that to a tee. Especially the news folks using Nikon & it was cool in the 1960's, and why SLR's took off and rangefinders faded away for photojournalists. I started putting together a "camera package" in 1976 and over the next ten or so years assembled a modest (but expensive for me) stable of Canon FD gear. I was furious when they changed the mount, but since I couldn't afford to change to Nikon, continued to shoot the Canon FD non-AF gear until 1995. Then I switched to Nikon and swore off Canon.

Finally came full circle a couple months ago because I just wasn't happy with any Nikon 35mm AF lens, and longed for a good, clean 35, and some of that "L" glass that I missed about Canon. So now I'm shooting a 6D with a 35mm f1.4 L lens, and it may not be as "cool" as Nikon, but it works.
 
The only reason I purchased Canon DSLR it was cheaper than Nikon.
Canon is not looking cool. And none of Canon SLRs looks cool.
It is something which costs not so high and works.
 
Two simple reasons.
1) Until the EOS, Nikons were professional cameras; Canons were amateur cameras. Perception is reality.
2) Almost any Nikon F-mount lens made can be used safely and fully functional on almost any Nikon body with only minor modifications. These lenses are high performers, reliable, plentiful and now cheap.
 
Five different lens mounts in my lifetime? Or did I count wrong.

LTM
Canonflex
FL
FD
EOS

Bodies come and go but good glass is something to hang on to. Joe
 
leicapixie said:
. . . Nikon has same mount, but that doesn't mean you CAN actually use those old lenses, easily or SAFELY, on newer Nikon bodies.

The Nikon-F is not nice to hold. . .
Click to expand...
First extract: with the exception of "mirror up" lenses, I haven't yet found any Nikon or Nikon-fit lenses I can't use perfectly safely on my Df.

Second extract. Yes it is. I find it so, anyway. It's certainly a vast improvement on the half-melted plastic ashtrays that so many modern SLRs resemble.

Cheers,

R.
 
Now I can't get Paul Simon's Kodachrome song to stop playing in my head
"I got a Nikon camera, I love to take photographs..."
 
Earlier this week I took part in a photocall at the International Man Booker prizegiving (not the kind of event I'm normally involved with). I was surprised to see that, without exception, every one of the pro photographers I was lined up with was shooting Nikon and not necessarily the latest gear either (D3s etc.). I cast my mind back to the 1970s and thought about the time when I compared a Canon F1 with a Nikon F2. Why did I choose the Nikon? Simply because if felt more solid, better put together than the Canon and for no other reason. My D700 works just as well today as it did eight years ago when I bought it. IMHO this is why Nikon is top dog when it comes to pro gear.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom