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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
346 Comments
I literally JOINED fstoppers so I could communicate what a shockingly poor article this is. I've owned Sony and Canon cameras and came away from this thing having learned nothing and without having been in any way amused or entertained. I just don't understand why they'd publish this crud. OK... now I can deregister and never make the mistake of clicking on this kind of empty click bait from fstoppers again... Waste of time.
After I read it, I checked the date that it was posted thinking it would be April 1st, but it was not.
I can't believe I wasted my time reading all of that. I guess the jokes on me.
Basically from what I’ve seen is “Buy a expensive camera that makes you look more professional” umm how dumb can you get🤔. It’s not the camera that makes a photographer good it’s the quality of his work and how they perform with the equipment they can afford or have. I use a Canon 6D and a Canon T7i and have never had any issue with my work or have had any complaints.
Do people get paid to write these articles? Do they have to be approved by anybody before they're posted? I don't normally criticize people's work, but this is literally the one of worst articles I've ever read on any subject. I honestly thought it was a joke. Unfortunately, it wasn't...
Rare login, first time comment...this has to be one of the dumbest articles I've ever seen.
Reading the comments and seeing the author having to respond to most of them explaining his reasoning and attempting to do damage control, is all the reason to know how far this once great page has slide
Fstoppers the new youtube. 100% dry read . I know lets stop viewing fstoppers articles because they don't stand out...
I'm going to echo other people on this - it is the dumbest article I've ever read As a long time extremely satisfied canon owner mind you it is just mindless
Fantastic article! This is one of the best articles on the aesthetic aspects of the camera I have ever read. It is certainly a bold critique of the industry. The juxtaposed images of the Nikon D6 and Canon EOS 1D X say it all, and it is ugly, the ugliness resembles oddly shaped pile of junk which deserves to be crashed and build something beautiful. Bravo for the article!
hmmmm... thousands of lens to choose from and that is your best reason why you won't buy Canon. kinda 🥴👈!
Our wannabe author has apparently left the room ... one hopes (although one doubts) that he now understands that readers saw nothing demonstrating any intelligence in his "article", and that the powers that be here at Fstoppers see the pointlessness of vapid articles of no substance.
It really WAS the worst article on this site in recent (and perhaps distant) memory.
i believe people have nothing left to write about! I can write 500 articles like this or even if i create a poll to fill in the blank at the end.......people will give me enough topics to outlast several generations. Why I wont buy ________ ? Honda? Toyota? IBM? Apple? HP? Honey? Paper? Cigar? Cougar? Condom? House?............
So, this article was my first exposure to this publication. Because of it, it shall also be my last. Utterly horrible editorial decision to publish this tirade that bounces from fashion to trophy hunting to environmental footprint ad nauseum. Not a word about the photos Canon's products produce; I've used nothing but since my first Canon F1 in 1972. Bye-bye.
Being a Nikon guy this article is certainly entertaining but it has little or no substance. The only knock I hear about Canon is that their cameras are not as user friendly or intuitive as Nikon.
Witness here why FStoppers is universally regarded as indistinguishable from those tabloids at the supermarket proclaiming “Alien Bible Unearthed! They Worship OPRAH!!”
This is the kind of absolute drek that FStoppers has become synonymous with.
And a clear sign that FStoppers is in the business, of going out of business.
Can’t come to soon for most of us.
I'm hoping this article gets some of the camera manufacturers thinking about the stylishness of their products.
Ken Hart's picture of his Canon cameras in the comments shows that Canon used to do stylish, as did other manufacturers, so when did the minimal bland look set in?
A few retro styled limited editions might sell well.
Wooooooooow
I have never owned a Canon but WTF was with this article?
The value of Fstoppers just decreased exponentially for posting this rubbish. This was the most "GET OFF MY LAWN" old man rant I've read in a while. Wish I had my five minutes back.
This is the kind of dumb article that gets posted just to get people to sign up for their website to tell them how dumb the article it is. Mission accomplished lol
Also just wanted to point out that fstoppers just published an article expressing that a very large portion of it's readers are "sheep". It has been hard to rationalize coming to this site for a few years now because the articles have been losing substance and originality for years. I fondly remember the days when this site was at the height of it's popularity because the articles had substance, were written by photographers with formidable portfolios, and in general often created content that was backed up by actual skill and talent, making the writer's point of view worth reading. The best word to describe this article is "YIKES", both for it's point of view and the work of the photographer who wrote it, leaving me to believe that their opinion on the subject of photography isn't really worth listening to. I don't feel bad sniping at the writer's photography considering I'm just another "sheep" to him, and I can't really seem to find a good reason to keep coming back to this site anymore because this article seems to represent where the standard for quality has been set for a long time now on fstoppers.
How many years ago? Maybe I can peruse their archives.
Personally I feel that fstoppers was in it's prime around 2014 through 2016. Unfortunately their archives will only take you as far back as 2017.
2017? They go back as far as 2010-2012
Originals: https://fstoppers.com/originals?page=211
Gear Reviews: https://fstoppers.com/reviews?page=30
News: https://fstoppers.com/news?page=91
Oh nice! For some reason I couldn't go past 2017. I must have been looking in the wrong place.
You were probably in the "Latest" category.
Reminds me of that Scott Kelby video where he said you should use a Mac instead of a PC... "because it looks cooler".
Yeah... That was stupid too.
I know it's the typical f-stoppers clickbait-article and it's written to upset people, but this is one of the most idiotic articles i read for a long time. And yes place 2-5 are also f-stoppers articles.
Right now, I am going to Google news, which presented this article to me based on photography being an interest. Once there i’m going to click a little ... icon to the right of this article, and then I’m going to press “🚫 Hide all stories from Fstoppers.”
Pure clickbait. We all got suckered. Are our lives so boring that we clicked on this article with probably a better than 50% expectation that it was going to be worthless? Probably, although the author succeeding in reaching a level of inanity that far exceeded my wildest expectations.
The garbage-to-value (information) content is at an all-time low. Going forward I will be far better off totally ignoring Fstopper clickbait articles.
This artical is total rubish and I'll remember not to bother reading future post/articals from this person.
I looked at Ken Hart's photograph of his Canon collection.
Wouldn't you like an EOS 5 that looked like one of those?
Fstoppers is the worst. So many stupid articles. Photography is all things positive in my life. I wish the leading photography news outlet would stop being such a downer half the time!
My God....uneffin believable. So then...if I want to get a unique, non-boring, and beautiful camera....I guess I'm out of luck....hey??
I don't 'model' my camera around to see what kind of cheers or other reactions I will get. I take photos...period. I let the photos address the issues of.....uniqueness, non-boredom and beauty.
Waddup wit diss sit???
Before reading: Finally a smart person articulating the way canon messedup
After reading: Meh! Another dumb article
What a stupid article, I never log in to vote, except for the shear to find out who is stupid enough to write a piece of trash like this
They must be doing something right, as they still around, with the one of the biggest lenses collection and camera bodies.
Not saying they are perfect as there's no perfect camera system. Personally people buy whatever suit's you.
Having written and deleted thousands of words in response to this article, it's finally dawned on me that you just aren't worth it, Ivor. I won't be back to this site. People can make magic with any hardware once they discover their style. I'm sorry you need a Stradavarius to play Mary Had a Little Lamb. Most of us make do with what we can afford. How dare you claim to have an interest in mental wellbeing while spouting self-defeating/editorial garbage like this, to the exclusion of what you yourself say is a large proportion of (generally new) photographers. FStoppers, please don't take the engagement in this comment section as a good thing. You've shown your a** here and it's name is Ivor.
I appreciate the opinion piece. But totally disagree, I used to feel similar about Sony cameras because the "pro" photographers in L.A. all used Sony. But, at this point in my career I've shot with Sony, Fuji, Nikon, and Canon. I stick with Canon because of the quality. Sony cameras feel cheap, Fuji's look nice but are too heavy, Nikon is probably most similar to Canon... I don't even like the quality of mirroless cameras, the images look unnatural compared to DSLRs... But, Canon makes great cameras and lenses. Interesting view point though...
Thank you for commenting Brian. I appreciate it when people have a different point of view and express it with a well-written explanation.
This whole muddled article absolutely annoyed me, and yes I'm a sheep, I love my Canon Cameras, the only other brand I would condider buying is Pentax, and I don't need to explain that comment to anyone.
Cameras are tools, a hammer isn't the ultimate in design, isn't a work of art and all hammers are basically the same, but a hammer does its job, and rarely fails. Modern cameras, admittedly, appear similar in design and ergonomics, however, their differences are under the hood.
I will remain a sheep... Stirring blog, made me think... and thats the idea of being a devil's advocate, isn't it!
This was a seriously impressive waste of all our time. I started reading with genuine interest and kept waiting for you to make a worthy point... It didn't happen. You're not even blowing hot air here, just empty words on a page.
Many years ago I used to buy Canon video cameras. Over the years I learned that they required lots of Maintenance and I think Cannon made more money off of me with maintenance than it did on my purchasing of their cameras. About 20 years ago I bought my first Sony video camera and ever since I bought Sony and they work and they do not break. To this day even my oldest 20 year old Sony video camera still works. But I have two others one is just 10 years old and the other one is just two years old none of them have ever been to the shop.
I don't know if I'm the only one—I'm certainly in the minority—but I learned some things here. It's an opinion piece, yes, and sure there are people who clearly felt it was asinine, but it wasn't entirely worthless. Given the vitriolic intensity of the comments, I'm almost ashamed to admit it for fear of being exiled, though. 😆
You should be kidding, right? Those are the worst reasons ever! C'mon! Ivor, please set a serious photography conversation here.
Bizarre.
I don't care about the way the tool looks. I do care about how it works, how it feels in my hands, ubiquity, reliability, and so on. Canon's EOS ergonomics won me over when I shifted to autofocus after testing out Nikon (too boxy), Pentax, Olympus (too small), Minolta (limited lens range at that time), etc. The current crop of Sony and Fuji mirrorless cameras feel decent but neither fits *my* hands as well as my current dSLRs. I haven't tried Canon's R line, nor Nikon's Z line; they may be better.
As you note, none of the manufacturers win awards for environmentalism while all of them make tools that are capable of providing excellent results. All the modern cameras to my eye are 'uglier' than their 1960's-1980's counterparts, but they're also much more capable and hand-friendly, with better ergonomics.
Tools are for using. Not for their popularity or being pretty. If they have those attributes, it can be a plus, but using those as the primary criteria is downright silly.
...probably doesn't matter anyway.
Ivor, I think you have forgotten the function of a camera. It does not need to be silver plated or designed to look older than it is. A camera is a tool. A device that does a job. Nothing more nothing less. Ugly, boring or common are not indictments of a tool. Will a Canon take high quality photographs, yes. As will all the other sheeple brands you named. As a professional the image is everything, hell I don't care if it is held together by duct tape and Tamron stickers. All I need to know is it takes great images. Grab your Prada bag and your dimonte studded camera and go back to shooting. I hope that you find the image you take are what matters not the gear that you choose.
I signed up for leaving a comment on this article, I hate click bait, and I enjoyed reading the comment section more than the article itself.🤣
Just really stupid. as subjective as one can get. I've owned Canon and Leica for the past 50 years and both brands are outstanding for their designed purpose. I'd love to have a Leica again but their prices are unjustifiable. My current old MkV II, takes beautiful photos and it's comfortable for me even though I have small hands. My only complaint with all cameras is that no one makes a left eye dominant camera! My nose always smears the screen on the back!!!