Why I Won't Buy a Canon Camera

Why I Won't Buy a Canon Camera

They make good cameras. But I won't buy a Canon.

That was the advice given to me by my photography mentor many years ago. My opinion is that it still holds true today.

Why Won't I Buy a Canon?

Are They Bad Cameras?

All the known brands make great cameras, Canon included. Held against a good eye, they are all capable of taking great pictures. That notwithstanding, just like any mass-produced item, they can have their faults.

Google search: the mirror falling out of the 5D Mark II, the 70D motherboard burning out, the EOS R5 overheating, the chemical reaction of the Rebel 4Ti (650D) rubber grips that changes the grips from black to white, resulting in a risk of skin irritation.

But that’s not my reasoning. I am sure you can find a long history of common faults with most other cameras too. Look online, and you’ll find issues with Nikon, Sony, and any other product too.

Canon 5D Mark III

Is It the Ergonomics?

Several years ago, I had my heart set on buying a 5D Mark III. It seemed a good choice. Several friends, all accomplished photographers, owned them. Indeed, it has since become regarded a classic digital camera and for good reason. With my big hands, I thought it would be perfect for me. However, in the camera shop, I found it heavy and unwieldy, and my fingers could not comfortably reach the buttons.

I’m always advising my clients to buy cameras based on ergonomics, because any model made by the known brands can produce great results once you learn to use them. So, making sure the camera is comfortable to carry and shoot with is one of the most important considerations when choosing your purchase.

But what doesn’t fit my hands might be quite comfortable in yours. So, that isn’t the reason why I suggest you should not buy a Canon. 

Is It Their Attitude?

Nor is my advice not to buy Canon based upon the bad-mouthing of other companies by its supporters. That seems to be the modus operandi of various Canon users in online forums and blogs. Of course, that behavior is not limited to their fans; other brand flag-wavers do it too. However, if there is one thing that will make me turn my back on a business, it is when they put down their competitors to make themselves look good.

In January, Canon’s CEO, Fujio Mitarai, reportedly took a snipe at JIP’s ability to turn the Olympus Cameras business around, despite JIP having successes at transforming other businesses in its portfolio. For me, that is dishonorable behavior and would turn me off any business.

How About the Environment?

Is it to do with the environmental impact of the business?

Company-wide, Canon claims their environmental impact is low, They do indeed have far-reaching environmental policies with targets. And they claim to have met their CO2 emissions reduction of each product of 3%, with a total reduction of 40% over eleven years. Nevertheless, this does not mean the company is carbon-neutral. In their last report of 2019, they declared they were still producing 7.1 million tons of CO2 per annum. To put that into perspective, over a hundred years, a tree would absorb one toe of CO2; it would therefore take over 700,000,000 trees to absorb Canon's emissions each year.

Canon makes a lot of noise for having met CDP’s A list for water and climate change, but if you look at the other big brands like Nikon, Olympus, and Sony, they achieved this last year too.

Lots of major companies have environmental policies where they pay lip service to conservation, climate change, modern slavery, and shunning extreme politics. According to the camera industry's last Ethical Consumer report, looking at the environment, people, animals, and politics, Canon is near the bottom of their table with a score of just 4.5 out of 20.

Saying that, the entire industry isn’t squeaky clean. Fujifilm also scores 4.5 out of 20. Sony, Nikon, and Olympus all score only slightly better at 5.5. Meanwhile, Leica, Pentax, and Hasselblad score 7.5, and Sigma scored 9 out of 20. Right at the bottom of the current manufacturers is Lumix, scoring an abysmal 4 out of 20. Nikon and Leica were singled out for both actively promoting trophy hunting.

Ethical Consumer says that no camera company was eligible for their Best Buy label and recommended purchasing a secondhand camera instead:

To avoid companies with links to either surveillance or trophy hunting, we would recommend buying from Sigma, Hasselblad, or Olympus (some cheaper options) for DSLR and mirrorless cameras.

Is the Canon Range Too Big?

A large range of similar products is environmentally bad, using more resources, producing more carbon dioxide in the manufacturing process, and making recycling more difficult. Canon currently has 26 models of interchangeable lens cameras, second only to Sony’s bewildering range of 28. Having lots of models is clearly good for sales, but it’s bad for the planet. Additionally, having too much consumer choice is bad for our mental health.

Screenshot of Canon's DSLR range available at B&H

Three Reasons Why You Shouldn’t Buy a Canon

Despite all of those good and bad points about the brand that equally apply to its closest competitors, I have three reasons why you really shouldn’t buy a Canon: they are commonplace, boring, and ugly.

Commonplace

Last time you visited an event with lots of photographers, did any single Canon camera jump out as being unique? The only thing that makes them noticeable is their ubiquity. Everyone’s got one. They are to photography what Opel Vectras were to the automotive industry: a car that sold loads, won lots of awards, and was as exciting as a lunchtime conversation at the annual bus-spotters convention. You have a Canon around your neck, it says you are a sheep following the crowd.

Boring

If you place a Canon side by side with an equivalent Nikon or Sony, there’s not much to choose from in their designs. Just as many cars now look the same, their cameras are boringly similar. Visualize spray-painting their bodies beige, and that would make them less mundane. Please don’t try doing it for real; you’ll damage the camera!

Ugly

Let’s face it, most popular or top cameras are not things of beauty. I wonder whether Canon, Sony, and Nikon thwack their cameras with the ugly stick during manufacturing? Sorry, Panasonic Lumix, your cameras are not exactly beautiful either, although you are a long way from the pug-ugly old Sony NEX range. Pentax, you won’t win second prize in a beauty contest and collect $10 either.

Canon and Nikon side by side. Ugly lumps or works of art?

Compare the design of Canon, Nikon and Sony cameras with those of Fuji, Leica, or Olympus. The latter three manufacturers produce models that stand out from the crowd. They are works of art themselves.

Is that important? Absolutely! Artists should surround themselves with beautiful things that inspire. There is nothing inspiring about the generic shapelessness of most modern cameras. Compare the blobby lump of the 5D Mark IV with the beguiling shapes of the Olympus OM-D E-M5 Mark III, a thing of beauty. Even Olympus' professional-end OM-D E-M1 Mark III, which although a bit more utilitarian in design, oozes sexiness when paired with the 12-40mm f/2.8 Pro. These are fabulous-looking cameras. When I use them, I get accosted in the street and asked about them as much as I much as I did when I carried my baby son. If you've ever carried a baby in public, you will understand that.

The stylish Olympus OM-D E-M5 Mark III

Likewise, the Fujifilm X-T cameras are splendid-looking machines. Leica’s SL2 just shouts out: “Look at me! I’m a photographer with passion.”

Leica and Fujifilm cameras

That's my opinion why you shouldn't buy a Canon. What's yours?

If you're passionate about taking your photography to the next level but aren't sure where to dive in, check out the Well-Rounded Photographer tutorial where you can learn eight different genres of photography in one place. If you purchase it now, or any of our other tutorials, you can save a 15% by using "ARTICLE" at checkout. 

Ivor Rackham's picture

Earning a living as a photographer, website developer, and writer and Based in the North East of England, much of Ivor's work is training others; helping people become better photographers. He has a special interest in supporting people with their mental well-being through photography. In 2023 he became a brand ambassador for the OM System

Log in or register to post comments
363 Comments
Previous comments

I look at it this way. I made a time investment to read this absolute tripe article but I did learn that going forward when I see Ivor Rackham I won't ever waste another minute on his tripe.

Yet everyone here is reading all the comments. Well done Ivor.

Is bad attention still good?

I wish I could say that I do not fall for click bait. But I clicked, and I read. And at my age, I should know better.

I fell for it too. The comments have been really amusing though; much better than the article itself.

Has there ever been a less important piece of writing than this? Those are reasons, but really amateurish ones in my opinion.

I agree the dumbest article I have read. I should have known because this is what you can expect from F-stoppers now days. Used to love this web site but now it seems all they are is click bait. It’s not to late please get back to real photography instead of this cancel culture mind set.

Fun to read. And of course, that could be said about Nikon or other brands cameras as well. The big flagships are working horses and do never perform in a beauty contest. And if it is either good design or a good grip, I choose the latter.

Thank you, Jan, you clearly understood the point of the article. As I said near the start, ergonomics is the most important aspect of buying a camera, and then after that, all there is left to choose between them is the looks.

As bad as most here say the article is supposed to be (it's not), it's drawing a surprising amount of attention. Quite a contradiction, actually.

You just wasted 5 minutes of my life. That was the most useless article I’ve ever read. Choosing a camera based on its looks is quite literally the dumbest thing I’ve heard. It’s like choosing a surgeon because you their hair. “Who cares if they have 3% success rate, look at that pompadour!” Capital T trash.

It wasn't useless. He managed getting people's clicks. Avoid clicking him anymore if you want to prevent crap like this.

Agreed.

Is this sarcasm? I’m not sure. Hope you got your venom out.

You’re a vile human being with nothing but hate in your heart. You know nothing of me, my career, my education, the masters I’ve studied under, my upbringing, nothing. You just like to crap on people you deem less. Shame on you. And to think your crappy diatribe about my work will stop me from continuing my 20+ year career, you must be delusional. I’ve worked with some of the kindest souls and most giving people in the photo world. Your rant means nothing next to their support.

Hi Ryan, thanks for commenting. If you read again, I actually say that the most important aspect of the camera is the ergonomics. I picked on Canon, but could have equally chosen any brand as they all have failings and their own USPs, but most cameras are disappointingly too similar.

LOL, I don't think you ever used Canon or Nikon professionally if you harp about ergonomics in the most ergonomically designed cameras

Sorry, but that is nonsense. you deride canon for its looks, not it's ergonomics. I shot with many cameras being a photographer for 20 years, my first being a Nikon FE. That camera a small and light and I loved it but damn was it not ergonomically sound. Canon and Nikon spent ages coming up at the most comfortable camera you can hold in your hands. The problem now is the weight. Mirrorless cameras took the weight out of the cameras, which is fantastic, but it doesn't mean they're comfortable to hold in your hand.

Ryan, 5 minutes is nothing. You could have wasted several hours by watching baseball since the MLB moved the All-star game out of Georgia.

I have zero qualms with mlb taking the All-Star game out of Atlanta, but why bring politics to a photography blog? Keep that in your own telegraph group chat.

Sorry, it was supposed to be a joke.

clickbait article from someone who judges cameras by their looks rather than by their capabilities.
waste of time if you ask me...

I don't believe he judges cameras that way. He's just trying to trap people into clicking. I just banned him from future reads.

Good idea, No more Ivor articles and possibly no more Fstoppers.

If you don't mind, serious request, please tell me how you were able to ban him? Did you create an actual filter for your feed, or are you speaking figuratively and mean that you won't read an article authored by him?

Unfortunately I cannot find any means to filter his articles, but it's easy to see the name and photo of the author on the article summary. However you made me click in order to be able to respond ;-)

I didn't criticize not insult anybody. I just said I hate clickbait articles and what *I* was going to do (and did). People just asked me, and said I had no means to filter his articles. What on earth is infuriating your veins enough to try keep these comments alive. Any incentives?

And Errrrmmmm.... check any comments by me and do tell where I missbehaved too. You don't agree with me? That's life, have a nice day.

I'd say It's you who are trying to bring me back to this ages old article which I haven't commented for months, keep the discussion alive, and bully me. I still suggest you don't address me like that, but haven't requested to ban you (and I won't)

Please behave, you're probably just a kid yet and got manners to learn.

I just looked at the 17 photos you have posted here. That can't be your best work. Reading your self promoting narrative that is posted along with those 17 mediocre shots, I would have thought you'd be right up there with Karsh. Not sure what your problem is, but if this stuff gets you this wound up, why are you here? Since you're gawd's gift to photography, surely you can find a place that fits with your expertise and don't waste what little time you have left (you did mention that you're old) pissing and moaning about we lesser humans.

I would take your screed under advisement, but your body of work here is not inspiring, there for, your little diatribe is worth what I paid for it. Now, enjoy retirement. You're wasting your time here.

You're a funny guy, Helmut!

Thanks for replying. If you read the start of the article I say that the ergonomics are the most important aspect of buying a camera. Also, any camera can take great shots if in the right hands. I could have equally chosen any brand as they all have their USPs and their failings, but they are all also so similar.

you can also own your intentions with this article. and congrats cause you definitely achieved it.
Having people comment and talk about your article is Marketing and Marketing is always good, be it positive or negative.
However, this is only real for one side of the story. For us readers and followers of such a wonderful website as Fstoppers, articles like this are what we (hopefully most of us) avoid and consider a lack of respect for the readers.
Stop and consider this for a second and show a bit of respect. write useful stuff that means something to you and your readers. Not just to attract attention for a few more minutes and get more $$ out of the ads on this page. This is more of the same and we don't visit Fstoppers to have more of the same.

dear Helmut, I'm not here to comment on my level as a photographer. Especially as I don't consider myself an amazing one. But I can tell you I have a marketing degree and have worked in companies that bring in millions every year. You might feel enticed to lecture me on photography and I'll thank you for teaching me anything new. As for marketing and with over 20 years of experience in this field, I highly doubt you have anything to teach me. But hey! here's the good thing about the internet. You don't have to care about my opinion and I can do the same about yours ;)

have a great day. And try to be a bit more positive in life. It does bring you more joy on a daily basis

Someone should write about quality vs quantity and the business of websites. This was the usual rubbish.

yuuuppppppp.

This article is actually damaging to Fstoppers credibility and pedigree. I'm being 100% serious. It's embarrassing.

I've learned to read the comments first when I see this sort of article. It is a very good practice and saves time.

Thanks! Coming from you, I'll wear it as a badge of honor.

You're a funny guy, Helmut!

It would be wise for you to forget me. I seem to make your blood pressure elevate and for what? I'm just a guy having fun with a camera. That really seems to bother you. What I do makes me happy. But if it really bugs you, I'm going to redouble my efforts to make your panties wad up even more. Now, does that inspire you to ignore me? Here....I'll help you along in your decision by posting this gawdy, over the top photo: And just to give you an added bit of incentive, I've sold about 3 dozen or so of this print.

Despite the fact I owned a Canon 70D whose motherboard burned out, I continue to find their haptics the best in the industry. By a long shot. And while I have tried shooting other labels (Olympus, Sony and currently Fuji) Canon cameras are still my favorite to recommend to others, especially because of their reliability and ease of use.

Who gives a fart with your camera “looks like” compared to others at an event?

Hi Terry, Thanks for taking the time to comment. Early in the article I do say that every manufacturer makes great cameras (including Canon) and that ergonomics are the most important aspect of buying into a brand. All brands have their failings and their successes. There's no denying that canon has its successes because of the number of people who buy them. The last bit of the article was a bit tongue in cheek, and I had originally intended this article to be an April Fool's joke - that was the only bit that survived. (Would you admit that your Fuji is a better looking camera than the 70D? :D )

Why do you care what his camera looks like?

That’s the thing that gets me. I get humor and tongue-in-cheek, but it has to be clever and at least mildly intelligent. This one misses the mark by light-years.

Would you admit that your article has a lot of mistakes. The worst being that it's titled "Why *I* won't buy Canon", but in your conclusion you proceed to tell other people that they are sheep. Saying that you prefaced the article with facts about all major camera companies or that you could pick any camera brand besides Canon isn't a valid argument. Your replies to people's comments are essentially calling them dumb for not getting your "joke"

Clickbait. Does this author get paid per click? Because this will be the last click he'll get from me.

My opinion? I'll never get the 20 minutes back that I just burned reading that. And writing this.

This was hilarious to read.

I think it rattled some cages! It wasn't really a dig at just Canon but the industry as a whole.I won't retype what I have already replied to others. Thanks for commenting.

It wasn't ruffled feathers or rattled cages...simply put this was a waste of people's time.

You're sorely mistaken if you think you've upset people because you "bad mouthed" their camera brand. Commenters are mad because the logic in the conclusion of your article absolutely made zero sense, and you've lost credibility as a writer here

More comments