zhang xk
Well-known
Another cool one. with a rare Zeiss UV 60/4 lens.
So, why isn't Canon 'cool?'
- Thread starter wakarimasen
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 243
- Views 22K
noisycheese
Normal(ish) Human
I wouldn't go along with that, given the billions that Canon has poured into marketing in the past few years.
That having been said, I don't think Canon's changing mounts and obsoleting a ton of their own lenses was a good move. I think most people are over that, even though there are probably a remnant of old geezers who are still pissed over it.
If you go to an NFL game, probably 99.9% of the cameras and lenses on the sidelines are Canon, particularly the huge white 600mm. I would say Canon has cornered some niches of the photographic market, sports shooters being one of them.
When I shot with my film SLRs, all my gear was Nikon; I'm glad that Canon has not pushed Nikon into extinction. Nikon will always have a soft spot in my heart, but I ended up trading off all my Nikon gear to help finance my Leica M240 purchase. I was sad to see my Nikon gear go, but in looking back I have to say I made the right decision.
telenous
Well-known
Nikon and Canon cameras have more in common than apart. Look for a moment, say, the Nikon D610 and the Canon EOS 6D. They are so similar that a person who is not privy to history, marketing and brand identity will have to choose on fine differences or, perhaps, the toss of a coin. When the differences are so very few and so very fine, brand identity does play a role in "assisting" the consumer making a decision. A difference in "Coolness" is more to do with brand identity and not the actual products. Also, on how brand identity is purposefully cultivated/projected and how it is received/adopted/desired by different consumer segments. Nikon projects traditional/conservative values (backward lens compatibility, occasional nods to photographers who prefer cameras with levers and knobs instead of buttons and menus) while Canon defines itself as progressive/technophile. The actual differences in their mainstream cameras are minuscule. It is obvious why Nikon appears "cooler" in these parts -- most of us here would vote with both hands (and wallets) for cameras with a simple, traditional layout and Nikon does make the occasional foray to such traditional camera layouts. To wit, Nikon Dfs and SP/3s. But there's nothing "cooler", say, about the D610 over the 6D, just what the brand purports to be and how one may wish to be associated with one brand's "values" over the other. This, obviously works both ways. Friends I have from school (most of them science/maths oriented), who became interested in cameras/photography in their teens/twentys in the early 90s, always lusted after Canon's technological marvels and gadgets, while they wouldn't want to be seen dead with a Nikon. To this day they all use Canon EOS cameras, even although they realise the differences between Canon and Nikon are nearly zilch.
.
.
Ade-oh
Well-known
I think this thread simply demonstrates that whatever cameras or systems we own, for whatever reason, they're always cooler than everyone else's, and our reasons for owning them are always cooler too.
Dave Jenkins
Loose Canon
- Local time
- 10:23 AM
- Joined
- May 21, 2010
- Messages
- 661
I've seen quite a few dumb threads on this forum, but this is undoubtedly one of the dumbest.
wakarimasen
Well-known
And it shall always be 😉
Thanks for a comment in keeping with the thread Dave! 🙂
flavio81
Well-known
That's just great -- in this way Canon prices do not rise. Although:
Exactly... 😀
flavio81
Well-known
I have owned or own the following Nikon cameras:
Nikon F, plain prism
Nikon F photomic TN
Nikon F2, AS prism
Nikon F2, A prism
Nikon F3
Nikkormat FT2
Nikkormat EL
Nikon FE
Nikon FG
... and a lot of Nikkor lenses.
My favorite camera is the Canon New F-1. It is the best 35mm SLR i have used. I have two, including the coveted 1984 Olympics model. I sold a Nikon F3 to pay part of the price of the 1984 F-1.
The older Canon F-1, which I also own. is better built than the Nikon F2, Nikon F and of course the F3.
Now, many things have been spoken about Nikon being the "pro's choice". The answer is very simple and goes back to 1959.
In the late 1950s both Canon and Nikon were making rangefinders. But Nikon saw SLRs as the future. Canon had a good market share in rangefinder and rangefinder lenses. So when Nikon was about to introduce a SLR, Canon made a poor effort to say "me-too" and introduce a SLR geared to the amateurs. Canon, most likely, did not ever consider 35mm SLRs to be the pros choice, considering that their rangefinder already offered a complete line of lenses AND also reflex housing for lenses up to 1000mm.
So Nikon goes for a real pro SLR (Nikon F) and Canon brings out an amateur (yet well built) SLR, the Canonflex. The pros switch en masse to Nikon and the rest is history.
Canon then took their time to release, in 1971, a pro camera (F-1) that was a fully featured contender to Nikon. They also invested heavily in lens design, circa 1965, and I can safely say that in 1971 the whole Canon FL and FD lens line was more advanced than the equivalent Nikkor designs. But it was too late, the pros were with Nikon, changing systems is not an easy thing to do. Still, the F-1 was accepted as the "other" choice.
Now, who are Nikon? Are they really the best japanese manufacturers? Are they the "innovators"?
In retrospective, I think Pentax and Canon, through the 60s and 70s, were more innovative in optics than Nikon.
* Canon had most of the fastest japanese lenses through the 50s, 60s, 70s, and 80s. -- 50/0.95 lens, 24/1.4, 85/1.2, then the EF 50/1.0, et cetera.
* The 85mm Canon rangefinder lens of the 50s was so good that it is already a classic cult lens. The designers of those times (Hiroshi Ito, Jiro Mukai) are some of the most brilliant of the era. That 85mm design and the 100mm design were already more advanced than the contemporary Nikkors which were still using the old Sonnar configuration.
* Canon rangefinder lenses (leica thread mount) are still expensive stuff today... can't be bad or mediocre stuff.
* Canon brought out zooms using the 2-group design, the 35-70/2.8-3.5 lens of the early 70s was better than anything any other manufacturer had in that time, it took many years for Nikon to release a zoom lens using the 2-group design.
* Canon was the first manufacturer to find a way to do computer manufacture of aspheric lenses (back in 1970) so they released premium lenses with aspheric design that even Leica avoided to design due to the complexity of hand polishing aspherical surfaces.
* Canon in the mid 60s found out how to artificially grow fluorite crystals for low-dispersion telephoto lenses. Those FL-F telephotos were the best performing telephotos of the 60s and they still have very high performance.
* You can look at magazines of the late 60s and 70s to see how high was Canon FL and FD lenses' performance back in those years. Only after 1976 when Nikon released the AI lens line, did Nikon "update" their lens designs to the state of the art. For example I have a test of the 1965 Canon FL 19/3.5R lens and the performance was the highest of all the extreme wideangle lenses tested (including Nikon, Minolta, Pentax), only equalled by a Zeiss counterpart. The Canon FD 55/1.2 aspheric was most likely the highest performance normal lens of the seventies.
etc, etc.
Asahi Pentax was also a very innovative company in optics, an older optical company than Nikon and Canon. Only today people are finding out how good some of those Takumars were. Pentax in the late 50s and early 60s had a wider SLR lens choice than Nikon or Canon, and in those times they had some of the fastest SLR lenses as well. Their build quality is excellent, and they could have released the ultimate SLR of the 80s (Pentax LX), sadly it had reliability problems.
Minolta made and designed cameras so good that were used as the basis for many Leica R bodies. Minolta perhaps made the best camera bodies of all manufacturers!
Tomioka (Yashica) had a lens factory good enough to be hired by Zeiss to build Zeiss lenses...
Mamiya was also very innovative (see XTL camera) and is the real pro choice for japanese cameras in medium format, so they should perhaps have more prestige than Nikon.
Tokyo Kogaku (TOPCON) had amazingly high quality lenses in the 60s, some cult classics there. They had a 300/2.8 long before Canon or Nikon, for example.
Fuji Photo Optical (fujica) was the first manufacturer to have a computer for optical optimization (they built it themselves and it was the first japanese-made electronic computer), so they are heavyweights as well, at least in optical design.
All in all, Nikon is very much hyped in the forums. I say, research OTHER japanese brands as well.
Don't get me wrong, i love my Nikon F and F2 and my Nikon lenses. But i would never ever consider Canon to be an inferior brand in any way.
Nikon F, plain prism
Nikon F photomic TN
Nikon F2, AS prism
Nikon F2, A prism
Nikon F3
Nikkormat FT2
Nikkormat EL
Nikon FE
Nikon FG
... and a lot of Nikkor lenses.
My favorite camera is the Canon New F-1. It is the best 35mm SLR i have used. I have two, including the coveted 1984 Olympics model. I sold a Nikon F3 to pay part of the price of the 1984 F-1.
The older Canon F-1, which I also own. is better built than the Nikon F2, Nikon F and of course the F3.
Now, many things have been spoken about Nikon being the "pro's choice". The answer is very simple and goes back to 1959.
In the late 1950s both Canon and Nikon were making rangefinders. But Nikon saw SLRs as the future. Canon had a good market share in rangefinder and rangefinder lenses. So when Nikon was about to introduce a SLR, Canon made a poor effort to say "me-too" and introduce a SLR geared to the amateurs. Canon, most likely, did not ever consider 35mm SLRs to be the pros choice, considering that their rangefinder already offered a complete line of lenses AND also reflex housing for lenses up to 1000mm.
So Nikon goes for a real pro SLR (Nikon F) and Canon brings out an amateur (yet well built) SLR, the Canonflex. The pros switch en masse to Nikon and the rest is history.
Canon then took their time to release, in 1971, a pro camera (F-1) that was a fully featured contender to Nikon. They also invested heavily in lens design, circa 1965, and I can safely say that in 1971 the whole Canon FL and FD lens line was more advanced than the equivalent Nikkor designs. But it was too late, the pros were with Nikon, changing systems is not an easy thing to do. Still, the F-1 was accepted as the "other" choice.
Now, who are Nikon? Are they really the best japanese manufacturers? Are they the "innovators"?
In retrospective, I think Pentax and Canon, through the 60s and 70s, were more innovative in optics than Nikon.
* Canon had most of the fastest japanese lenses through the 50s, 60s, 70s, and 80s. -- 50/0.95 lens, 24/1.4, 85/1.2, then the EF 50/1.0, et cetera.
* The 85mm Canon rangefinder lens of the 50s was so good that it is already a classic cult lens. The designers of those times (Hiroshi Ito, Jiro Mukai) are some of the most brilliant of the era. That 85mm design and the 100mm design were already more advanced than the contemporary Nikkors which were still using the old Sonnar configuration.
* Canon rangefinder lenses (leica thread mount) are still expensive stuff today... can't be bad or mediocre stuff.
* Canon brought out zooms using the 2-group design, the 35-70/2.8-3.5 lens of the early 70s was better than anything any other manufacturer had in that time, it took many years for Nikon to release a zoom lens using the 2-group design.
* Canon was the first manufacturer to find a way to do computer manufacture of aspheric lenses (back in 1970) so they released premium lenses with aspheric design that even Leica avoided to design due to the complexity of hand polishing aspherical surfaces.
* Canon in the mid 60s found out how to artificially grow fluorite crystals for low-dispersion telephoto lenses. Those FL-F telephotos were the best performing telephotos of the 60s and they still have very high performance.
* You can look at magazines of the late 60s and 70s to see how high was Canon FL and FD lenses' performance back in those years. Only after 1976 when Nikon released the AI lens line, did Nikon "update" their lens designs to the state of the art. For example I have a test of the 1965 Canon FL 19/3.5R lens and the performance was the highest of all the extreme wideangle lenses tested (including Nikon, Minolta, Pentax), only equalled by a Zeiss counterpart. The Canon FD 55/1.2 aspheric was most likely the highest performance normal lens of the seventies.
etc, etc.
Asahi Pentax was also a very innovative company in optics, an older optical company than Nikon and Canon. Only today people are finding out how good some of those Takumars were. Pentax in the late 50s and early 60s had a wider SLR lens choice than Nikon or Canon, and in those times they had some of the fastest SLR lenses as well. Their build quality is excellent, and they could have released the ultimate SLR of the 80s (Pentax LX), sadly it had reliability problems.
Minolta made and designed cameras so good that were used as the basis for many Leica R bodies. Minolta perhaps made the best camera bodies of all manufacturers!
Tomioka (Yashica) had a lens factory good enough to be hired by Zeiss to build Zeiss lenses...
Mamiya was also very innovative (see XTL camera) and is the real pro choice for japanese cameras in medium format, so they should perhaps have more prestige than Nikon.
Tokyo Kogaku (TOPCON) had amazingly high quality lenses in the 60s, some cult classics there. They had a 300/2.8 long before Canon or Nikon, for example.
Fuji Photo Optical (fujica) was the first manufacturer to have a computer for optical optimization (they built it themselves and it was the first japanese-made electronic computer), so they are heavyweights as well, at least in optical design.
All in all, Nikon is very much hyped in the forums. I say, research OTHER japanese brands as well.
Don't get me wrong, i love my Nikon F and F2 and my Nikon lenses. But i would never ever consider Canon to be an inferior brand in any way.
goamules
Well-known
Nice breakdown of how good Canon was. So perhaps the reason some today think Nikon was better, is because THEY don't know better!
CMur12
Veteran
Flavio, thank you for taking the time to write that all down. Very interesting information!
- Murray
- Murray
flavio81
Well-known
You're welcome!!
It is interesting to know how Japan could, seemingly out of nowhere after the war and into the late 50s, have so MANY optical manufacturersa able to bring out a really good product: Zunow, Asahi Optical, Nikon, Canon, Minolta (Chiyoda Kogaku), Mamiya, Konishiroku (Konica), Fuji...
I guess there should have been a lot of under-the-table cooperation between them, because optical design in those times was not an easy task at all.
As for Canon, i still am in the process of finding more info about what happened to canon circa 1964-65, because that's the year where they start introducing high performance optical designs. Canon was on to something in 1964. Previously they had no zoom lenses (!) and no retrofocus lenses wider than 35mm (!), and then they do a quantum leap -- they introduce the 19/3.5R, which is a really well corrected extreme wideangle and the widest lens of the time, and the Canon FL 85-300/5.0 which is really good stuff, with fantastic build quality and outstanding performance for a zoom lens of those era. There was info on a forum where a poster says this zoom was designed by Canon "without any consideration for size or weight, but pure optical quality,l which they did achieve". So i think that starting from 1964 they had some sort of agenda...
flavio81
Well-known
PS:
Found the lens test. This is a 1968 test of circa 19-21mm wideangles including most of the japanese brands plus Zeiss; you can check out that the standouts performers are the Canon 19/3.5R and the Zeiss Super-Angulon 21mm lens, and by far.
http://www.pacificrimcamera.com/rl/00094/00094.pdf
(I own the 19/3.5R lens and can certify that is an exemplary lens.)
Found the lens test. This is a 1968 test of circa 19-21mm wideangles including most of the japanese brands plus Zeiss; you can check out that the standouts performers are the Canon 19/3.5R and the Zeiss Super-Angulon 21mm lens, and by far.
http://www.pacificrimcamera.com/rl/00094/00094.pdf
(I own the 19/3.5R lens and can certify that is an exemplary lens.)
Mackinaw
Think Different
- Local time
- 10:23 AM
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2005
- Messages
- 4,739
The original Canonflex (I own one) had incredible potential and, to me, was a pro-level camera. Superb build quality, interchangeable finders, decent lens line, etc.. What doomed the camera was the bottom wind (not every one’s cup of tea) and the clumsy and awkward automatic diaphragm design used on the R series of lenses (a technical nightmare, the least said about the better). Plus Canon had virtually zero marketing in the U.S. at this time, while Nikon had Joseph Ehrenreich (EPOI). By the time Canon had a decent U.S. marketing firm (Bell & Howell), Nikon had blown by them and the F had become the pro’s choice (plus the fact the F was an excellent camera). The best Canon had to offer at this time was the dismal, amateur-based Canonflex RM.
My own belief is that the chief engineer at Nikon in the mid-to-late 1950’s was a better chief engineer than the guy at Canon. The F was an inspired camera, built for the future; the Canonflex was based on the ill-advised bottom wind that had no future.
I own both a Nikon F and an original Canon F-1. I use them both but prefer the F-1, mainly because it’s an easier camera to load and an easier camera to change focusing screens.
Jim B.
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
flavio81
Well-known
Hi Jim,
I have handled a Canonflex as well, and was impressed by the build quality, slightly better than the Nikon F as I can recall. It was the Canonflex R2000 and I still hate myself for not buying it!!
I don't think it was doomed in any way by the bottom advance -- by 1959 there were many cameras with bottom advance, plus Leitz offered this as an accesory for the Leica. The diaphragm mecanism is also idiotic (no better word for this), but it works, so this can't be a problem for the user. I can only think that it was chosen that way to avoid patent infringements.
But in 1959 those machines were expensive, the Canonflex was not significantly cheaper than the Nikon F, the Canonflex was introduced with about two or three lenses with auto diaphragms and NO WIDEANGLE LENSES, while the Nikon F had a 21mm from the start... And we're ignoring Asahi Optical (Pentax), which by 1959 already had a good SLR lens lineup. And we're ignoring EXACTA as well, a better proposition in 1959 than the other systems, save for perhaps the Nikon.
So for a wealthy buyer, why should he/she choose the Canon? No real reason.
I also agree with you that Canon did not have such a strong marketing force in the USA in the 50s and early 60s.
The real story of the Canon SLR system starts with the Canon FX and the FL mount lenses. That's about 1965 or 1964.
someonenameddavid
Well-known
Pickyness alert: Super Angulon is a Schneider Kreutznach lens type
asiafish
Established
Nikon was the aspiration brand as I remember my introduction to photography in the late 1970s and early 1980s. I lusted after the then-new Nikon FM, but settled for the Minolta SRT200 because of the price difference. Canon had nothing all-manual that would still work without batteries (no idea why that mattered so much to me as I never ran a battery dry without a spare in my bag). If I recall, Canon had only the AT-1, which was basically the AE-1 with match-needle metering, but an electronic shutter.
Now I shoot Leica and Canon, and own a very modern 5D3 and a very ancient EOS 650. Both work in similar fashion to the point that I can put down one, pick up the other and not fee particularly disoriented. I remember how cool the EOS 650 seemed to me when it first came out, and how cool i remains today, 30-years-later. Especially with the latest and greatest 35mm f/1.4 L II attached. Now THAT is a killer combo.
Now I shoot Leica and Canon, and own a very modern 5D3 and a very ancient EOS 650. Both work in similar fashion to the point that I can put down one, pick up the other and not fee particularly disoriented. I remember how cool the EOS 650 seemed to me when it first came out, and how cool i remains today, 30-years-later. Especially with the latest and greatest 35mm f/1.4 L II attached. Now THAT is a killer combo.
wakarimasen
Well-known
I've just bought an F1 - the second (minor updated) version. I think it stands pretty well, alongside a Nikon F2
Ronald M
Veteran
When in college in early 1960`s, my best friend who went to RIT in Rochester, owned a Canon RM and older screw mount Leica of some kind.
He swore the Leica took much better pics than his new Canon SLR. Going to a college immersed in photography, he should know.
My brother in law had a Canon F1 in late 60`s and also the pro auto exposure model.
They were tough cameras , lenses I can not comment on. I had Pentaxes and his were no different from mine which would not make the nice tones I found in the photo paper sample books.
Then I was loaned a Leica. OH that is the secret sauce. Same film,paper, developer, and the tones were there. I sold the Pentax set.
I remember finding a 125 mm 2.5 Hector at Helix in Chicago . I bought it without owning a Leica body. I cobbled up an adapter and shot some slides interchanged on the same roll as Pentax lenses. That sealed the Leica for me.
Anyway Nikon gave away F models to pros so that became the cool camera ahead of Canon. There is no comparison from Nikon F to Canon RM.
The nikon lenses I have from the 60`s were better than the Pentax/Canon of the time, but I did not know it at the time. I use them on pro Nikon SLR cameras just for fun.
The new G Nikon glass is way better than the old and I have the kit to compare. That is part of the reason Df has not grabbed me.
He swore the Leica took much better pics than his new Canon SLR. Going to a college immersed in photography, he should know.
My brother in law had a Canon F1 in late 60`s and also the pro auto exposure model.
They were tough cameras , lenses I can not comment on. I had Pentaxes and his were no different from mine which would not make the nice tones I found in the photo paper sample books.
Then I was loaned a Leica. OH that is the secret sauce. Same film,paper, developer, and the tones were there. I sold the Pentax set.
I remember finding a 125 mm 2.5 Hector at Helix in Chicago . I bought it without owning a Leica body. I cobbled up an adapter and shot some slides interchanged on the same roll as Pentax lenses. That sealed the Leica for me.
Anyway Nikon gave away F models to pros so that became the cool camera ahead of Canon. There is no comparison from Nikon F to Canon RM.
The nikon lenses I have from the 60`s were better than the Pentax/Canon of the time, but I did not know it at the time. I use them on pro Nikon SLR cameras just for fun.
The new G Nikon glass is way better than the old and I have the kit to compare. That is part of the reason Df has not grabbed me.
flavio81
Well-known
The interesting thing is that for most of the 60s, Pentax was king. And if you ignore the Nikon F's motor or interchangeable viewfinder, the Pentax Spotmatic is a far better designed machine in terms of ergonomics and operation. Pentax lenses of the 60s are not behind Nikkors in image or build quality, in this I disagree with you Ronald. I own the pre-AI 28/3.5, 50/2, 35/3.5 PC, 135/3.5, 58/1.4 and 50/1.4, and i would gladly trade them for their Takumar equivalents, except for the 58/1.4 and 35/3.5 which are special stuff.
The real question of the 60s was "Pentax vs Nikon", Canon was just a niche player famous for rangefinder cameras and RF lenses, who just happened to have a SLR line as well.
The real question of the 60s was "Pentax vs Nikon", Canon was just a niche player famous for rangefinder cameras and RF lenses, who just happened to have a SLR line as well.
Similar threads
- Article
- Article
