Why I Won't Buy a Canon Camera

Why I Won't Buy a Canon Camera

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. 

Ivor Rackham's picture

Earning a living as a photographer, website developer, and writer and Based in the North East of England, much of Ivor's work is training others; helping people become better photographers. He has a special interest in supporting people with their mental well-being through photography. In 2023 he became a brand ambassador for the OM System

Log in or register to post comments
363 Comments
Previous comments

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.