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 agree that we should surround ourselves with things of beauty.
Which is exactly why I use an EOS 5D, a beautiful blend of form and function. I cannot imagine why you prefer the ugly, angular boxes of an earlier, less refined age.
I also cannot imagine a more perfect example of function over form than an early castle. Though I do agree that these are far superior to bland modern malls.
:0)
I happen to agree that modern camera bodies are more appealing to the eye than the cameras of the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. However, while I think the newer bodies are better looking, it doesn't make any difference to be because I don't care what they look like - looks are not important at all.
Look man, I'm all for feeling good and looking good. Yes. In many ways, the journey is more important than the result.
Respectfully though, I doubt you will convince any professional photographer to choose a camera because of its aesthetic over its functionality and easy of use. You're just limiting your ability to create your best work. Also, at the end of the day, clients don't give a rats what your gear looks. You just need to turn in your best work, and you can't do that if you're prioritizing the aesthetics of your camera over its functionality.
But hey, let's meet in the middle. Choose the right tool for your professional work (probably one of the big brands) because its the correct thing to do, and buy a second camera for yourself that's pretty so you can embrace whatever millennial priorities you want.
This is completely totally & utterly inane on every single possible level!
Somebody's actually written this, somebody's actually published it & now I'm actually commenting on it!
Argh, the internet got me 😭
I used to be a carpenter, and I had a hammer that was old and ugly. Having an ugly old hammer crushed my creative spirit. Sad. I'm no longer a carpenter. Really sad.
Canon's cameras are developed for ergonomics, with the form-follows-function principle.
You probably also have very little knowledge that Canon's design language was developed by no other than Luigi Colani. His biodesign is still the foundation of modern Canon mirrorless cameras.
The fact you're fanboying over small sensor retro-design cameras and prefer these brick designs over a camera with biodesign ergonomics in mind shows that you're probably not even the target group of Canon's full frame cameras. Which are workhorses for professionals.
An R6 mkii would suit me down to the ground spec's wise . There is nothing else in that price range that has the exact group of features I am looking for . I will not be buying one however . The lack of 3rd party glass rules it out for me.
There are bodies from other manufacturers, Sony and to a lesser extent Nikon ,that while not having every feature on my wish list, I feel I could live with .
A cameras looks do not enter into the equation for me.
I've owned many Canon cameras from the seventies. My favorite of all time was the Canon Pelix followed by the fTb with the QL moniker. I still own a Canon 50mm f1.8 in FL mount. I've only owned two models of Canon digital cameras, the 400D and the 600D. My first digital camera was an Olympus C100 compact which I still own. I no longer own any Canon cameras as I sold most of the gear to get into the Micro Four Thirds system. I started with a Lumix G5 and a couple of Lumix lenses.
I don't buy cameras for their looks I buy them as tools. I use an awful lot of pre 80's camera lenses in the Canon FD mount and it's one of the main reasons I got rid of the G5 and went fully Olympus OM-D and that was down to one thing only, IBIS. I only have one Olympus lens, the 14-150mm f4-5.6 II, I have three Lumix lenses, the G Vario 14-42mm f3.5-5.6 II, the G Vario 45-150mm f4-5.6 ASPH, and the wonderful G Vario 14-140mm f4-5.8. My collection of around ten or more various FD mount manual lenses are too many to list here.
Now, as for cameras I have the Camedia C100, Nikon P600, Olympus OM-D E-M5 II and the E-M1 II and a Lumix DMC-FZ20 I use for product photos. I uses everything at least once a month and if something doesn't get used for more than six months I sell it on. Nothing above was bought because it was "Pretty" or it appealed to my sense of "Nice", nice pretty cameras don't take pretty pictures and the way things are these days I wouldn't walk around with a "Nice Pretty" camera dangling from my shoulder and just imagine getting it wet or muddy or dirty, goodness me. Lets not forget what a camera really is and if you start handling a piece of equipment with kid gloves incase it gets a scratch here and there then, well, what's the point.
Rant is now well and truly over, for now, at 73 years old I can rant all day and sometimes all night as well.
It was in 1986 that i got a Yashica film camera and used it for more than a decade. I believe it was in 1989 or something that i saw for the first time the new futuristic designed Canon cameras with the same design as today's cameras (rounded bodies) my first thought was: "What an ugly thing", with the round shaped body it did not resemble a normal camera but an ugly alien object. When they showed the EOS-1D i saw something like HR Gigger designs for the film Alien...
Why? Because if you did buy a Canon then you couldn't write articles like this that intentionally upset people and they can't help but respond. This likely makes you more money from clicks and views than your mediocre photos do.
We all know you secretly wish you could use an R3 with an RF 28-70 f/2 L.
"Grab" your camera, right hand, right side, and give it a shake. Now, grab your camera, left side, left hand, and give it a shake - over something soft because you WILL drop it. "Grab" your camera means something completely different now with smooth, curvy, plastic surfaces - very Canon. They need to bring back one-handed grab-ability for either hand.
I have no trouble at all holding my EOS cameras with only one hand w/out dropping them. Most of the time it's with the palm of my left hand under the lens barrel where it belongs, not trying to be cute and hold it with my fingers from above the lens barrel. Nor is it holding it with my right hand, which is for operating the controls, not supporting the weight of the camera.
A retro looking camera is just a gimmicky sales strategy. It's really up to the individual what camera suits their needs. However, making a blank statement that Canon isn't innovative so I would never buy their cameras sounds like a biased statement. They are as innovative as most of the camera companies out there right now. No better, no worse. I would think most photographers would be more interested in looking through the camera and not at it to get inspired by some subjective idea of what's fashionable....
I’ve never given much thought to the aesthetic look of my cameras. I just think of them as tools to create my work with. I honestly would use a banana if it got the job done. But if someone likes their camera to look a certain way to help them feel more motivated, legit, cool, etc., then good for them.
It's worth noting that someone keeps signing up new accounts under false names to debunk this article. I wonder who is paying them to do that?
Paying? I hope you're not trying to suggest a company is paying people to comment like it's an Amazon review. :)
It could be just an unhinged fanboy.
Can you point to some of these comments please?
That is a REALLY interesting comment. It feels like you are saying you have banned people for commenting if they "keep" signing up and you are searching down false names.
Hopefully I'm not wrong, but what I think this article is saying is the manufacturers with the biggest market share make boring-to-look-at cameras.
I know there's a lot more detailed reasoning than I listed in my inadequate summary, and there are some interesting (and funny) anecdotes about the reaction to the original version as well. I really enjoyed reading this.
I generally agree that if you're going to spend $1000s on a camera system, asking for it to look good too is not unreasonable.
For myself, what irritates me is when my camera has badly placed dials and buttons, dials and buttons pre-programmed with weird choices, key features that are buried behind layers of menus, and menu structures and function groupings that don't make logical sense.
I don't believe it should not take months of trial and error to get a camera configured in way that makes it easy to use. After that, I'd like a good looking camera, but it wouldn't be deal breaker if I was holding a plastic brick instead.
My 14 year old Skoda Octavia estate car might not look retro but atleast it gets me from a to b, and is far more functional with something with chrome and fancy styling, and less likely someone would nick it.
I think this is what the kids on X call getting ratioed. For what it's worth the kids like pretty cameras while they are being their own models.
My cameras are Nikon Z fc, Nikon Z 50, Canon 5DSR and a Leica M (240). The Leica just makes me want to pick it up and shoot. Form over function all the time.
Who is Mr. Ivor Rackham, I don't know, ah if I just read he is an ''OM system ambassador'', which explains the tittle and content of his article.
Everyone has an opinion, however they should look at their work aesthetics first, before the bother about their cameras looks.
I just took a peek at your photos. Dang, very nice!
Thank you but I was not reffering to MY photos if you know what I mean!
Oh, I know. :)
Well, in short, as I am 58 years photographer, most of the time with Canon gear, the Canon R5 fulfill all my dreams ever.
Thanks Canon.
I just bought my 3rd in a row Canon camera couple of months ago and do not care about whining of weird old guy. Canon rulezz foreva!
Despite all the mostly negative reactions to this article, I don't often see so many reactions to an article. It has obviously aroused strong emotions for an awful lot readers. That in itself is a compliment to the author.
When you pass from photographer to poser...
My camera is a tool, not something I carry because it looks good. I shoot with an Olympus E-M1 Mk II camera, because it has the features and functionality I need.
But, I must admit I like the look of the PEN-F, Leica cameras, and the new Fuji camera. There is something about that shape that attracts my eye.
I do agree, however, that most camera companies offer too many camera choices and lens mounts. I find it confusing! Of course, I'm coming from the simpler Micro Four Thirds world, with one mount and myriad lens choices.
Until Lee Morris conducts a searching analysis of what really matters with current cameras we will be left guessing https://fstoppers.com/reviews/nikon-df-camera-hipster-review-8277
I would imagine the first line of this opinion piece should start with. I’m an official ambassador for Om Camera systems. So the bias is in the open
Ergonomically speaking, I think the Nikon D750 is about the best design ever, sculpted to meld itself perfectly to most adult hands with buttons and dials perfectly placed.
I could care less what it looks like, I want all my cameras to be patterned after that kind of sculpted, refined, DSLR feel, retro cameras on the other hand are for fashion, not for using.
Why I Still Would Not Buy a Escoda Brush
Nearly two years ago, I wrote an article pointing out that most of the biggest brands' brush 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 painters, introducing them to quite a wide audience. Two painters, both carrying Escoda, recognized me when I was out painting in public and came to chastise me for what I was doing, saying I should, instead, be publicizing the work of more accomplished painters, i.e. them and those like them. I’m not saying all Escoda users are like that. Indeed, most aren’t. I know some very good people who use all brands of brushes, including Escoda.
....
There I fixed it.
I usually like Ivor’s articles but this one I’m afraid to say is absolute tosh. I have been using Canon cameras since 1995 and the reason I keep buying them is because they work so well and are easy to use. I also have an Olympus EM-5 which I use for travel as it’s much lighter. I don’t give two hoots about what it looks like and while it’s a great camera the ergonomics and menus are not a patch on Canon’s. If you want to look stylish then buy some of Lomography’s beautiful brass lenses. But the important thing about a camera is the picture it produces, not the way it looks. Just because something’s old, doesn’t mean it’s better. When I was young and all cameras had what we now think of as a classic look (obviously they were modern then), no one looked at them and thought they were beautiful. In 50 years time no doubt people will think a Canon R5 is a thing of beauty.
I can't say I particularly agree with this article. As a photographer I want something that is going to be practical and feel good in my hand. Beyond that I don't massively care what a camera looks like.
Having a retro design camera isn't innovative, Fujifilm have been doing it since the first X100 and it has always been popular, but this can come at the cost of ergonomics. I like Fujifilm camera, but having the dials is more of a faff than anything, which is why I went with the GFX100s and X-H2, which are more practical.
Really, the most innovative modern camera, would be the X1D, which really did create an ergonomically great camera, with great looks, which has been refined with the X2D. Even that example though just follows the basic camera design.
It’s a camera, not a fashion accessory
Nikon and Canon "Too much choice"
Nikon - 11 Mirrorless cameras
Canon - prob 15 incl updated versions
Sony - about 40???, there are too many of them, also some things can be done by a software update and not releasing a camera with the same sensor but one extra feature
also, I don't care what my camera looks like, it's the photos that it allows me to take that matter
And don't assume someone's personality only because of the camera they use geez 😂👌
The author is a tool-worshipper.
A true artist and lover of art and photography would never care so much about how their tool looks. This is a silly article, and the author took a bad article and an irrational premise and doubled down, making it all worse.
The tool's form, function, and ergonomics matter immensely, but its aesthetics—how it looks—are about as important as the camera strap's color.
I can't speak to Canon and their aesthetics because I don't want to, but I can give great examples of where function AND form intertwine to be essential to the success of a brand. Think smartphones, sports cars, watches, smart watches, etc. Both form and function go hand in hand to make the most desirable products. Folks here can go on and on for days about how they are simply using an ugly tool that gets the job done superbly. But there is something exquisite about having a beautiful tool that gets the job done superbly.
I appreciate the author’s ability to think creatively and challenge conventional wisdom.
It’s disappointing to see a number of misguided comments from individuals who seem to have misunderstood the article. The author emphasizes that aesthetics are a crucial aspect of functionality, not a substitute for it. I concur with this viewpoint. Machines should be both aesthetically pleasing and functional. Canon products have proven to be unreliable and not functional. We had to return many units from my studio due to poor construction, leading us to switch to more dependable cameras.
I recall debates about the lack of character and unattractive design of digital cameras in the early 2000s. At that time, it was a widely accepted notion.
One of the major deterrents from Canon, apart from the numerous units we had to return due to malfunctions, is the unpleasant remarks from Canon users here and on the Facebook page. They resort to insults instead of constructing a valid counterargument. If this is representative of a Canon photographer, it provides yet another compelling reason to avoid purchasing one.
English is not my first language and I used a translation tool. I hope it is understandable.
I respect your opinion, however camera aesthetics are in fact subjective. I personally find sony cameras ugly, however If I was starting on a new camera system on 2024, it would be Sony. I care about the end result and not how my tools look like.
Modern philosophy sees beauty as both subjective and objective. Generally, the vast majority agree on what is beautiful and what is not. A large number of comments here, like you, are inferring that they don't care that the cameras are ugly. I propose that everyone's photography would be more enjoyable if they were shooting with something that looks inspirational as opposed to a shapeless lump. The camera companies seem to be agreeing as they are starting to produce nicer-looking cameras.
I respect your opinion but it is only that. Your opinion. I care more about the aesthetics of my work. Lets leave it like that.
Yes, this article is tagged as an opinion piece, the purpose of which is to generate discussion about the topic, which it has done. Yay! I don't expect everyone to agree with it, but it makes people think. Unfortunately, it also generates comments from those whose low intelligence can only make insults, as well as, of course, the sponsored trolls. But, that's great for me because every comment generates more readers for the article. (I get paid per reader.)
So thank you for sharing your opinion. It's interesting to hear, and I agree with you. The Sony NEX range was described to me by another Sony user as a toilet roll stuck to a Kleenex box. I used to shoot Sony and had a A7II. I found it uncomfortable to hold and the low-light performance wasn't good. Also, having to pay extra to install basic functionality galled. Although it was not as bad as the Canon 5D III, when contorting my (long) fingers, I could not reach the buttons.
Maybe you should have called the article “ why I will not buy an ugly camera again” but that would not be such a clickbait tittle. Don’t get me wrong I like most of your articles and respect your opinion but the titles of some recent posts are a bit clickbait and that puts me off. Looking forward to your next article ( with a normal title please)
Thanks for your comment Ruud.
The titles have to be compelling or people don't read them. If people don't read them, I don't get paid for my work. If I don't get paid, I don't write but do other work instead.
It's difficult to get a balance that everyone is happy with. It's clear from the tens of thousands who have read this article that most people want to read those with enticing headings on this sort of topic. If they didn't, they wouldn't read them.
It's sad because far more interesting educational articles, like the one I co-wrote with an artist recently about color, had a less "come-and-read-this" title. It got relatively few readers. I would prefer to write those all the time but I couldn't make my living that way. That's the way capitalism works, I guess. You have to supply what people want.
I disagree with the description of it being clickbait. For me clickbait are articles that keep you clicking through fifty pages to get to the disappointing photo of what some B-list celebrity from the 1980s. This article does not do that. It makes it's point in one short article.
Perhaps we should offer a refund to those who don't like it. Oh, hang on.