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 won't be buying more Canon DSLR stuff, unless it's really inexpensive, because they officially abandoned the EF system. And I consider my 5DS very high quality, ergonomically perfect and a very beautiful camera.
Before Canon left their EF system completely, was considering buying another 3-4 EF "L" lenses, but my DSLR system of choice is now Nikon and I'm returning to the Pentax ecosystem (full frame) too.
Their RF system is interesting, but so far, I'm going with Sony in mirrorless. You can get used pro lenses for reasonable prices, and many are very small, with a distinct advantage in reduced size over DSLR's.
M4/3 and APS-C aren't great solutions, in terms of bokeh and diffraction. Cropped 645 sensors are also hardly bigger than full frame, with a huge increase in prices.
This Article is Clickbait rubbish for amateur photographers looking for a fashion statement rather than a professional tool! All you need to do is look at the Olympic photographers and what camera they’re using! Nearly every one of them is shooting canon!……. enough said
He’s an Olympus guy
I had to smile, the ‘common boring ugly’ is EXACTLY the conclusion I came to myself despite owning canon in the past they seem arrogant in design and I would add overpriced and overrated into the mix. You could come up with a similar critique of Sony, but at least they deliver the results and GM primes save them for me, I’ve generally settled on GFX at least they’re different and deliver results that justify the cost. To consider the future of cameras lies mainly with canon and Sony is pretty depressing
So weird to me to make purchasing decisions based on what a camera looks like rather than the quality, capability, reliability, and ecosystem (stuff like available optics and servicing network). Not saying that there aren't ugly and pretty cameras, but utility stands above everything else for me and on that front, there's absolutely nothing depressing about the future of cameras lying with Canon and Sony-companies that are proving time and time again that they can make great products, serve numerous different types of consumers/niches, and innovate with better optics and in-camera technology. Even if their cameras may not look very pretty like a Leica might, they consistently produce results for the photographers using them and that's the important part.
Hi Salty no the important part is feeling connected with your gear increasing your potential for better shots. Since the comment Ive sold all my Sony for Leica SL2 and with GFX Ive finally got gear I like. Im about as far from Canon as Ive ever been and wont be picking a Sony up again in a hurry.
"Beauty" is in the eye of the beholder!! Obviously. For cameras, function/form are important but ergonomics should clearly be the main priority?
I have not enjoyed the move towards "smaller and lighter" dslr's (regardless of brand and driven by the market) when I want weight for less shaky pictures and something I can grip.
For all my small format, that means Nikon D700's, F100, F2as...all with battery grips/motor drives.
Ugly or beautiful?..I also enjoy working with the Mamiya Press/Universals too. A 6x9 street camera...not pretty may be but remarkably "speedy" to operate...and because ugly is sometimes beautiful!!
This article is so dumb sorry f stoppers blocked.
It's a tool not a conversation piece. I'm not interested in what other people use to make their work, I'm interested in what make my work better.
All companies have tried to make progress in one area or another, all are fine. This article is the boy at the feast complaining that the plates are too small.
This is the best camera article I’ve read in a WHILE. Obviously there are serious pros and cons with any camera, but at this point the baseline quality of ANY camera is so much higher that it really is down to aesthetic. The main focus for any photographer should be on practicing and perfecting skills and methods. You can do that with a phone and still create profound art. That being said, the biggest reason for purchasing/ not purchasing most anything can pretty universally come down to sustainability. We vote with our dollars, and the more we invest in massive corporations who are trashing the planet, the more we let them know, “yes! I’m okay with this! Destroy all life so long as I have a ~qUaliTy~ camera to capture mass extinctions with!”
Been using Canons since 1978.....it's the photographer that makes the photograph...not the equipment
I'm very sorry to read the poor article. Wether the writer get paid from one other camera manufacturer, or the writer is an idiot.
Very sorry to say
You registered especially to let off this fart here? What is the matter with you?
Wow. What an idiot.
I've been shooting professionally for 15 years, I've used Canon, Nikon, Sony, Fuji, & Panasonic. There's huge reasons why I stick with Canon. Its coloring is the biggest, Canon has the best tones out of any brand aside from maybe Leica, but Fuji would be second.
Canon has far better economics than Nikon and a far better menu system than Sony. Sony's menu's are rubbish, and Nikon is all over the place.
Canon always provides a good experience, is simple to use, and the new mirrorless models are great providing excellent image quality in both still and video.
This article is a joke.
Rule 1. It must fit your hands.
2. You must be able to focus easily.
3. Should not be too heavy to hold up and use.
Using these 3 principles, I never had a customer come back with a return.
Sometimes they bought for less and others spent more; however, they were all ways satisfied.
What a ridiculous commentary! Yes let's all buy cameras for style and looks and don't worry about image quality, useful features, lens etc.
This is most likely a paid advertisement courtesy of Olympus.
Most stupid article I ever seen …
Real photographer don’t get a camera because they’re beautiful or nice exterior design, we buy a camera for what is inside ….🙄
Attribute all you want to canon
They're no more evil than Honda
'Gotta admit, some very valid points. The last pro Canon camera I felt was at least remotely aesthetically-inclined was the F1n back in the eighties.
Then there was Canon's total disregard for their photographers by continually updating their lens mount with replacements incompatible with their predecessors - a money-grabbing move they arrogantly assumed their users would simply accept and spend thousands to replace their lenses. A lot didn't, and instead switched to Nikon.
In comparison, Nikon has always made it a priority to ensure that virtually all of their SLR lenses made since 1959 can be adapted to work on any pro-grade Nikon F-mount or Z-mount camera.
It's true. Aesthetics are indeed important. Like any tool, if you can't emotionally bond with a camera, it definitely affects one's ability to use it. And, it seems I'm not alone in saying, I have never been able to bond with a single Canon DSLR. Ever.
On the other hand, over the years, the digital cameras I've lovingly become attached with have all been classic-inspired works of art that emphasized mechanical-styled, external controls over Canon's typical menu access - a characteristic that had all the warmth and appeal of a Casio calculator with a lens attached.
Notable among the favs are the Fujifilm X10 and XF10, as well as the stunning Olympus PEN-F and the OM-D series - none of which have sensors that performed on par with Canon's - yet, due to their more thoughtful industrial design, have helped me produce some of my best work.
Nikon has realized this (the butt-ugly early Z series notwithstanding) with the Df and Zfc, both of which are instant classics made for the type of photographers who probably prefer a Rolex over a Timex.
Which raises the question: which cameras will collectors be coveting in 50-100 years? I expect the Olympus PEN-F and Fujifilm X series will be among the more desirable.
But the doorstop Canon 5D series? I suspect not.
Every EF lens made since 1987 works on every EF camera made since 1987, every EF-S camera made since the EF-S mount was introduced, and on every RF and EF-M camera with full functionality using simple adapters that require no additional optical elements.
Nikon tried to delay the inevitable transition to an all electronic camera/lens interface and created the kind of mess you describe where not all F-mount lenses work on all F-mount cameras.
Most of those that left Canon for Nikon in the late 1980s came back in the early 1990s when USM AF proved to be so much superior to what Nikon had at the time. Many other Nikon shooters also swapped. Nikon had over 75% of the pro market among those shooting in the 135 format in the mid-1980s. By 1993 Canon was #1 in the 135 format among professionals and has maintained the largest market share every year since.
Sounds like you just confirmed everything I said.
1987? How about 1959. Ever tried using a Canon FD lens from the eighties on a FF DSLR? Sure, cheap adapters are available. But no infinity focus, or infinity focus with cheap glass in them to force it.
With a simple conversion that Nikon used to do for free, 99% of Nikkors made from 1959 to 1977, and the rest to today, will mount with varying functionality on any DSLR or mirrorless Nikon. Only a handful of lenses with protruding rear elements are the exceptions out of hundreds. Non-converted lenses can even still be used on the Nikon Df and all Z mirrorless.
I have a dozen legacy Nikkors that have all been converted to AI, plus I've added chips to make them communicate electronically. My favorites are the 1967 Nikkor-H 50mm f/2, 1969 Micro-Nikkor 55mm f/3.5 and 1971 Nikkor-H 28mm f/3.5.
And about market share? You also agreed with the author. Canons are ubiquitous. That was partly his point.
AF? A few pros for whom it really made a difference excepted, the only Nikon-users who switched to Canon because of AF were simply caught up in consumerism hype. Most came back due to Canon's quality issues.
Me? I began my photography career with manual focus Nikons. No AF Nikon has ever limited me in my ability to get the shot. And if it did, I'd be embarrassed to admit it.
Finally, you're either new to photography or forgetting one big point. Nikon's lenses have generally always been better than Canon's. Example: The 14-24mm for years was adapted to Canons because nothing they made came close.
Interestingly, a Google search on "can I use a Nikon lens on my Canon camera" resulted in 26M results.
You know good and well that the "simple conversion" that Nikon *used to do* is neither simple nor has it been available from Nikon at any price for decades. You also probably know that none of the newer F-mount AF-P lenses will work with any F-mount body made before around 2012. You also know that mounting some of those older lenses, unmodified, on modern F-mount bodies can permanently damage the camera.
Clickbait from the top to the bottom 😂 and worked well...
I love my Canon 5D Mark III so much I bought a second one.
They were one of the few digital cameras that have become a classic.
I have always been a bit of a rebel so when the time came to acknowledge the inevitable tromp tromp of progress and go digital I already knew that I wouldn't be going mainstream plus I had long harboured notions of infidelity in the Olympus direction anyway so when the time came to go shopping naturally I quickly found myself the proud owner of a spanking new Òlympus E-300 wearing a 14-54mm Pro lens. I still have the ĺens and my daughter has the camera. The E-300's unorthodox styling was at the time comprehensively slammed by the reviewers but I liked it and still do. I like the boxý look of the camera and I completed it with the addition of the battery grip. I have also kept my love of film, b/w and transparency and I'm proud to say that I have a respectable collection of Canon's pro range film cameras, notably an. Eos 1n and Eos 3. I did concede to an old Eos 1ds digital as well, but I'm an Oly man at heart. I will say that I think the CaNikons of the era I speak of here were vastly more attractive beasts than the current offerings regardless of their undoubtedly spectacular technological advantages. The same goes for the cars of the 21st Century! Is it that we expect too much? Fantastic technology with blazing good looks? Going by current indications perhaps that answer is in the + for styling in general but leaving us with a - emotional attachment to the products that daily service our needs.
Proud Pentaxian since I first picked up the Kx, now using a K70. Pentax is for people in love with photography. Canon is for people who like spending their entire inheritance on a single lens. Lol
And I only buy used.
I have to respectively disagree. I am not a professional but have captured many wonderful memories with Canon cameras going back to my TX on the 60’d and still get outstanding results with my 5D Mark I and Mark II. My 40D still takes great photos and I love traveling with my M50 Mark II.
Well i am a professionell and still use two old 5d3 and they payed rhemself over and over again . They are as good now like they where When they came out
Never mind!
Sometimes the truth hurts, but we need to hear it.
Hey maybe i bought a Canon because i have a 35mm Canon EOS Elan from the 90's and already have the compatible EF Lenses. This guy writing this article just comes off as an idiot
The Canon 1D looks like that because its designed to be used in the field, by real professional photographers. It's smooth, with a minimum of external controls and projecting knobs, which are vulnerabilities that can be damaged, alter settings inadvertently and limit the camera's survivability in hazardous, fast changing photojournalistic environments. i always wondered why Nikon stuck with all the external knobs and gizmos, which look good and gadgety, but add fragility.
Ah! don't feel alone man, ignore the boring pathetic dudes without any love for beauty and aesthetic.
Canon cameras are the ugliest things on earth. Period.
The so called "professionals" here in the comments are so snob and boring.
But again, for the silent majority of consumers, amateurs, and people around the world who like to take photos, beauty and aesthetics DO matter.
Don't let this bunch of snobby "photographers" here in the comments make you sad.
They are pathetic, stubborn, lacking any openness of mentality to understand that beauty of the gear DO matter!
Human have feelings, and we have feelings for what is beautiful.
Your article is not at all dumb, they are dumb, snobby, stubborn and conservative narrow minded little guys.
And yet Canon still sells more cameras that any other brand. ;-)
And Ferrari has a larger market cap than Ford, GM or Stellantis but only produces about 13,500 cars a year. Who is valued more?
You can do all the spinning you want. Doesn't change a thing.
that says nothing, argumentative... you can have the last word... go ahead.
PS I have tons of canon gear for sale. All the 5D cameras, even a 50mm F/1 lens.
Good luck! I hope you sell it all and buy a bunch of new stuff. We gotta' keep the money flowing to the manufacturers if we want them to continue to make new and better gear so we have something to talk about.
First and foremost is form factor and usability. If a camera is comfortable to carry around and has the right amount of buttons and dials for you to make your workflow seamless, that's all that really matters. How attractive a camera looks is way down on my list of priorities. Besides, cameras aren't exactly attractive objects to begin with. Treat them as a tool to do a job, not an object of desire.
Also, it seems par for the course that anyone writing an article about not wanting to use a particular brand of camera will be met with triggered comments. People really shouldn't care if someone else wants to rubbish the camera brand they use. It doesn't make a blind bit of difference to their photography.
Thanks. Most of the comments are from people who didn't even read the article properly. Furthermore, many are from new accounts opened just to make one comment. Makes you wonder who is behind that, doesn't it?
If there is one more thing that persuades me away from the brand is the obnoxious attitudes exhibited in some of those comments.
Interestingly, it is now rumored that Canon are going to release a retro-looking camera. About a year after writing this, Nikon did just that.
LOL, I have a Gitzo tripod. The setup is pretty trick and I have carried it for weeks on end, with the camera attached, all folded on my forearm. I don't know how many times I have said to myself...
"I love my tripod." Gorgeous carbon fiber, elegant workmanship and ultimate functionality. A big part of photography is loving the gear you have and lavishing care upon it. I don't want junky stuff and when I have the best I have paid for style and elegance along with quality and performance. When you create a phenomenal image and people melt when they see it, all of it comes together and makes you want to do it all the more.
(PS I have PhaseOne XF though Sony A1, Canon R5 and old Nikons and even Minolta 9000s and Asahi Spotmatics. And dozens of top of the line professional level lenses (over 200 Canon CPS points alone.) It is all about what you get out of it, yes... but how you go about it is living in the pursuit. People respect and trust me as soon as they see what I have done. The spectators say "I need to get a camera like yours. lol)
Interesting concept. The idea of a photographer caring how they and their camera look while using it is so absurd to me. You'd think a decent photographer might find the images they make to be what matters, regardless of how the camera looks, what brand it is, or how the photographer looks while using the camera. Caring about how you or your camera looks while using it just seems amatuer to me.
It's not about how you look to others, it's about being inspired by everything around you, including the camera.
Interestingly, since writing this article, Nikon has brought out a retro-styled camera and Canon has one in the pipeline.
Honestly, my dear, I don't give a damn ...
Here is why I DID buy Canon cameras when I did (and further down, what I don't like about the way the brand has developed since then ;-)
1.) I bought an A1 because it was the first one I ever saw with a program automatic, simultaneously modifying f stop and speed based on measured light. In addition it had a few VERY sexy lenses in the lineup.
2.) I bought a T90 when it was shown that it fixed the few bugs the A1 came with. It also accepted all the lenses I already had. And it came in that cool Colani design, which made it stand out. (I never thought that a 30 year old camera design was "sexier" than a reasonably functional more modern design - plus, I don't judge my camera (like my car machanic) by looks ...
3) I got angry with them when I noticed that all my FD lenses would not fit on any of their autofocus bodies (analogue or digital.) So I held back for a long time and bought me something M43, which was slim enough so that it could accommodate my favourite lenses with a simple and cheap adapter. Whether the x2 focal length factor was a plus or a minus depended very much on what I was trying to do and with what lens - the 15mm fish eye was less of a success than the 50mm (now 10mm) portrait lens and the 85mm (now 170mm) mild telephoto for low light situations.
4) I eventually went and bought one of their DSLRs - more out of habit and since the competitive field in the "ambitious amateur" segment didn't seem terribly much different.
Some of the gadgets I loved using on the FD lens cameras are now superseded by other features (I loved my angle viewfinder attachment that let me take landscapes from ground level with a 20mm lens. Today, I have an articulated screen that does the same thing (and more.)
Nowadays, having worked out all the photographic subtleties of my - of all things - phone, I mostly take the regular gear with me when I need a long focal length. In a way that reminds me of my Minox 35mm camera with its 35mm film and 35mm lens, which meant that the SLR often just came along for its 70-210mm zoom to do the shots the Minox wasn't good at.
The flock of sheep bleats really loudly. People, he has an opinion and that's that. What are you getting excited about? He has a different aesthetic standard than you.