So, why isn't Canon 'cool?'

View Range said:
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.
Click to expand...

Sort of wraps it up well. Just last week I used an old Nikkor AIS 50 1.4 on my Nikon D610 and had no problems once I set up the 610 for manual lens focus. The green dot even worked. That's pretty well.... cool.
 
Livesteamer said:
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
Click to expand...

The Canonflex “R” mount, FL mount and FD mount are physically 100% identical (a breechlock mount). You can use an FD lens on a Canonflex, or a Canonflex “R” lens on a FD body (like an F-1). The aperture actuating linkage is what is different between these lenses, meaning, you’ll have to set the aperture manually when using an “R” lens on a FD camera and vice-versa.

Jim B.
 
Aha, the Nikon Appreciation Society is here ;)

Every Canon EF lens ever made works as advertised on any EOS body ever made. You can use your latest, greatest EF 11-24/4L on the 1987 EOS650 without limitations and you can use the 30 year old 35-105/3.5-4.5 on your Canon EOS 1Dx mark 2 or 80D, also without limitations. Isn't that cool? I think that is cool!

You can indeed use almost any Nikon F-mount lens safely and fully functional on almost any Nikon body with only minor modifications, but you can use those F-mount lenses on your Canon as well. That is cool too!

I understand the FD-EF thing was shocking, but ever since Canon gives better backwards compatibility than Nikon. Just try to use a recent Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24mm F1.8G ED on a 1988 Nikon F4.
 
Canon was cool here and there, for a while Olympus was the cool camera in the mid 70's. At the end of the day, Nikon has been more cool consistently across the decades.

I think calling their Pro camera a F-1 was uncool. Moving from mount to mount was made uncool because Nikon still has the F-mount. Paul Simon immortalized Kodachrome and Nikon in one song.

For a short time I lusted after the Canon EF when it was new because of the shutter speed dial (M5 copy). A friend had one for a while till it got stolen. Out side of then can't think of another new Canon camera (or lens) I wanted. When I was doing the LTM thing the P caught my eye.

Canon's been cool here and there, but Nikons have been cool for decades.

B2 (;->
 
Speaking for me here, the reason I bought Nikon instead of Canon is that Canon has changed it's SLR mount several times over the years, rendering previous lenses unusable on current cameras. On the other hand, the first Nikon SLR lenses from decades ago still work on many current models. When that first happened, I didn't have either brand, but still noted the flexibility of Nikon's attitude vs Canon's implementation of a polivcy modern industrial obsolesence, a concept which no one in their right mind should respect. Being of right mind, when the choice came, I chose Nikon, and have not been disappointed. Almost every lens I own currently was made for the older Nikons, pre digital. Try that with Canon.

That all Nikon lenses can be used on Canons, but not all Canon lenses? That's supposed to be a strong poing for Canon??? To me it looks like they can't make their own system work. That's not cool at all.

Another very small point for those concerned about aesthetics: Nikons look like cameras. Canons look like Barney the dinosaur with a lens stuck in his nose: shapeless blobs. So it appears they not only don't have competent mechanics on staff, they don't have designers, either. :)
 
mdarnton said:
Speaking for me here, the reason I bought Nikon instead of Canon is that Canon has changed it's SLR mount several times over the years, rendering previous lenses unusable on current cameras. On the other hand, the first Nikon SLR lenses from decades ago still work on many current models. When that first happened, I didn't have either brand, but still noted the flexibility of Nikon's attitude vs Canon's implementation of a polivcy modern industrial obsolesence, a concept which no one in their right mind should respect. Being of right mind, when the choice came, I chose Nikon, and have not been disappointed. Almost every lens I own currently was made for the older Nikons, pre digital. Try that with Canon.

That all Nikon lenses can be used on Canons, but not all Canon lenses? That's supposed to be a strong poing for Canon??? To me it looks like they can't make their own system work. That's not cool at all.

Another very small point for those concerned about aesthetics: Nikons look like cameras. Canons look like Barney the dinosaur with a lens stuck in his nose: shapeless blobs. So it appears they not only don't have competent mechanics on staff, they don't have designers, either. :)
Click to expand...

Yellow card for use of hand grenades! :eek:
 
aizan said:
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.
Click to expand...

They didnt have any legendary optics? 50mm f0.95 for the canon 7 which beat leica by many years. I do agree with their lack of iconic designs but you could class their white L lens designs and red ring as a little iconic
 
I understand this is above all about the film era. But in the digital age, hasn't been Canon the SLR market leader? Also if using adapted manual lenses, a few years ago, only a Canon 5D and successor, because of their 'FF' sensor, was cool, everything else uncool, including Nikons with 'FF' sensor because one could only use old Nikkors, not adapt many other SLR lenses as on a Canon. I never liked these big, heavy bodies and used small Pentax dSLRs instead, but others like me and myself, in forums for manual lenses, had been ridiculed by many for using APS-C, not using a 5D.
Well, times change, many of the people for whom a 5D, because of the 'FF' sensor, had been the holy grail for adapted manual lenses then now are using these lenses adapted on a Fuji mirrorless with APS-C sensor. They wouldn't use a Sony mirrorless with a 'FF' sensor, who would use a Sony anyways, Fujis are way more cool ;) go figure..
 
Based on average prices (IMO kinda high), and film images I see on Instagram and Flickr, the Canon AE-1 and AE-1P are nearly the most popular cameras with younger people getting into film these days.
 
My first pro-level SLR system included two F-1 Canons, motor drives, a 20, 35, 85, and 200. It did everything I needed and, in black and white, the lenses were less contrasty than the Nikon equivalents. And, they focused in the same direction as the Leica, not backwards like the Nikon. That said, I switched to Nikon when Canon abandoned the FD lens mount. Were I to do it over again, I would have kept the Canons. The equivalent FL/FD lenses are still less expensive, used, than comparable Nikons. I still use Leica film cameras and one digital - an aging M8. For work, I shoot EOS digital - the autofocus seems more accurate than the Nikons I tried. Admitted, I haven't used a newer Nikon digital, so that may have changed. But the focus direction is a positive for someone who shoots SLR and rangefinder film cameras. As for cool, I don't care.
 
Swift1 said:
Based on average prices (IMO kinda high), and film images I see on Instagram and Flickr, the Canon AE-1 and AE-1P are nearly the most popular cameras with younger people getting into film these days.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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?
 
Roger Hicks said:
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.
Click to expand...

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. The AF lenses without internal motors (D series and earlier) do not autofocus on the low or mid-range digital bodies. And, save for the Df, non-AI lenses may not be mounted on any of the modern Nikon bodies. On the Df, metering with non-AI lenses is a clunky affair, at best.

With the introduction of electronic diaphragm lenses, Nikon is now getting to where Canon was in 1987. My fear, though, is that at some point (hopefully later rather than sooner) Nikon will drop the mechanical diaphragm linkage, and my Zeiss and Nikon AIs primes will be unusable on those bodies.

Plus, there is the issue that the smaller F mount impedes the development of faster lenses, hence the reason why Nikon no longer produces a 50mm 1.2.

I own Nikon bodies (including a Df) and a full array of Nikon glass, but Nikon's alleged backwards compatibility is greatly overrated, in my opinion.

Antonio
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom