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.
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!!!
Clickbait generating whiner. And an F-Stoppers FAIL
After reading a depressing number of these comments, I registered on the site just to add my own 2 cents:
Thank you for a provocative article. I'll admit I didn't grasp the point at first either, but once I did, I had to go back and reread it in a different light and it was fun!
In my humble opinion, I feel it could've been truncated a good bit to improve effectiveness in conveying it's purpose.... I almost feel that perhaps the loquaciousness undermined, rather than reinforced.
Either way, I think you (subtly) highlight an interesting point about the camera production industry right now.
Besides the fact that the article is obviously meant to evoke responses (which it did brilliantly) I really don't get why lots of people are so enamored by the styling of cameras like the OM-D's for example. They look exactly like my dad's old Praktica from the late 1960s. The styling of those cameras was governed in large part by the available technology and materials of the time. Have we really not developed sufficiently better technology and materials in the last 50 (!!!!) years that we don't have to fall back on that ancient styling? Note that I agree that the 'blobs' don't look good either, I just think that there should be something more modern, edgy, functional and exciting by now.... Where's my wireless head-mounted viewfinder eyepiece? Where's my omni-directional wrist camera with 24/7 50 Megapixel recording? Where's the 'look at it and blink to take a picture' technology? Where is the super high quality superzoom technology for large sensor cameras? Just so disappointed with the whole industry...
Pro photographers and those really into the hobby seem to be pretty conservative that way. However, I have the Sony 24-105 f4 and frankly, the image quality produced by this lens is truly amazing.... and it's not even the best thing out there.
So if it was unethical for Canon's CEO to comment on the outlook of Olympus (according to the author), what is the justication for the publication of this article?
I only read it because it popped up on my feed...and after reading it, I am left to wonder what the vetting process for potential Fstopper articles entails. Sure, everyone is entitled to an opinion, but this comes off like a fat shaming rant on a camera brand.
I almost never negatively comment on a post or article, but this is the kind of response an article like this induces. In all honesty, and in no way politically speaking, negation of one brand, or idea, or ideology does not inspire people seeking inspiration; it only alienates and leaves us wanting for substance.
Black unusable LCD, no viewfinder alternative, on the Canon PowerShot SX730 - the LCD is polarized to blackout when using polarized sunglasses, making the camera useless.
ALL of my other digital cameras have their LCD coordinated with polarized sunglasses to NOT back out in the horizontal position, and most also have an eye-level viewfinder so I can see my subject without needing sunglasses because the viewfinder tunnel shields my eyes.
What was Canon thinking to polarize their LCD to go black in the horizontal position?
Who builds a 40x optical zoom that only works in portrait orientation?!?
.
Thanks for the information on this, it doesn't come up in any of the reviews (reviewers take note).
Every(one) camera manufacturer makes a mistake from time to time, but that's pretty major.
Wow, I never knew this article could attract so many comments. Well, now Fstoppers will never cease with the clickbait articles like this as they know it generates huge amounts of attention.
Tune in next week when the hot new F-stoppers article will be about how Olympus and Fuji make their cameras to look like mid 20th century film cameras so they can sell them to clueless old curmudgeons because they can't compete with Canon, Nikon, or Sony on imaging performance.
"You have a Canon around your neck, it says you are a sheep following the crowd." OR ... maybe I'm a pro and just like having equipment that lasts and does what I need. I'm sorry I won't get back the minutes I wasted on this drivel.
I don't care what a camera looks like. Its there to do a job. My 7d mk2's, 60Da, 5DMk3 are great work horses and do their job well. I'll probably transition to the R5 and R3 over time and I'll see quite a few of those popping up in workshops or field trips along with Son's. Nikons and whatever. I just don't care, if it works for you that's fine
lol this sounds like a "concerned citizen" article. Complaining about a camera is like a chief complaining about the best oven brand. Focus on unique photos not the camera. There is an old saying that goes "A bad craftsman always complains about his tools" This article is dumbing down the whole photo community and I am embarrassed for the author.
This was written for rich liberals who care more about esthetic and fashion labels than tools. Although I could agree with a few points, I would expect he likes Leica because it's the brand of celebrities and the rich and Canon or Nikon, not fashion accessories. Sure it's a great camera in the way that a Bentley is a great car.
When I buy a hammer, I don't look for leather straps and designer etchings with jeweled accents. I look for a hammer that is reasonably priced, will last a long time, and not be an object of desire to draw the attention of thieves or impress celebrities with.
Last, he pontificates about how woke each manufacturer is and falls into the trap of "any lie is ok so long as it props up leftist dogma". For example, the Trophy hunting comments about Nikon. They do not support or encourage trophy hunting, that's something anti-hunting people make up and misrepresent the same way they do so-called assault rifles or automatic weapons, not being smart enough to know what it even is.
In fact, Nikon is active in anti-trophy hunting activities as is Leica. But liberals use it to describe any hunting because it represents something they detest, individualism and independence, I say that and I don't even hunt. Trophy hunting is illegal in most places and detested by most people who do hunt. And it should be illegal everywhere. Suggesting they support it is not just misleading, it's dishonest.
This kind of misinformation, snobbery, and disrespect for the working classes tells me all I need to know about the author's position.
Sure I admire the vintage look of Leica gear, but I can get 3-5 Canons for the price of one Leice that means I can employ three photographers instead of one fashionista.
Oh come on you loser, can't even get politics out of photography?
Grow up and get a life ffs
What does being liberal or conservative have anything to do with this?
Beguiling shape of the Olympus E M5?? You have to go back to the Canon AE-1 or even the FT to get something that looks like that.
Reading that article was the single greatest waste of time in my life, and I'm old. Utterly useless and ridiculous.
Maybe she should stop making love to the camera and start actually use it, lol.
Ivor Rackham: Aesthetic reasons why I don't like Canon.
Canon owners: OMG! You can't say that!
LOL.
This was very superficial and unconvincing.
My three reasons not to buy a Canon, Nikon or Sony. First, I don't have that kinda money. Second, I'd buy something else that would give more gear for my buck. Third, I already own Pentax.
I thought the article was rather whimsical. It was certainly very tongue in cheek, and it did encourage a few smiles when i got to the 'punchline'.
What surprised me, however, was the venom in the comments, then some really severe personal attacks. Whatever you say about Ivor's article, a lot of these comments indicate more about the posters than Ivor's article does about himself.
I'm new to F-stoppers. I came originally because of an article on lighting which was rather good. Then I was transfixed by the quality of the photographs on here.
The comments section reveals a darker underbelly, however. And as for the ageist comments on here, that is just a sad indictment of western culture in the main.
The same basic premise of the article could have been written about car brands. Would it have raised the same ire, I wonder? Actually probably yes.
Anyhow, I did enjoy the article, Ivor, and, I hope the rest have gotten over their interpretation and have good day. :)
Thank you, Ben. That's very kind.
Yes, it was tongue in cheek.
As I said in the article all the major brands make great cameras. There is actually little to choose between them.
It's not all as bad as it looks. The good news is that the comments were a tiny drop in the ocean compared to the number of people who read the article; fewer than 0.2% commented on the article. What was written actually says a most about the characters of those people who made the derogatory comments.
It was in response to the trolls that I wrote this one, which helps explain their behavior: https://fstoppers.com/legal/enemy-agents-psychopaths-and-cult-camera-557926
True this analysis was highly unconventional, but kinda made sense. ultimately we assume that we act as a purely rational beings with a great sense of price/benefits ratio. There would be no such vitriol, because most posters would assume article was simply “tongue in the cheek”. It indicates that our decisions even in choosing functional tool among many perfect alternatives are highly vulnerable to emotional impact and thus, ironically proves that this article is more then just whimsical. On the other hand the same reasons given in the article could be taken at the face value. I know quite a few established togs using (SoCaNi) who were quite Un-apathetic after bumping into someone with Leicas/Blads/Fujis as they should have been.
Thanks, Alex. I also think that our choices are influenced by advertising. Flood magazines and websites with effective adverts, and that has an effect on sales. Just as the biggest political parties win votes because they have money to advertise, so do the major brands make most sales.
Fstoppers should be ashamed of allowing this awful, pointless rubbish on its website. Where is the editorial oversight?
.
What a mug, A good reason i won't buy a Fuji because they are for posers and not photographers