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.
Fujis are great for photography. Been using them for 8 years.
Plenty of serious photographers using the Fuji system.
I agree, there are plenty of serious photographers using every system.
My point for posting this comment is that I have brand preferences myself, based an a whole lot of years working in the photographic industry, most of the time with camera's that I wouldn't own myself for many of the reasons outlined by this article .Canon hasn't been on my purchase history for some time because of the things that I just simply can't live with, not for want of trying . Maybe it's too hard to exit because of the amount of investment into the system or shooting images where you are told what to use because of the post processing requirements , brand ambassadors - the list goes on .I had to use a Canon 5D mk11 with 24-70 L 2.8 and 50mm F1.4 for the company website images , It reminded me of why I chose not to own Canon for me - personally ,and I was not the only one but to say that it's no good is not true or fair . I bought my daughter a Canon 450D as she had different needs and expectations than me ,and it was great value so Canon got some of my money but not my heart .We wont talk about the metering system , that would take all day !
Sad to see so many "serious" photographers appearing to be allergic to satire. As an owner of an Olympus EM-5 Mark iii, a wholeheartedly approve of this article ... but that would not stop me from buying a Canon if I were planning to buy a full frame camera.
Not sure what part of this makes you think that it's satire given that people unironically say stuff like this all the time.
At least make the clickbait arguable. I guess Sony trolls can’t claim dynamic range, autofocus, rolling shutter, etc anymore so they’ve resorted to “canon is too popular and ugly”? Sad. They’ve always sold the best “system” even when not checking off all the boxes. That’s why they’re “popular” (aka best selling). Author is a mediocre photographer and an even worse troll.
Yes Canon is very popular for good reason you can buy in pretty much every camera store and some supermarkets - Costco .Very strong marketing particular the Pro division and even better than Sony in that respect but is a bit like Toyota cars I have rented them only .Happy to recommend - but best system for ?
This was simply comical! I have had EVERY EOS1 body since the 35mm film EOS1 (except the 1Dx3, I opted for an R5). I find them INCREDIBLY ergonomical. I can operate them with my eyes closed. And I have worked the hell out of them, shooting as many as 1100 portrait sessions a year. I also find them beautiful, although I don't give a damn about how it looks. How shallow.
I can't believe FStoppers is publishing such garbage.
Why do so many people say I don't care how the Canon camera's look ? that's probably one of the things I do find appealing and reliability is great ,but exposure metering (in grey scale for years ) and Speedlight usability on A or S I don't know one of them it's not something I want to care about .I am glad you have such a good history with Canon . Canon Australia explained the Greyscale metering in it's camera's to us at a Pro dealer night along with all the new tech and I explained why Nikon moved away from that so many years ago, they told us it was what they always did - they changed to RGB eventually - so they did listen . Am happy to recommend Canon if that's what floats your boat !
I agree (kind of) to your points. I have owned cameras from yashika rangefinder, pentax k1000 and k100d, fujifilm xt2 and recently moved to canon R6. All my cameras and their systems were brilliant. My choice was based on my needs and demands in line with my circumstances and age. I love the autofocus along with so many other features given by R6. Dont mind being one of the 'lambs' as long as it serves my purpose. And a purpose of any camera is not to look just beautiful, but also to shoot well to individual's needs.
I personally can not walk up to a display table and distinguish between the many many types of photographs that are made by almost any certain camera, just to to say, " I know that was a can, pent, nik , etc, etc. This sounds like arguing just for the sake of arguing. Thank God, most of us live in an area that still has freedom of choice. The point is and has always been the quality of the build and the great lenses that accompany them.Without these things arguing would be pointless. Just saying, Chuck !
Arguing is pointless in any event. Which is the better motor vehicle, a dump truck or Porsche?
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.