So, why isn't Canon 'cool?'

flavio81 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Not sure about other places but in the UK Pentax seems to have been very popular as it was an obvious step up from Praktica or maybe Zenit.
 
flavio81 said:
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.)
Click to expand...

Just wow! The difference isn't even funny. The edges are better than most others at the center.

asiafish said:
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.
Click to expand...

That's what I find so good as well: I can pick up the RT, 300D of 5DII and they feel and act the same and any EF (*) lens will work just as well on one as on the other.

(*) correction: the 40/2.8 STM does do manual focus on the RT.
 
Spanik said:
Just wow! The difference isn't even funny. The edges are better than most others at the center.



That's what I find so good as well: I can pick up the RT, 300D of 5DII and they feel and act the same and any EF (*) lens will work just as well on one as on the other.

(*) the 40/2.8 STM however does not work in manual on the RT.
Click to expand...

I just bought a Eos 600 working for £8.75 with free postage! cant be bad felt a bit sorry for it, seems a shame since its the first ever Eos and i Bet it was expensive when it was new!
 
Fraser said:
I just bought a Eos 600 working for £8.75 with free postage! cant be bad felt a bit sorry for it, seems a shame since its the first ever Eos and i Bet it was expensive when it was new!
Click to expand...

For a cheap way to use film with your EOS lenses, they are pretty good!
 
Spanik said:
(*) the 40/2.8 STM however does not work in manual on the RT.
Click to expand...
That's is interesting, because everybody's favourite photographer has the following experience with the older 650:
Ken Rockwell said:
Of course it works great on today's 5D Mark III and Canon 7D, but it also works great on my original 1987 Canon EOS 650! The only oddness I noted on my 1987 EOS 650 is that while auto and manual focus and depth-of-field preview and everything work great, manual focus override doesn't work: you have to set the lens to manual first.
Click to expand...
So it seems to do manual focussing on the 1987 EOS 650, but not on the 1989 EOS RT.

I find the flawless backward compatibility to 1987 one of the coolest things of Canon.
 
flavio81 said:
......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.
Click to expand...

I agree that Nikon and Pentax were major players in the 1960’s, but you overlook the fact that the Canon F-series of cameras (FX, FP, FT, etc.) were very successful and carried the company when rangefinder sales started to decline. Well over a million of the F-series of cameras were sold in the mid-60’s (over 700,000 Canon FT’s alone). The FT was very popular in Europe as well as Japan. Less so in the U.S, primarily because Canon marketing at this time was done by Bell & Howell. To say that Canon was only known only by their rangefinder cameras in the 1960’s really isn’t true.

Jim B.
 
Addy101 said:
That's is interesting, because everybody's favourite photographer has the following experience with the older 650:

So it seems to do manual focussing on the 1987 EOS 650, but not on the 1989 EOS RT.

I find the flawless backward compatibility to 1987 one of the coolest things of Canon.
Click to expand...

Well, you made me doubt it and I pulled it out of the shelf. And you're right, it does do manual focus on the RT. Now I don't know what combination it was but I managed to not have it do manual focus. Anyway, I'll correct the post.
 
Spanik said:
Well, you made me doubt it and I pulled it out of the shelf. And you're right, it does do manual focus on the RT. Now I don't know what combination it was but I managed to not have it do manual focus. Anyway, I'll correct the post.
Click to expand...

Possibly that there's no full time manual focus override on the 40mm stm, you have to flip the AF/MF switch and then use the manual focus by wire arrangement.

If you're using any of the APS-C models, the 24mm stm pancake is also fantastic.
 
photomoof said:
Being well made, or well known, does not make a brand "cool."
Click to expand...

Usually the inverse. Mirandas are cool. Topcons are cool. Nikon and Canon can't be cool because they're essentially the "establishment" amongst cameras. And not simply just by popularity, but also historically, they came from big established companies. Pentax cameras were popular, but they started out as a small company that moved to the top by being innovative, so more cool credit to them.
 
I just acquired a Canon New F1 and wow .... I have been a Nikon guy for so long but this F1 is incredible ... I just hope the lenses are up to the quality of the body.
 
If you are not cool with Canon, it is because you are not shooting with one of their cute little half frame Demi cameras. Get with it!
 
photomoof said:
When Nikon truly became cool, after "Blow UP," it was hardly a big established company. Everyone had to have one, they sold a million F's.

Miranda was never cool, mostly just broken, Topcon definitely for about 15 minutes. Right now the only camera I can think of that is cool is the "Red."

My only new Miranda, a late T:
attachment.php
Click to expand...

Just like my Miranda :) Its a pretty nice, uncomplicated camera. Lens aren't that bad, not top of the line, but pretty decent and nice to use. And cheap :)
 
How do you measure COOLNESS?

How do you measure COOLNESS?

How can you be sure Nikon is cooler than Canon? Since all this matter is subjective, it depends on the opinion of who is talking. I once was a Canon user. Their cameras and lenses suited my needs at that time, nature wildlife photography. Hard to beat on the AF to capture birds in flight. I had never a simple attraction towards Nikon, I am not sure why. Maybe I did not find them cool enough.

Once we talk about RF, it is different, I have high respect for those Nikkor RF lenses that I use very much with my Leica camera. I also enjoy using the old Canon RF lenses. Great lenses.
 
There should be a cool rating for cameras based on the coolest camera ever made, the Nikon SP , with numbers from 1 to 9, the SP being 1 and 1+ if in black paint.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom