Retro-styled cameras, one simply an aesthetic attraction, have grown wildly in popularity, with companies like Fujifilm demonstrating that mechanical controls can be highly functional and even preferable to digital options. Canon may be the next company to jump on the train.
Canon Rumors is reporting that Canon is conducting consumer research, specifically asking which of four classic bodies (the Canonet QL17, Canon P, Canon F-1 and Canon AE-1) users would be interested in seeing reborn as a modern camera. Fujifilm popularized this format with its highly respected X Series, and other companies have joined, such as Nikon with the Zf mirrorless camera. The A-1 and AE-1 were very popular in their day, and anyone who has used one will tell you they are veritable tanks with very functional controls. And in fact, those controls have made retro-styled cameras more than just an aesthetic novelty. Many photographers enjoy such bodies because they allow them to control fundamental exposure parameters in an intuitive and straightforward way without the distraction of taking their eye away from the frame to dive into menus. Given their popularity, I certainly would not be surprised to see Canon release their own version, and I know I would probably be in line to get one. Hopefully, we'll hear more soon!
Lead image by Mark Probst, used under Creative Commons.
No.
Nah.. I had a real one decades ago - The Canon EF, my 1st SLR. I don't need to go back.
No need. Used to have one back in the day but it naturally wasn't retro then. Let's move forwards not backwards. But of course if someone enjoys such things why not.
One word: Eyecontrol......Is it soooo difficult to put an old technology eyecontrol in all canon cameras..jeeezzzz...this was back in the film days when I was in highschool in the 90s
That's never been Canon's brand. Canon -never- looks back. The Eye Tracking on the R3 is the closest we've got to them doing something retro.
Of all the camera companies that exist, Canon is by far the least sentimental.
You talk as though Canon is some entity it’s not. It’s no more than some documents most likely in a safe of a bank or lawyers office.
The direction of a company changes from time to time due to the nature of the individuals who happen to take control on a temporary basis. That said what actual evidence do you have to back your statement? Have you performed some sentimentality analysis of all the camera companies?
There is such a thing as corporate culture that can persist over long spans of time, even while individuals come and go.
I completely agree.
Why?…. The point of having a working functioning camera is to use it to take photographs. The form of the camera should be dictated by that function.
Now if you wish to have a ‘camera’ to sit on a plinth, shelf or mantle then by all means design away. Though this apparent need for nostalgia is perplexing.
That's what you want, which is not the same as what manufacturers make. To Canon, the point of working and functioning cameras is to sell cameras made by Canon. The form of the camera very much has an influence on that.
I will never buy camera for it looks.. But i think hipsters will go crazy about it
You got it! This is an image thing and has little to do with how it performs photographically.
No, because i prefer Nikon and Sony cameras for their interface, colours and handling.
On the other hand, a rangefinder styled Canon would definitely be selling great.
Humans are analog. Analog (mechanical controls) will always be better for the fundamental controls of a camera (Exposure, aperture, shutter speed) and I much prefer them. That said, the camera's electronics are digital and that provides it with immensely greater capabilities than any non-digital camera system of comparable size. The point is we can have the best of both worlds. I think that is what is behind the so-called 'retro' camera designs. It is not so much about looks and style as some folks seem to think.
You've already got mechanical controls on all the Canon R cameras. Any button or dial can be customised to handle a function.
If it has the features I need or desire, then why not? If I am looking at cars and find two or three that meets my needs for gas milage, cargo and people hauling, ride comfortably and handle well, then I'm going to pick the one with the styling I like.
If two cameras meets my needs, including lens choices, then what is wrong with me choosing one that looks good to me?
No. I love my Fujifilm X-T3, the original retro styled digital camera brand!
Why? Canon was late on the mirrorless and the models they offered entering the area appeared to be a short term solution but expensive. The strategy on lenses canon seems to drive is not meeting my demands. I took a decision and that's it. bye canon.
Is the popularity of retro-style cameras related to the age of "camera" users as opposed to the younger photographers who are using phones? I'm a boomer and love the look of the Nikon Z fc because it reminds me of my FM and FE. Similarly, the Fuji X100 is spuriously referred to as a "rangefinder" because it is styled that way.
I get all the people saying that the ONLY important thing about a camera is taking good photographs, but couldn’t you also say the only important thing about a car is it get you safely from A to B? And yet people spend boatloads on stylish vehicles. To the extent a camera can be functional AND nice looking, I say go for it. I own an R5 and think it’s butt ugly.
Yes, the only important thing about a car is to get me and my stuff where I want to be in as cost-effective a manner as possible. Looks and style in a car do not matter at all. Likewise, looks and style of a camera do not matter at all.
I compare cameras to other tools. The style and appearance of a camera should matter as much to a photographer as the looks and style of a PVC cutter matters to a plumber, or as much as the looks of a weedwacker matter to a landscaper. There is no difference between photography and other tasks requiring tools, inasmuch as the appearance of the tool is concerned.
I don't know; probably no need. I still have and use my Canaon A-1, which I purchased in 1986. I am not purchasing a camera body today based on its retro look.
I have a ZFC and XT-2 already so I scratched my retro look camera itch. That said I know the world doesn’t revolve around my needs (unlike many other commenting here who think their opinion is fact due to immense narcissism) so it should exist. People from all the older brands deserve a camera that is a throwback for those who want it. Just because a cameras main purpose is the output it doesn’t mean you can’t have a pretty looking piece of gear while doing it.
I don’t think they have it in their DNA to make something like a Leica or even an X-T3. It would be better to make a fast wide-angle L prime or fill some of the other gaps in their RF line-up, if they’re not going to let someone else do it.
There's a huge market for this, as Fuji cameras, Nikon Z f and rising film camera sales prove. A Canon AE-1 with up-to-date technology could easily snatch the retro throne.
Well, if the only advantage of a retro-styled camera is that it moves some of the function controls off the menus and onto physical buttons and dials, Canon's already done that. All of the buttons and dials on the Canon R cameras are totally customisable. So a retro version of an R5 (for example) would have nothing new beyond questionable aesthetics. So no, I personally, wouldn't pay extra for a retro look. I'd feel silly. Sort of like paying more to buy jeans that have been faded and ripped.
I would buy one if it were cutting edge technology in it.
Not like the Nikon retro cameras that use retro technology along with retro looks.