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

Sure, fine Sparky, whatever.

If Fstoppers can't do better than this, I'll be reducing my visits here. I come looking for tips, instruction and hints. If I wanted to be harangued I'd listen to CNN.

I'm a Fuji owner and I think this article should be deleted to avoid fstoppers loses credibility

I don't come to the Fstoppers website as often as I used to. This article exemplifies why that is so.

Cancel Culture is now going after camera brands? WTF....?

Hi Richard, thanks for commenting. It's not my intention to cancel the brand, right at the start I say they make great cameras. It's more of a criticism of the industry as a whole. I could have equally made similar points against every brand, and the subjective choices at the end just go to illustrate that there is little to choose between most of them.

"Commonplace, Boring, Ugly." You need to get woke on this Ivor, clearly Canon cameras are RACIST ! ! !

Wow! I expected more from the title. You don't like Canon because everyone owns one, they are boring and ugly.

1. Everyone owns one - The number one reason to own a camera brand - The popularity probably means people are happy with them. It also means that if you need support there will be a large customer base to ask questions. It also means when you are looking for lenses there will be plenty of used options should you go that way.

2. Boring is a large nebulous definition and subjective. - I think they are boring but that for me, means familiarity which when using it as a tool for business equals a win.

3. Ugly - Again, subjective. They are tools. I think trains and diesels are ugly too but they get the job done when it comes to hauling cargo. I guess I never thought of a camera being in a beauty contest.

You could have done better. We expect better. Next time bring your A game. ;)

Funny how people see thing differently. In my most subjective opinion, the best looking cameras on the market at the moment are the Nikon D5/6 and the Canon 1DxIII. Go figure! ;-)

I love the 1DX III and Nikon D5/6. I think the nicest looking cameras that are mainstream (i.e. no Leica rangefinder) or semi-mainstream at least would be the Leica Q2, Leica SL/SL2, Leica CL, Hasselblad X1D/X1D II, Nikon Df, Fuji X-Pro3, and the Olympus PEN-F. The Leicas and Hasselblad are my favorites but the Nikon Df is probably my choice from a mainstream brand.

The upcoming Nikon Z9 may well be in there, above the 1DX and D5/6, if it looks like I think it will based on the announcement photo.

Thanks for the comments. The last bit of the article was tongue in cheek, and some got the joke and others didn't. I say at the beginning that all manufacturers make good cameras and that ergonomics are pretty much the main reason we should choose a camera. When so many are so similar, then there is not much we are left with.

dude.

the problem isn't that you have issues with Canon cameras.

It's that this article is TOTALLY POINTLESS. It should be in the damn dictionary under "Clickbait"

Give me one good, solid reason that this should EVER have been posted. One. Tell me one thing in here that is valuable to people who read this site. Other than the carbon emissions mention, which is NOT the topic of your article.

I see you never did respond to my lengthy comment above.

Like, if you're going to write stuff, be a good writer.

Wow all this because ome person from Canon ”took a Snipe” at jip and olympus, it was a pretty relevant to. No one should buy a Canon because they Said something bad About ”My” brand is pretty much what he Said hear because all his Reasons ended with the conclusion that the other big brands have the same ”problem” to. He is a profesionell photographer And that most important thing is how they look and that they are not popular.

Hi Johan, thanks for replying. The comment about the "snipe" was just an add on that cropped up when I was looking for criticisms of other brands, including Olympus and Fuji. At the start of the article I say that the most important aspect of choosing a camera is the ergonomics of it. All the brands make great cameras, Canon included, but the industry as a whole is pretty bland and I could have picked on any of the major brands in the title.

"Artists should surround themselves with beautiful things that inspire".... Bravo, Mr. Rackham!

Thank you Gord

Could not agree more.

What do you guys expect. Its Fstoppers. They are not writers. Mostly they copy other peoples articles or videos, add a credit and done. No creativity. Then once in awhile they write a piece, like this one. What a waste. Ive already stopped reading Alex Cooke's articles, now i just added another name to the list.

Alex Cooke is definitely the worst 🤣 Just posts videos other people make with cliff notes. Such a talent 😂😂 😂

Huh?

I registered only to say that this article is utter, amateurish garbage, and I say that as an amateur. As a photographer to say that you choose a camera based on its looks only undermines your credibility. I really expected more and I don’t know why. This is the dumbest thing I’ve ever read.

Nashia, I appreciate you expressing your point of view. At the start of the article, I say that all brands make great cameras and one should choose a camera based on ergonomics. I continue to show that they all have their failings, mostly through their negative environmental and ethical impact. I also point out that the designs are so similar that they are bland and then all we have let to choose between them is their looks, and that last part was tongue-in-cheek.

I made an account just to comment how stupid this article is. This is a waste of journalism

I like how some of the OM-D line reminds me of my OM-1n, OM-2n and OM-2s. I would like to purchase a Pen F. That's a nice looking camera.

I also don't find the article a waste of time. Videos are a waste of time. They get near the end before they get to the point. Fast forwarding to the beginning of the point is hit or miss. I skimmed the article till I got to the point. Even if I found no value in the article, I didn't "waste five minutes of my life." YMMV :D

Never mind........

.

.

Ug!

This is the biggest waste of publishing space I have ever seen on this website. This is going beyond low and pathetic.

The brand of hammer I use is better than the brand of hammer that you use.

Ooof a mediocre article by a mediocre photographer, and an elderly one at that. It's like he's trying to make up for a lifetime of mediocrity. There's nothing inspiring or artistic about the authors work. It's bland as toilet paper, and coincidentally, toilet paper would probably be a suitable medium to print this authors work.

He focuses very much on how a camera looks. A real photographer doesn't need to look at their camera and say "Look at me! I'm a photographer with passion!".

I'd kindly think that somewhere along the way, this person simply lost the memory of what being a photographer at heart means, but I'm not entirely sure he ever actually had that spark within him to begin with. Imagine...your life's work being akin to a bowl of rotten fruit.

The author said, "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"

You can say what you want, but my observation about many photographers is that they lack in creativity and style, which I think is central to a lot of photography. Now I am sure that you don't need "creative looking" gear to make "creative images", But blandness in one area often goes together with blandness in other areas.

Glanced at article, rolled eyes and laughed. Read some comments this afternoon and laughed some more. Read comments tonight for more laughs. Looked at writer's profile. Empty. Looked at writer's website. Boring common looking photos by a average looking guy. No surprise there. Laughed even more and then wrote and posted this comment. Fstopper's needs to raise the bar. Starting with picking it up off of the floor!

The only thing note worthy about this article was the shear, awe inspiring, lack of substance.

Some of his comments are very valid. For one, he mentions how a camera fits one hands and where the controls are that one uses is important. That is one of the reason I shoot what I do. On my near two week trip in Germany I watched some of my follow travelers hauling 2 to 3 times the size, at least 2 times the weight, and still did not cover the single lens coverage I had. They were changing lenses on a regular basis while I changed my lens out once for a total of three shots. As the author mentioned, not needing to change lenses is as important as being as inconspicuous as possible becauseof size. Canon, Nikon, and Sony full frames really don't offer something like that. And there are features that are not available on the Canons, Nikons, and Sonys that are exciting to have. In some ways, the author is right that they are more boring than the Fuji, Leicas, Olympuses, and Panasonics.

Great article, most cameras look like bricks.

Can we have another article about the stupid prices paid to get a lens so you can only get a small portion of the picture in focus..

Why I won’t buy a Canon camera? Because I found a brand and lenses that better suits my needs than what Canon have to offer. Nothing more uninteresting than that.

Gosh, aren't we lucky that photography has nothing to do with art.

Excellent article, let´s face it, it is more about the guy behind the camera that disturbs
you, take cars for example, as soon as you got an Audi you become an absolutely
ASSHOLE on the Autobahn, and you won´t get that boring ugly and rational bloke
behind a Kwanon, äehm Canon at least i won´t. Amen

OMG, first I thouhgt, it is an April's Fool, or a funny article with full of sarcasm. But not. He thinks it fully seriously and even replies to the comments. :-))))) Jesus. Pls don't reply to this!

Glad I read the comments first.

This article was so bad, and so uncalled for that it forced me out of lurking. What a poor choice for an article. It's like FStoppers picked up a troll comment and made it into a full article. Bashing on any camera for its popularity is completely backward thinking. I suppose we should all be driving unique cars too? Maybe you can lend us all money to drive around in artistic Maserati's or Pagani's? Asinine.

It is written by a man. I failed to understand why you used that lady with tripod in the article.

I thought it was a good article - until he got to the 3 reasons NOT to buy a Canon. Geez.

Upstairs, in my 'camera room' there are over 650 Canon FX cameras (1964-1969). In my 'lens room' there are over 1000 Canon FL-mount lenses, including (3) 1200mm. Clearly, I don't need to buy another Canon camera. But if I see one at a good price, I will buy it.
The camera feels good. It is rugged and dependable, even at 50 years old. Finally, it is a tool. A tool that I use to create my photographic art. If I could be as creative with a coffee can and a pinhole, I would use that.
So what if the camera looks ugly. How do the photos you create with it look?

Just curious, are you a collector or do you repair/test/sell them?

Now those cameras look stylish, compared to the current offerings.
When did bland set in and do you think we might get some more stylish models in the future?

If this clown replies once more with "but I could have equally chosen any brand" ... Yeah but you didn't choose any brand did you; you chose Canon. Was there a more pointless article ever written in the entire history of our civilisation?

Commonplace, boring and ugly. Those are his reasons, which is what a hipster would say, not professionals.

I am an enthusiast, not a professional but I disagree on the "commonplace" point because being commonplace means I can find more people to borrow lenses and/or extra bodies if needed.

But I agree on the "Boring" and "Ugly" points. I would love to have a camera with mechanical dials like the Fujifilm XT4. Nikon did something like that with the digital Nikon Df years ago, and I wish they kept a tradition of releasing classic-styled versions of their popular cameras. You may think it's silly, but I think Canon, Sony and others should consider making classically styled camera for the aesthetics. After all, he makes a great point about the tool itself being a source of inspiration.

Well, dials have a utilitarian function beyond aesthetics. I notice that understanding exposure functions were easier for photographers to learn when we saw the entire f-stop and shutter speed progressions in front of us in one glance. "Two clicks of this dial this way, two clicks of that dial that way...same exposure."

OTOH, many people prefer the aesthetics of a sleek all-black camera to chrome. Canon's original "melted" shape (first seen in the T90) was the brainchild of a world-famous German-born industrial designer Luigi Colani. At the time it was hailed as a milestone in modern camera body design.

I’m having a bad day, and this article cracked me up. I’ll chuckle next time I pick up my “ugly” 5D MkIV. Or maybe I’ll hide it in shame and just use my less embarrassing Sony.

More comments