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.
I typically respect Fstoppers, but this is trash and the passive aggressive replies from the author aren't doing anyone any good.
There was a saying that a camera was a light tight box that held film and the lens is the crucial element to the duo. You can spend thousands on all the bells and whistles but if you have crappy glass, you'll get crappy images. Couldnt even finish the article
Yep, date your cameras and marry your lenses is how the saying goes ...
Eveyone is entitled to an opinion but if your opinion is people shouldn't buy a Canon because it makes them a sheep or that you should buy a camera based on how the camera looks then your opinions aren't worth my time reading in the future.
Yes, when instagrammers started becoming pop culture, they all bought Canon because one of the first among them saw someone else using a Canon and the rest piled on, and so Canon have more sales than other brands. But this doesn't mean Canon is a camera to avoid. I've used several brands and presently don't use Canon, but for other reasons entirely.
Canon has held the #1 position in the interchangeable lens camera market since the mid-1990s. It has nothing to do with Instagram. The majority of IG photos are shot with iPhones.
Well that was a waste of time. I wish Google let you pick authors that will not show up in your feed anymore. I can only put in the source site.
This is hands down the worst article I've ever read, no hyperbole. I would have rather read a tmz article called "17 celebrities who had plastic surgery gone wrong!" and to see each celebrity you have to sift through a ton of ads and hit the next button, and every time you click next a pop-up ad comes up.
I had to create an account to comment on just how stupid, pointless and ridiculous an article this is.
This is, quite simply, garbage writing. Don’t buy a Canon because it’s ugly, boring and commonplace? Good lord, this is such a complete waste of space. I am genuinely angry over the fact that this was allowed on the site. This is low, even for Fstoppers.
This has a complete lack of factual argument and is complete subjectivity. Ivor, honestly you should be ashamed of this. I don’t care how good your work is. This simply sucks. I don’t know you, but if I’m judging on this article? Yeah I’ll pass, thanks.
And before you say that I missed the point of your article because you were making “a larger statement about the environmental efforts of the camera industry as a whole”, no I didn’t. I didn’t miss the point because that wasn’t the point of your article. Even by that standard, you failed miserably because you didn’t even accomplish that task. So stop acting like you are smarter than everyone in the comments and let’s call your article what it was: a low effort, low IQ hot take meant to stir up anger in the comments.
By that standard, I guess you achieved your goal. But are you really happy with this kind of writing? I wouldn’t be. I hope you got paid well.
100 percent CLICKBAIT article. Fstoppers must be so proud. Good work. Google Ad's thank you.
After listing some good reasons Canon doesn't work for him personally, the writer of this article lists three of the most childish reasons not to do anything I have seen put in one place. I mean I would expect this kind of talk from a bunch of trust fund hipsters circa 2007, but he seems to be an adult?
A tool needs to work period. It needs to do so reliably, and it shouldnt be annoying, end of story.
The author isnt treating cameras as tools, for him they are vanity projects. They are to be treated as a garment accessory. That's fine if the aim is fashion, otherwise this is rubbish.
I registered on this site just so i could comment here.
Booo. Boo this man.
I registered just to comment on how inane this article is. What is even the point of it? Buying a camera based on whether or not it's boring, commonplace or looks good? Ridiculous
Actually, I love cannon. Compared to my Nikon cameras all my Cannon cameras let more light in and produce a warmer photo.
And with that shocking bit of click-bait, I think F-Stoppers has jumped the shark. Not an easy feat on the Internet, I know. But things are going downhill fast.
Reasons why I don't buy Windows PCs: they're commonplace, boring and ugly
Reasons I don't buy Toyota Camrys: they're commonplace, boring and ugly
Reasons why I don't buy iPhones: they're commonplace, boring and ugly
I hate things that are ultra reliable and that other people love. I only buy tools that inspire me when I look at them. I'm not inspired by the work that is created with the tools, only the tools themselves.
There's no logic in this article's "reasons" to not buy Canon. No one should buy a camera based on looks or if no one else is buying it.
Nice try Olympus marketing team
That's a lot of words to say nothing notable. I'm not currently a Canon fan, but nothing you said is more than a weak opinion.
Is this a "serious" article!?
Are you suggesting that we should prioritize a camera’s looks over its functionality?
Wait... You didn't bust on Canon for the worst button layout of all cameras made today? Canon is the only company I hate to use. I have Sony, Nikon, Panasonic, and Sigma all in my line up. I have a 5d mkIV given to me from work and it has around 100 clicks on it. You skip the one reason to dog Canon and pick BS. I need to stop reading trash on this website.
Let me get this straight: you consider an object, a tool, that has only one purpose, which is to look at and record images of other things, and you just want it to say, “look at me.”
Wow.
You have no idea what the art and craft of photography is at all, that’s obvious. But you don’t even understand basic logic. That’s what amazes me most.
“I won’t buy a hammer that can’t cut lumber!”
These things are of course entirely subjective and while the styling of a camera might influence your purchasing decisions, it doesn't mean it has any relevance at all to other photographers. Personally speaking I agree that most of the current Canon, Sony and Nikon range are vile looking blobs of snot-shapped plastic that appear to have been developed in a wind tunnel and have all the aesthetic appeal of a melanoma, but so what? That's just my opinion - has no relevance to other photographers who might prefer that melted-Lego look.
I agree that there is something inherently dull about current Canon, Sony and Nikon cameras that speaks to a need to conform, but some folks like being the same as everyone else and feel more comfortable with it - after all, the best selling flavour of ice cream is vanilla. Canon, Sony and Nikon shooters boast about their cameras being workhorses - a phrase that would have me running a mile - but if they are professional shooters then workhorses are what they need and aesthetics be damned.
In short I guess I echo the views of most people here in wondering what pertinence your choice of camera has for anyone else on the planet. I feel exactly the same way when I see some YouTube photography influencer posting a video titled, "Why I switched to Sony" or "Why I'm Ditching Canon"- who fucking cares? Buy what works for you using whatever criteria are important to you, but don't expect anyone to give a shit about your choice. That's it.
This article annoyed me so much I made an account. Let me just say this, the magic is all about what is on the other side of the lens, to say otherwise is so utterly elitist and personal preference driven and soooo bourgeoisie for the sake of WHO CARES. "Your camera looks like a camera, how gross!" Ridiculous and reals of privilege. You know who are the best musicians, the folks who can play a song that will make you cry with a $10 thrift store guitar, you know who are the worst musicians? People with deep pockets who buy the shiniest more expensive things because they think it's about how pretty the tool is. I used to carry around this behind the scenes photo of Kubrick on set for 2001. It blew my mind because it was this huge set but behind the lens was just a minimal setup with a standard film camera and tripod no video village or huge cranes and I carried that photo around to remind me it's not about how fancy or new your gear is, it's about the magic in front of the lens... And this pinky in the air manifesto youve written is the complete opposite notion. Forget your talent forget your moxie, how quirky and expensive is your camera? Never once in your article did you mention that so many other factors play a role in the cameras people purchase... Like different settings and frame rates and sensors and lens mounts etc. Look tools are tools, I like quirky cameras too! I buy old film cameras and lenses and accessories and shoot with them all the time but I don't expect or demand those quirks in my go to workhorse camera. If we all cared about having cameras that stuck out with new and amazing designs and color schemes then we'd be screwed because we wouldn't be able to take photos of these beautiful works of art. You sound like a guy who buys some really fancy cameras because you can and look down on everyone else if they can't? And what does that have to do with photography? And should someone with that kind of condescending attitude be teaching photography? I congratulate you and the website for kicking up so much engagement and clicks but I hope you come away from this with a different outlook.
That's why this article is a huge success. It has motivated a large number of you to sign up on F-stoppers just so you could comment on how utterly stupid the article is.
Not surprised to see this article. You can't ever prove it but considering Sony has taken up the model of using paid social influencers to control or mute any negative press, like a certain communist government, I don't doubt they also hire writers to gaslight the industry when everyone is talking about the A7III shutter class action lawsuit. There are hundreds if not thousands of these kind of paid writers who are good at what they do that are kinda hurting for a job because the election is over. You can bet this kind of industry exists.
Ivor Rackham makes photos and photos. By emphasising aesthetics, Rackham seduces the viewer into a world of ongoing equilibrium and the interval that articulates the stream of daily events. Moments are depicted that only exist to punctuate the human drama in order to clarify our existence and to find poetic meaning in everyday life.
His photos sometimes radiate a cold and latent violence. At times, disconcerting beauty emerges. The inherent visual seductiveness, along with the conciseness of the exhibitions, further complicates the reception of their manifold layers of meaning.
"...Fujio Mitarai, reportedly took a snipe at JIP’s ability to turn the Olympus Cameras business around"
"Reportedly"? Either he did, in which case you should quote and cite, or he didn't and you shoild not help spread rumors.
I understand that this is an "opinion" piece, but there should still be some integrity in the quantitative reasoning you use. But that's just my opinion.
To the editor: why did you waste readers’ time reading this stupid article? Not because I don’t agree with the writer’s opinion; actually I truly wanted to know why Canon is bad, but the reasons this author gave make no sense, and you finally found it out, deeply disappointedly, only after you had spent so much time reading his lengthy unrelated nonsense.
Wow...no real advice to be found here really.
I wont buy canon because i dont like their „colourscience“ that desats all skin like crazy. And because they always purposefully cripple their cameras (30min Record limit anyone? Or how about clog2 in the r5?).
But yeah, you could also dislike them for being not good looking enough. I use cameras as tools but i will say fuji was very enjoyable to shoot. Sadly they dont do full frame, so the tradeoff for the look is too big.
But who am i making resonable arguments about this topic... :)
Well, to be fair, the video limit was a monetary decision:
"In 2006, the European Union created a law that added an import duty of 5-12% to any video camera. What determined whether a camera was a video camera? In short, the ability to record longer than 30 minutes. Thus, companies like Canon and Nikon decided to cap their video clip lengths, preventing their enthusiast and prosumer cameras from being considered video cameras."
One of the most damning things about this article is how much time the author is now spending in the comments explaining it.
After spending the time to read the article and then to read the comments, I decided to comment myself. If his screed was intended to be an April fool's joke, it probably met that standard: neither amusing nor illuminating. More like an annoying waste of time.
For the record, I've had no problems with any of the 4 Canon digitals I've owned--3 of which I still use. My 2 Nikon ELs had a rubber-like foam that cushioned the mirror flap. They turned to a sticky gum consistency which caused the mirrors to stick in the "up" position. Now that was annoying.
Ivor, thanks for your article. Ugly, boring, commonplace are strong words that made, as it seem, many people quite frustrated, since perhaps they took your stand a bit too close to the heart. Why would that be?! hmmm 🤔
I think esthetics and design would play an increasing role quite soon in current market of perfect feature-wise devices. Lets see z9 and r1 for instance. Car comparison is quite well suited, not everyone would get a car purely on its looks, but for some it will remain a coveted feature.
Sam Edge and others said it all,... except for how is it that Fstoppers editors can't filter this rubbish out? Close to sending the Fstoppers emails direct to trash.
What a moronic article. A waste of time. Dumb point to make and did i mention, dumb?!?!
Why do you even publish such nonsense? Fstoppers once more loses in my eyes as source of serious journalism.
I agree that Olympus cameras look the best and fuji too. I get if the camera doesn’t fit your hand then it’s not for you, for me the canon is comfortable and has ease of use, that’s why I like it. Anything to make the process more seemless. I guess if I was going to an event with a lot of other photographers around, I would feel cooler holding the Olympus but I don’t mind my gear blending in a little, as long as the photos stand out.
I only read the lede; no time to read it all. Reaction to the lede: Who gives a rat’s knobby kneecaps what camera you buy?
I believe that is actually a degree of the very point of the article.
Why I won't but a Canon:
Do I have any good reasons in this article? No
They're just ugly haha~
Also I made an account to make this comment, that's how dumb this article is
I knew this article would dig up the worst of the photography community from their bottomless pit of ego and self validation. 👏 As a former Canon shooter, several others, and currently Sony (equally garbage), I applaud you for pointing out some valid flaws and reminding me to stay creative instead of burrying my head in the current brand of gear I use. Judging by how quickly many of these commentors were offended, I would say it is safe to assume they will never listen to constructive criticism on their work, and in turn, never grow at their craft.
Just my amateur opinon...
Hahahah...what...hahaha! Are you a photographer or a mindless drone trying to make an impression on newbies in photography? Did you know pro photographers read these articles sometimes.? So as a pro photographer, I'm telling you you are full of excrement. The dreck you have written is just what you ascribed to professional cameras, i.e. commonplace, boring and ugly - on top of being unprofessional.
Very silly article.
The three reasons are innane and down right stupid.
Then throw in the stupidest thing of all, climate change, and all credibility is gone.
I have no idea why you allow unprofessional I-never-buy-this-brand-again scribblings like this on your platform. These types of scribblings are patently ludicrous and useless - and they lower the quality of your publications in general. The proper place for this is in a photography section of Enquirer..
I don't care for Canon cameras much either, but I just don't see the point of the article. I would guess there are some folk that don't like Canons b/c of their looks or that they are very popular. But my guess is that if they didn't meet peoples needs adequately, they wouldn't sell and people wouldn't use them. And as an Oly user, I'm not sure where you get the impression that JIP has turned many corporations around. That's not what they are known for - just buying brands and getting the most out of selling off what they can.
Yes, I'll never buy a jeep because it's the best selling 4WD. I'll never by a tesla becase they are like a bubble. I'll never buy another coke because for God's sake, they have been using that same boring red for decades.
Give me a break Ivor, you didn't trigger conversation, only pure disdain for the ridiculous article. It must have been a slow day at fstoppers.
Why Ivor would have earned a D-minus in my journalism class for this piece.
.
He labels it as opinion (albeit an inherited, 3rd-party opinion.) If he had tried to pass the content of this article as fact, it would have been an F.
After significant and well-earned blowback, Ivor tries to backpedal, saying that he meant it as a critique of all camera companies, but just "singled-out" Canon. Sorry, no. The whole headline, lead, nut graf and premise of the article is why he won't buy a Canon -- implying that there is something inherently wrong or objectionable with the Canon brand implicating each Canon product. If he had meant to critique the entire DSLR industry about product bloat, ergonomics or corporate culture he should have written it that way, but stating perceived flaws and then positing that other companies aren't blameless, too, doesn't come close to cutting it.
But it's an opinion piece, and with the best opinion pieces you can see the reporting behind the thesis. Editorials and opinion columns from the likes of the great Clarence Page are often better sourced and researched than investigative reporting pieces. But that's not what we have here. Some third-party hearsay from a couple of random Google searches does not equal factual evidence from primary sources. An Internet search can lead you to primary sources of information, but is not a stand-in for primary sources. I have no doubt that those Canon owners (and others) experienced issues with their cameras, but is it endemic of a larger problem like a manufactures recall or Consumer Reports testing? If so, it's not stated.
What we are left with are three reasons that just drip with effete elitism - they are commonplace (popular); boringly designed; and ugly. Any artist or art critic will tell you that there is no accounting for taste. In this case, if every Canon owner upon reading this, agreed and suddenly replaced all their gear with Nikon gear, would they still be sheep, or just sheep with better aesthetic taste? One of the most popular and respected cameras are the 50s and 60s was the Argus C3. People called it "The Brick." Beautiful, it was not. It was solid like a brick. It was shaped like a brick, and in hand-to-hand combat, it would hold up better than a brick. But it was simple to use and made amazing images. Especially slides. Holy cow, it was great. So what's more important, style or substance?
Ivor answers that succinctly: "Is that important? Absolutely! Artists should surround themselves with beautiful things that inspire. ... . Leica’s SL2 just shouts out: “Look at me! I’m a photographer with passion.”
BUT! And here I am violating my own journalistic standards in that I am burying the lede....
Ivor much later admits that the whole article started out as a bollocks April Fools Day joke, but morphed it into an article denigrating an entire company and its product line: "I actually set out to write this as an April Fool's joke, but then I realized there were points to be made about the entire industry... "
So, it started out as complete BS; and then was worked into a critique of one company and its products; and then walked back with the excuse that he mentioned that other companies do it, too. That doesn't quite rise to the level of libel in the United States (mainly because it's couched in opinion) but other countries (the UK and its commonwealths, notably,) have a much lower bar. This article is the sort of lawsuit-bait that, if I were hauled into court over it, I would try to find the best attorney I could - and even that may not help, depending on the jurisdiction.
So, on second thought, I might be charitable grading it a D-minus.
This comment was much more informative and rewarding that the article it is commenting on.