Nearly two years ago, I wrote an article pointing out that most of the biggest brands' camera designs are uninspiring.
On the Attack
It was clear that most hadn’t read or understood the article but were just reacting to the title. Soon after, my opinion of the manufacturer was further tarnished by two more people. I was involved in a project that promoted and encouraged mainly beginner photographers, introducing them to quite a wide audience. Two photographers, both carrying Canons, recognized me when I was out shooting in public and came to chastise me for what I was doing, saying I should, instead, be publicizing the work of more accomplished photographers, i.e. them and those like them. I’m not saying all Canon users are like that. Indeed, most aren’t. I know some very good people who use all brands of cameras, including Canon.
How My Original Point Was Proven
Since then, it seems that the main point of my article has been proven to be true. Despite the title and the ire, my criticism was aimed at all three major manufacturers. I thought then, and with one exception now, still think now, they make ugly cameras. Many of the negative comments were aimed at the article’s main premise: the designs of DSLRs and most mirrorless cameras from the three biggest brands, not just Canon, were uninspiring to look at.
I proposed that photographers, like all artists and hobbyists, should surround themselves with equipment with great aesthetic appeal that will inspire them. However, most digital cameras are utilitarian, with some even lacking the utility of ergonomics.
I still stand by that argument: using any object of beauty is inspiring to a creator. Although there have been brief exceptions over the last century, throughout history, design has dominated by the pursuit of beauty of form alongside functionality. The Bauhaus ideal of solely form following function has little regard for the ornate having an impact on the user's soul. I would rather work at a Victorian writing desk than an Ikea table, or use my vintage fountain pen than a ballpoint. Likewise, I prefer visiting an 11th century castle to a 1950s Brutalist shopping mall. Furthermore, I would far rather use a camera that is a work of art than a shapeless lump of metal and plastic.
So, it was with some amusement that the best part of a year after I wrote the article was that Nikon brought out the smashingly designed Zf camera. Then, I read that Canon was surveying its users as to whether they would like a retro-looking camera, and there are rumors that something is in the pipeline.
I’m not claiming credit for this change in direction. It’s more likely to be driven by the resurgence of (great-looking) film cameras and the success of better-looking retro digital cameras. For example, it’s just been reported that the fixed lens Fuji X100VI is selling better than any recently released Sony camera. Of course, the cameras I use have designs and lines that hark back to a camera released in the 1960s, and they have been hugely popular.
Let’s face it, most photographers are middle-aged and older and appreciate the stylings of their youth.
The Fujifilm isn’t the only successful retro-looking camera out there. Eight years ago, the Olympus PEN-F was released with styling that matched its legendary namesake from the 1960s. This 20-megapixel camera is highly sought after on the secondhand market, and you can rarely find it, and when you can, it fetches top dollar. It has the advantage over the Fujifilm of being an interchangeable lens camera. When I owned an EM-5 Mark II, people regularly approached me asking me about the camera because of its looks, and its up-to-date sibling, the OM-5, has similar lines to my 35mm OM 2 film camera.
Similarly, the hugely successful Lumix GX880 also has a retro feel to it as does, of course, the Leica CL. Plus, as I mentioned earlier, the Nikon Zf is a sleek-looking ILC camera, reminiscent of the design of their film cameras in the 1970s and 80s, such as the Nikon FM.
As yet, there is nothing stylish from Canon or, come to that, Sony camps.
Canon Is Lagging Once Again
It seems to be a pattern with Canon that, instead of being trendsetters, they pick up on movements within photography and arrive late to the game. They were well behind the race with the introduction of mirrorless cameras, and then put all their might into dominating the market. However, the cameras lack innovative features.
Too Much Choice
One common historical criticism of Canon and Nikon was their race to produce a bewildering array of low-functioning cameras with the sole purpose of hooking people onto the brand. Where there used to be a webpage or two of beginners’ cameras per brand, there is a much smaller choice because, thankfully, they have all slimmed down their productions somewhat. However, there is still too much choice.
The biggest manufacturers still offer a bewilderingly excessive array of cameras, often with only slight variations between models. We get confused by the excessive choice, which brain science has shown leads to cognitive impairment. Experiments showed that having too many options results in us losing our ability to decide upon a good outcome. Those forced to choose will be less satisfied with their decisions. This is known by psychologists as choice overload.
Inevitably, a beginner photographer faced with a vast array of models will make the wrong choice, which is good news for the manufacturer, because once hooked on a gateway model, it’s hard to swap.
Excessive choice is a deliberate and arguably immoral and manipulative marketing practice that is not only bad for the buyer’s wallet but also for the planet. Any company that sells more than two of the same format (DSLR, mirrorless, rangefinder, bridge, etc.) cameras at any level (beginner, mid-range, and professional) deserves shunning.
I Didn't Make a Bad Decision
Of course, nothing is going to change. All the big brands are fighting to have the biggest crushing hold on the mirrorless market. But any company having that monopolistic position can never be a good thing for photographers. We don’t want to be stuck with one company that lacks innovation or another brand whose autofocus is poor, and so on. We need to be able to choose the best system for our needs. That doesn’t necessarily mean going for the most popular brand.
I never ever comment on these articles but your article just bugs me I’m just an amateur photographer/ hobbyist and I shoot with a canon mirrorless camera a canonRP but I also shoot with Polaroids and a old Pentex film camera the reason I chose to shoot on canon was I enjoy old lenses with Nikon I’m told you can’t focus to infinity with a adapter so I chose canon but what bugs me about your article is I don’t care what my camera looks like as long as it performs to my liking you dumb. Bias opinion about camera brands when as a photographer you should be embracing other fellow photographers in there work not there tools YOUR A BRAND AMBASSADOR with a bias opinion
While I agree that this article is overstating the importance of looks, to be fair there are other drawbacks to Canon cameras. Then again, I can't assume everything I consider a con isn't a pro for someone else. Different strokes (needs) for different folks, I guess.
Here we go again, the lord of click bait articles.
And once again both you and I both let it work on us...
You know I agree with what this guy is saying, otherwise this article is absolutely bonkers lol.
Canon cameras especially all basically look the same. It's boring as all hell. Ergonomics are there check. After that yeah they're industrial designers are not really trying that hard at all.
Of course you have the folks who don't care what cameras look like but I think that's kind of people that don't even get counted. Those are the people who would take pictures with a full frame hot dog.
We don't consider those folks at all. The people who actually care about aesthetics as well as functionality, I think there's some meat to is argument.
It's still pretty funny though. So as the end of this argument I was just like where are we going here... but it was a fun ride.
Cheers all.
Yep, Canon has half the market where you add all competitors up and you get the rest. Canon puts effort into cutting-edge technology and ONLY implements when it actually works not to be first with half baked technology that then takes years to fix. If their products are so bad then why do they sell so well. Ps, their cutting-edge lenses lately leave the pretty cameras with dated lenses way behind. Note, 24-105mm f2.8, 100-300mm f2.8, 200-800mm, RF100mm macro, along with the inexpensive 600mm and 800mm lenses. Capabilities and lenses are what people want over a limited capability pretty camera with limited lenses.
Technology in general moves at an accelerating pace. Companies using cutting-edge technology is nothing special nowadays. You generally can't go wrong with any camera system nowadays, it's mostly preference based.
Edo Photo wrote:
"Of course you have the folks who don't care what cameras look like but I think that's kind of people that don't even get counted. We don't consider those folks at all. "
Huh?
Do you think that a plumber should really care about what his pipe wrench looks like, the styling of it?
"But that's different"
No, it actually isn't different. A pipewrench is a tool that a plumber uses to do a job. A camera is a tool that a photographer uses to do a job. There is no difference. There is nothing about a camera that somehow makes it more special than any other tool used for any other purpose. It is just a tool. Anyone who thinks or feels differently has been, unfortunately, misled.
You're not with it Tom ... you must not have heard about the Barbie branded pipe wrench collection that is in the works. LOL
I find several aspects of this article unbelievable. The least believable is that anyone would recognize the author in public.
Really? Cameras are ugly? Is a hammer ugly? We don’t care if our hammers have been the same for 2 centuries, they’re just tools. And you’re not even mentioning the main reason why I wouldn’t recommend anyone buy a Canon. They’re greedy bastards, and climate change deniers! Their insistance that you buy their overpriced glass? That’s the main reason, not that their cameras look like all the other cameras. This is why I don’t buy Fstoppers, all their articles are the same!
I agree with you on multiple points.
I own Canon cameras and use them more than any other brand. I like their cameras, but I dislike them as a company.
Isn't it okay to use a company's products even if I hate the mindset and values of the people who own and run the company?
A camera is a tool that I need to do a job. All that matters is how well that tool does at its intended purpose. The looks of the tool don't matter. The people profiting form the sale of the tool don't matter.
All that matters is how the tool performs and the end results I can get from it, compared to the results of other tools at or near the same price point.
Thank you for saying this, genuinely. When I was still a beginner in photography, I only knew of Canon. My first DSLR was the Canon Rebel SL2; it was an absolute mistake buying that camera. For some reason 1080p video on that camera seemed so..... low-res. Much more than what you'd usually expect at 1080p. And while it served my photography needs, I didn't really find anything about the SL2 that made me love it. It was just a tool. And quite frankly, I was never a fan of its warm reddish color science.
Around 2021 I temporarily upgraded to an EOS M200 for its 4K recording. Much sharper than 1080p on my SL2 at least, but that camera had other problems. Had to return it.
I don't exactly recall how, but I believe it was a user on the internet that suggested me to look into Fujifilm cameras. And so I did. It was from that point on that I FINALLY realized why videos on my SL2 looked so bad: it had an anti-aliasing filter! On the contrary Fujifilm cameras didn't.
Here I am now, with my Fujifilm X-T30 for nearly three years, and could not be more happy with it. Even at 1080p, videos look super sharp!
I will be honest though, contrary to what this article has to say, I didn't really factor in the camera's looks when I bought the XT30. It was mainly a technical upgrade for me. I didn't care how it looked, as long as it was far superior in its photo and video quality compared to a Canon. I have my own reasons for disliking Canon, but needless to say, I'm totally with the author here. Canon, never again.
Edit: I am confident you silly downvoter didn't even bother to read everything else after my first sentence. How ironic, considering that I am in agreement with the majority that function takes precedence over form.
Why do you still use a Canon kit lens on your fuji when you dislike Canon so much? That's something I don't understand. I'm a Canon shooter and I owned this lens (it was part of my starter kit) , there are much better Fuji lenses ( and Canon lenses) out there.
And yes the XT-30 is better than the SL2, you might hope so, it's twice the price.
That lens is the worst lens in Canon's entire catalog.
Couldnt agree more. Starting again after many years, i bought into the fuji system as all the dials were as i was used to on the old film cameras and they were lovely and compact like the Pentax and Olympus cameras that i was passionate about. Sold the big clunker 70D as i wasnt using it. Too big and i hate digging thru menus for simple changes. Easy choice for my but im the type that sold my Mamiya RZ because it was too big. Oh yeah and i do love the retro silver look :)
Never once have I cared about what my camera looked like… I shoot on an a7SIII and Alpha 1, they are both fairly compact comparatively and do absolutely everything I ask of them! I’ve never heard of any photographers work being influenced by the appearance of their camera. Maybe you’re more interested in the aesthetic of cameras instead of actually shooting??
Really? Who cares!
However, Sony must be commended for stirring up a hype that succeeded in alluring people fall into a trap for not so significant gains.
But, few spotted the bluff from the outset and stuck to DSLRs – so did I. As a hobbyist photographer, my pro Canon bodies and premium native lenses are good enough to carry me through at least another ten years from today. This makes me remain indifferent about new releases and concentrate on photography.
Common image viewers are never concerned about what gear was used to create images. If those meet their requirements; no matter whether created with a Canon 5D Classic, they are happy.
I have spent the last 20 years around silversmiths, jewellers and more recently letter carvers on stone. Not once has anyone indicated that the beauty of a particular tool inspired their work.
Also I doubt you could tell images taken on brand A vs B or C.
Read the room. Everyone here thinks you are talking rubbish. There's a message there for you.
That looks are more important than its function? Oh yeah, well that's obviously a rubbish take, shame on him. But I do agree with this article's title for different reasons.
I thought fstoppers was all about photography. This article by Ivor, who I think has really lost the plot, has nothing to do with photography and everything to do with prejudice. Many of his recent articles have been about topics that have little to do with photography and more about him. This is a piece more for a personal blog.
The thing about aesthetics it has a sizeable element to do with ‘the eye of the beholder’. That said who really cares what Ivor thinks about Canon and their products or any other brand. The fact that he is obsessed with his own narrow minded opinion makes his articles beyond annoying. Give it a break Ivor and go take up knitting.
My R8 with arca-swiss bottom plate, EF to RF adapter mounted with one of the L lenses - i.e. 135 F2L - is a thing of beauty and produces magical portraits. The symbiosis of new and old makes it somewhat hugely appealing, aesthetically too. Tiny body and cannon with huge front glass element makes it look and feel very capable, with state of art AF breathing new life into these legendary lenses. Beauty is in an eye of beholder, and one can also appreciate the beauty within - the state of art tech inside and good feel in the hand. Sleek black machine.
I like the looks of the Canon cameras. What I dont like is the lack of choice in third party lenses and the steep price of their products. Sony seems a more innovative brand to me. The power of Playstation:-D
But at the time Sony (because it has shares in Tamron) did not allow Tamron to release its 24-70 F2.8 for Sony, and instead Tamron had to release the 28-75 F2.8, much less adjusted to the functionality of the 24-70 F2.8. So, be careful, Sony is open as long as it has an interest in being so (self-interest), not for anything else.
I think that's a bit harsh. We are talking here about a brand that allows third party lens support vs a brand that does not. There are plenty of unique third party lenses available for E mount that aren't made by Sony. Canon to date still doesn't have a 35mm 1.4L or a mid tier 50mm 1.4. You'd think those lenses are pretty standard lenses all brands should have.
Sounds made up. Sony only has about 14.8% stake in Tamron. So, I'm pretty sure they can't boss Tamron around. https://www.tamron.com/global/ir/stockbond/stockbond_04.html
Tamron 28-75 is smaller, lighter, and pairs with their own 17-28, which was released 2 years earlier. Hell, even Sigma got in the small and lightweight game with their 28-70 when they already have their own 24-70.
But, assuming you are correct, Sony, unlike Canon, isn't suing 3rd parties so Sigma, Samyang/Rokinon, and whoever else can continue making lenses for Sony mount.
Yes, only a 14.80% share, I know, but I remember to read that Sony influenced Tamron. And I think it's posible because a 28-75 has absolutely no sense.
And in no case do I defend Canon. I think they are losing a lot of market, which will be impossible to recover.
I partly agree that a tool should look nice and it makes you want to use it, but for example the Alessi citrus press designed by Philip Starck is a thing of beauty it is totally useless at juicing oranges.
The retro design camera with the retro dials on top look nice ( if you like cluttered things) but I think the dials on my Canon EOS R are easier and quicker to use. I like my Zeiss Milvus lens a lot, it is nicely designed and a pleasure to use and the results are top notch, if it didn't produce nice images I wouldn't use it. In cameras I think it is function over form and it should suit your needs, for me it's a Canon EOS full frame. The camera falls nicely in my hands the controls are where I expect them and the menus are clear and I can carry it all day . It's a tool I like to use. The olympus and OM cameras I tried ( friends of mine have or had them) did not feel comfortable to me and I wouldn't buy one although they are very nicely build and feel solid and reliable. Sony cameras are too cluttered for me and though they are getting bigger and bigger they still don't fall into my hands naturally.
I like minimalist design, Scandinavian design, so if I had the money I would love to own a Hasselblad X2D although I doubt if it would be nicer/easier to use than my Canon.
I see Canon aren't always the first in the game, but recently they have produced some very nice products ( expensive alas) like the 24-105 f2.8.
So as always use what suits you, keep an open mind, try different things and don't look down on other brands because you personally don't like them
I am not looking down on Canon, but to be fair, their aggressive anti-aliasing makes image quality rather subpar compared to other brands.
Okay sure, maybe that's what some people want, and maybe some people don't really care, but an educated guess tells me more people value sharpness than moire-free images. But like you said, people should use what they like. I am just stating a technical reason—an arguably valid one might I add—why I wouldn't recommend Canon over other brands. In my opinion, Canon needs to remove the AA filter or greatly reduce its effect. (And IMO, my opinion is reasonably valid).
fair point, but how much does it matter. For example landscape photographer Nick Page switched from Sony to Canon and I don't think his images became sub par. Can you spot the difference between a photo taken with a R5 and one taken by a A7r5, I can't.
Oh for crying out loud! FSTOPPERS, PLEASE STOP THIS NONSENSE!!!!!
I don't think a camera needs to look retro to look good. I like the look of the GFX100II which is a departure for a Fujifilm into a more forward-thinking aesthetic.
The Hassleblad X2D is another example of great aesthetics without nostalgia baiting. I even like the look of my Ricoh GRIII with its simple utilitarian box body and coloured lens mount ring. I like the Z30 for most of the same reason — simple black box.
Finally the Sony FX3 is a nice looking camera too, it looks interesting and industrial like something that was built for Nasa.
I own the Canon R8 and while I don't think it's great looking, I also have never thought it was unshootably ugly. This whole argument feels pejoratively like content. "If not retro, then bad" okay old man, whatever you say. 👌
It pains me to post a comment on an article clearly written as click-bait. The fact I'm posting makes the algorithms at work decide this hacks writings are worth others reading. The fact that the writer clearly takes aim at Canon and Canon users in the title, and then burries deep in the article states that other manufacturers are guilty of whatever his complaints are as well, shows that he can't write anything of actual value and relies on "brand wars" to get reads and comments. I remember reading his first poorly reasoned article, I'm a little surprised that his writing abilities haven't grown at all since. He still relies on a click-bait title while pathetically defending his stance with saying that it's clear to him people didn't read his original article because in it he stated other brands are guilty too, is so weak. He used a title that he KNEW would cause the reaction it got. We know this because if his issue was with most brands, be would have written the title to reflect that. The fact he's done this twice now reminds me of my niece and nephew when they were 3 and 5. One pokes the other then feigns being surprised when it get the reaction they knew it would elicit.
I bought my first beverage Nikon in 2008, At the end of my 32 year professional photography career, with 8 years of film photography before that. The decision was a toss up since Nikon and Canon were both very close. I now have 3 Nikons and they all use the same lenses. At one point I needed a dedicated video HD camera so I did buy Canon since they made a really nice camera for that. One of the comments you mentioned the difference between having a camera that you find attractive and one that allows you to work in a nice clean and deliberate manner I think that's the most important part of it. I don't know if this article had any particular purpose. If you have something you like that's all you need.
Say what? Ivor confuses form with function and after berating the aesthetics of the Canon brand he implies that the form he finds repulsive impugns camera capability. If he finds an old bellows camera more esthetically pleasing, then by all means buy and use it. Incidentally, I have a beautiful old Holly carburetor he can have too while I enjoy my fuel injectors which never need adjustment. PS, I'll even lend you my horse and buggy to lug it and the bellows camera home.
I find this entire topic an odd hill to die on. I don't disagree with the idea that if you find a camera to be a beautiful object, you're more likely to pick it up and use it. Where I do disagree is the idea that the Canon R-Series bodies and RF lenses aren't beautiful. I think some of them, the R5 in particular, are quite beautiful with their modern styling, matte finish, and variety of different textures. The L-Series lenses too. Canon can be criticized for many things, but from my perspective the aesthetics of their gear isn't one of them.
The only retro-styled bodies that appeal to me are the Fujis. The rest—the OM Systems models more than any of the others—are ugly. Retro-styled bodies may offer a sense of nostalgia but, as a child of the 70s, I'd still take a hard pass on an AE-1-inspired model. Even if I found the look appealing and was willing to tolerate the downgrade in ergonomics, how good is a modern RF lens going to look on it? So is Canon going to create a duplicate set of lenses with retro styling? What a waste of resources on a niche product line that would be.
All good engineers know... Form follows function.
🤦♂️ This just in: OM-System ambassador doesn’t like the way most of the Big Three’s cameras… look. This is only speculation, but perhaps the author’s personal view on aesthetics is out of touch with the factors that drive most people’s buying decisions. And/or: maybe most people don’t want a retro styled camera, even if some sizeable minority do.
Given that “The Big Three” are termed thus due to consumer market share, whereas Olympus’ photography division was so insolvent that it was sold off to a hack-and-slash hedge fund known for milking and discarding the companies it purchases after squeezing out every the last bit of profit from their withered husks… one might stop to consider if they’re actually doing something right? I wouldn’t necessarily call any OM or Oly cameras “hugely popular” if you’re comparing sold units globally.
“Let’s face it, most photographers are middle-aged and older and appreciate the stylings of their youth.” No, dude. Just, no. Cite your sources. The global population has more than doubled, and then half again, since your youth. The idea that your generation contains “most photographers” doesn’t even have face validity. Even if you massaged the numbers to include only people using traditional style cameras who self-identify as photographers, it still doesn’t make sense.
Making that statement and then somehow trying to use the rampant success of the Fuji X100 series in the last few months/year as support. While being seemingly ignorant of the fact that this was largely if not almost entirely driven by a fad that sparked amongst younger people on TikTok…
Perhaps I’m coming off as needlessly harsh, but maybe it’s time to look in the mirror and think something other than “most photographers look like me and like what I like.”
I don’t usually like this phrase, but it became more and more appropriate the more I read the article. While I’m going grey and my 30s are behind me I’m technically a “millennial” and so I think I’m still permitted to say this: Ok, boomer.
Hahahahaha. So pointless.
I like Canon and will stay with it. I dont care about any gripes someone might have about Canon. End of story.
Some photographers want style others just want the best specs.
I want both I’m old so film cameras had a style that definitely Canon doesn’t have but I own 2 Canon cameras plus an Olympus pen Olympus is my everyday carry camera it’s my fun camera .
I totally agree, Canon cameras look awful. I never thought I'd buy one...but I did! At the time it was the cheapest way into full frame to adapt my collection of manual lenses. Canon is like Toyota, ghastly to look at but ok to drive.
looks are subjective.
If you are using any reasonable camera, be it canon, Nikon, Fuji, Sony, etc and are not getting great photos the problem is not with the camera...
Stick to photography because your written work just plain sucks!
For me, for tools, function dictates beauty.
That said, my old Rollieflex 2.8F is a thing of beauty, but I came to that conclusion after years of use. It was an elegant, functional design, but the beauty really transcends the visual aesthetic.
Also, why do so many people think that an elegant camera design necessitates a retro aesthetic?
Form follows function, and with the technology available to camera designers, retro for retro’s sake seems to be counterproductive.
Because I don’t use Canon digital cameras, I would not comment on their beauty unless I shot with it for some months.
Any of my current digital cameras feel better in use than any of my Canon, Olympus or Nikon 35mm film bodies ever did, and that is what makes them beautiful.
Well, to a certain pont i agree with the author. One it would be nice to have nice looking cameras. If you care about aesthetics, ( hallo, photographers) then probably you do not limit your sense of aesthetics only to the photos. But more importantly, it beats me why on Earth can’t those brands make cameras that are not a pain in the ass to hold in your hand. If you can make global shutter, AF that beats a military rocket, why, just why cannot design something that is comfortable to hold? (Like the Nikon D500 ?) Yo you can spend another fortune on grips, plates, thumb rests, wrists straps so you don’t actually drop that brick…
Perhaps, Canon Mirrorless cameras have something to proud front of DSLR cameras. They are a little bit beauty and attractive.
There is no a measure of 'beauty' it's a person preference to see something attractive or not.
For the need of Used / Secondhand cameras (Canon & Nikon) buy / sell contact me via instagram page
cameraused_secondhand
Thank you🙏🙏🙏
I was let down by a Canon camera - more specifically a Canon lens - at an important event. This led to an unreasonable hatred of the manufacturer that has lasted about 10 years now.
Sony gave me the worst arm-ache imaginable as I wrestled with an over-sized box the sound system was packaged in over several miles. Downhill, uphill, then up several flights of stairs to the carpark at the top on another hill. I bought that sound system in 1991 and while it might seem unfair to some, I hate Sony too.
Nikon I'm neutral on. About 10 years ago, I bought a refurbished D3200 for my daughter so she could take a photography class in high school. She kept it for her Journalism degree and still uses it today.
Myself, I own a Sony camera and I can say it hasn't done much to improve my opinion of them. Nothing wrong with it, I just still remember how much it hurt carrying that sound system to my car.
You hate Sony because back in 1991 they packaged a sound system in a box that was bigger than it had to be?
Is that actually what you are saying?