Let's begin with the usual disclaimer:
I am not affiliated with Canon in any way. No sponsorships. No ambassador contract. No free gear raining from heaven. This is simply the perspective of a working photographer who has spent years using multiple systems professionally across documentary, editorial, portrait, and street photography.
And after all that?
I still choose Canon.
Not because it's the most fashionable brand in 2026. Quite the opposite.
In certain corners of the internet, Canon has strangely become the "consumer" choice. The brand people associate with beginners, dads photographing vacations, or content creators worrying about autofocus.
Meanwhile, in the real world, countless professionals still quietly use Canon every single day to produce serious work.
Funny how reality works.
My current relationship with Canon is also deeply unromantic from a gear-snob perspective. My cameras are not exotic objects worshipped inside temperature-controlled studios.
I use a battered Canon EOS 5D Mark II. A humble Canon EOS Rebel T7. Until recently, a tiny Canon EOS M200 that I've now decided to sell. And for film work, a beautiful old Canon Model 7.
No titanium cube designed by Scandinavian monks.
Just cameras.
And honestly, that's part of the reason I like Canon so much.
1. Canon Feels Like a Camera Company for People Who Actually Take Pictures
Photography online has become deeply performative.
Half the industry now feels designed around products reviewed in controlled tests involving brick walls and coffee mugs.
Canon still feels grounded in actual photography.
You see Canon cameras everywhere because people genuinely work with them. Weddings. Newspapers. Small studios. Families. Street photographers. Editorial shooters. Local journalists. Travelers. Documentary photographers.
The brand feels democratic.
Not aspirational in a luxury sense.
Accessible.
And I mean that as a compliment.
2. Canon Is Weirdly "Uncool" Right Now, Which Makes Me Trust It More
Photography trends behave like fashion trends.
At some point, the consensus shifted, and liking Canon wasn't considered edgy enough anymore. Suddenly every photographer needed a camera that looked like industrial furniture from Berlin.
Good for them.
I've reached the age where I no longer care whether my camera impresses strangers on TikTok.
I care whether it helps me make photographs.
The interesting part is that many professionals never stopped using Canon at all. They simply kept shooting.
3. Canon Cameras Don't Pretend to Be Luxury Objects
Some modern camera brands market themselves like they're selling philosophy degrees instead of imaging tools.
Canon still largely feels practical.
Functional.
Direct.
Even the cheaper bodies often feel honest about what they are.
And I love that.
The Canon EOS Rebel T7 is considered entry-level by internet standards. Yet I've made images with it that matter more to me emotionally than photographs produced with cameras costing five times more.
Which is another bonus.
4. There's a Certain "Proletarian" Spirit to Canon
This may sound controversial, but I've always perceived Canon as one of the most socially widespread camera systems in the world.
You encounter Canon everywhere. In huge cities. In small towns. In developing countries. Among freelancers, local reporters, independent photographers, and working-class image makers trying to survive through photography.
Canon equipment often becomes the practical tool people can realistically access, maintain, and continue using for years.
And honestly?
I respect that more than exclusivity.
Photography should not become a gated community.
And yes, I think Canon is more inclusive than other camera manufacturers.
5. My Canon Cameras Feel Like Working Companions, Not Jewelry
I love cameras.
But I don't fetishize them.
My old Canon EOS 5D Mark II still produces files with soul. The camera has limitations. Good. Because limitations create personality.
The little Canon EOS M200 was almost offensively simple, which is exactly why it became creatively liberating.
And the Canon Model 7 reminds me that photography existed long before firmware updates became a personality trait.
These cameras feel lived with.
Not worshipped.
6. Canon Color Still Feels Human to Me
I shoot JPEG only.
But yes, I shoot JPEG because I prefer making decisions while photographing instead of sitting in front of a computer trying to resurrect files for six hours.
Canon color gives me what I need.
Warmth without plasticity. Skin tones that feel alive. Blacks that don't immediately collapse into digital sludge. A rendering style that feels emotionally coherent with the way I see.
Technical perfection interests me far less than emotional credibility.
7. Canon Ergonomics Prioritize Photography Over Technological Exhibitionism
Some cameras today feel like flying a military drone.
Menus inside menus inside existential despair.
Canon cameras generally feel immediate. Human. Predictable.
When I raise the camera to my eye, I'm thinking about life unfolding in front of me, not whether Eye Detection AI version 14.7 has recognized somebody's left eyebrow.
The camera disappears. Life enters in.
That's the goal.
8. Canon Has Nothing Left to Prove
There's something oddly comforting about a company that no longer desperately needs validation from internet culture.
Canon has been part of photography history for generations. Some of the most important documentary, sports, war, fashion, and editorial work of the modern era was produced with Canon equipment.
The brand doesn't need to cosplay as revolutionary every six months.
And honestly, neither do I.
9. I'm Tired of Cameras Designed for Novelty Instead of Longevity
Modern photography culture often rewards novelty over longevity.
Every month brings another camera supposedly capable of changing civilization itself.
Then six months later it's "outdated." A good move for the manufacturer, not for us photographers.
Meanwhile my ancient Canon EOS 5D Mark II continues producing images with depth, atmosphere, and emotional weight.
Turns out human beings still respond more strongly to photographs than spec sheets.
Shocking development.
10. Canon Lets Me Forget About Gear
This is the biggest reason of all.
At some point, I stopped searching.
The endless chase for the "perfect" system became exhausting. It started feeling less like photography and more like consumer addiction disguised as artistic growth.
Canon became invisible to me in the best possible way.
I trust the cameras. I understand them instinctively. I know their strengths, flaws, rhythms, and imperfections.
And because of that, I spend less time thinking about equipment and more time paying attention to the world.
Which, unless we've completely lost the plot, is supposed to be the whole point of photography.
Closing
Maybe this whole Canon thing isn't really about Canon at all.
It's about reaching a point where you stop outsourcing your decisions to trends, forums, or whatever the current "serious photographer" aesthetic happens to be this month.
Gear culture loves to pretend there's a correct answer waiting to be discovered. A final system. A perfect camera that will finally unlock better photographs.
It doesn't exist.
What exists is consistency. Time spent working. Mistakes. And eventually a kind of familiarity between your eye and your tool that no spec sheet can measure.
For me, Canon simply became the system that disappeared the most when I needed it to disappear.
Not glamorous. Not revolutionary. Not particularly interesting in a forum debate.
People here in Mexico recognize me as a photographer and ask me for photos on the street. As for that vintage fever, well, I satisfy it with my rangefinder, but I think that currently the DSLR design is the real vintage, because we see too many "vintage" rangefinder-like cameras on the street. I don't care.
Canon is just reliable enough to let me stay inside the act of seeing.
Join the Fstoppers community for free
-
Post comments and join in the discussions
-
Browse the site ad-free
-
Share your work and get featured in the community
-
Compete in the photo contests for fun and prizes
81 Comments
11. Canon CPS. I’ve been a photojournalist and commercial photographer and have been very hard on my equipment. I was working in Louisiana during back to back hurricanes Katrina and Rita. My cameras held up the other staff photographers at the paper were shooting Nikon. The Nikon system is fine just as good as any brand but one of our photographers camera’s (2) went down in the rain. That’s unlucky but his camera’s were sent to NPS for repair it took 9 months. I’ve dropped a camera getting out of a truck the body was punctured by a rock. I had a lens knocked out of my hand at a Mardi Gras parade. I slipped on ice busting a lens and had one covered in mud shooting a 4 wheeler going through mud on a commercial shoot. All of these were repaired in one week never longer. There is a saying in sports the best ability is availability. That’s why I stick with Canon. Any camera can take a great picture if it’s in your hand and working. Canon keeps me in business.
The reason I own Canon inkjet printers is because their customer service is fantastic and, in my experience, Epson's was really bad. My Epson was facing a second print head replacement (not an inexpensive part) and it took three days before I got a return call from an Epson service technician before I could even schedule the service. That was enough to change to Canon printers. And on the few occasions that I've had to call Canon, I've been able to get connected with a knowledgeable technician within a couple minutes.
There have been bad reviews (on a competitor's website), of unsolvable problems with Canon's latest pigment ink medium format printer (imagePROGRAF PRO-1100 Professional 17") — especially with customer-support run-arounds.
I really want a pigment ink printer, but the problems users have reported have made me gun-shy. I won't even consider an Epson.
Interesting... I haven't been in the market for a printer for a few years so I hadn't looked at any reviews lately, but took a look this evening and found the issues related to the 1100 concerning. There are always the occasional lemons, but the banding issues I've read about seem pretty widespread. I'd be hesitant to buy one too.
I tend to buy my printers toward the tail end of a production cycle, or at least after a model has been on the market for a couple years. There's invariably a good deal on price just before a new model is released, and rarely does a new printer upgrade offer anything revolutionary.
Thanks for sharing here your experience.
How can you trust a company when you can't even remember the entire name of your own camera? How did they come up with such names as Canon EOS-1D X Mark III? Couldn't it just be a Canon 1D? Seriously, I've never owned a Canon camera and have no desire to own one... not that I feel my Nikon is any better or worse than a Canon. In my opinion, the major brands are mostly all the same. Whatever works for you is the best one to own. However, I do really like Canon inkjet printers. I own a Canon imagePROGRAF Pro-4100. But if someone asks what printer I like, I just say a 44" Canon printer because I can't remember the rest.
Your intro made me laugh...not kidding with you, you are right...names of cameras are crazy sometimes. But not only Canon doing that.
Then add on that the cameras often have different names depending on the region of the world! Like my first Canon, the Rebel T6, is sold in most of the rest of the world as the 1300D. I think it's a Kiss something in Japan. Go figure.
Yes!
For me, a very timely article. On my dining table tonight is a box ready to be sent to a camera buyer tomorrow that includes a Canon mirrorless camera and five "L" lenses. My history with Canon goes back over 50 years when I began my photograpahy journey over 50 years ago. My first SLR was a Canon EF and I shot rolls and rolls of film while doing my own developing in a spare bedroom turned into a homebrew darkroom. Since then the technology changed and I moved with it all the way up to the mirrorless phase. I felt and enjoyed being part of the Canon family. But two years ago, I began sensing that Canon, due to whatever reason, saw the revenue value that hybrid cameras that produced video was going to be their emphasis (or future?), and that stills photography technology and image quality I cherish was put on the backburner. Today it seems even worse, where even their proprietary mount lenses (with no 3rd paty option) appear to me made mostly for videographers. I just feel Canon no longer cares about the photography I know. It's about video codecs, frames per secound, and readout speed. I have no issue with advances in technology, I just don't feel Canon and I are on the same plane on photography. I know many will think or say I don't have a clue what I'm talking about, but the feeling I have is genuine and looking forward after all these years to explore something new.
It is your experience and it needs to be respected. There are points in your comments that I agree with. I also consider it a mistake to prohibit the use of third-party lenses.
Using AI to write this article is not cool either.
What makes you think the article was generated by AI?
I'm curious because I've asked the question before to other people about telltale signs of AI, but can't get any answers other than what Google Gemini AI tells me about itself.
From my research, AI does not write from its own experience since it has no personal experience. It can only pull together text from other sources. On the other hand, the author here, Alex, cited many of his own cameras and his own personal feelings about them. That doesn't sound like a machine to me.
Also, the writing style here of one word or one sentence paragraphs is highly unusual. It places emphasis and is a style that Alex has used before. In fact, I recall one commenter criticizing that style. I don't think AI would write that way.
And finally, AI writing and imaging is generally recognized as perfect, whereas human writing is often imperfect. Anyway, that's my take on your comment. I'd still like to know what makes you think it's an AI generated article.
Maybe he is the same commenter. It is funny because when I aksed him the same they dude used AI to "discover" that is a text written with AI. I don't write articles with AI. I am a writer. And exactly as a photographer, writer and human being I am mostly against AI, so I think is funny to receive similar allegations. Also funny is that everytime I am attacked to do that, is any anonymous account that appears to be a troll, hater or crap like that.
Please don't get angry with me for circling back around to this subject, but if you are as sincerely interested in writing as you are photography, then I think my comment here should be of interest to you. Photographers are naturally curious as to whether the images they see are human or AI generated... it follows that writing would also be questioned. I don't think that's an insult. It's a search for authenticity, exactly like photography. And when someone perceives something "fishy" about a person's writing or photography, it raises questions. The questions may be off-topic to you, but they're reasonable questions directed at anyone who works in a public forum.
Which brings me to my impressions of your writing:
There's a curious difference in style between your articles and your comments. Your grammar's syntax is frequently wrong in your comments, but never wrong in your articles. In your preceding comment here, you wrote: "... so I think is funny to receive similar allegations." And: "... everytime I am attacked to do that..."
The structure of your comments often places words in the wrong order (a common symptom of people who are writing in English as a second language), but correctly in your articles. In other words, nobody would ever guess your articles are written as a second language, but your comments read that way. That, respectfully, makes it appear your articles are edited by someone or something in order to get to a more polished state, or assisted by AI perhaps. Nothing wrong with that... I'm sure professional writers use spelling and grammar checkers all the time, or employ copy editors to fix technical issues with their writing. Doesn't make the writing dishonest.
It does raise the question, however, of whether the writer/photographer uses Generative AI (to create something from nothing) or Assistant AI (to clean up the details) in order to get to the finished product. The dividing line is not always obvious. A technically polished article makes the reader suspicious. You've said yourself that imperfections make a photo more human, but the text in your articles is generally flawless.
Your article frequently uses present-participles (words ending in "ing") which creates a more natural flow of words, but your comments do not. In the above example, a better way to write those sentences would have been:
Every time I am attacked for doing that ....
Receiving similar allegations is funny....
It is an anonymous account....
I understand that this subject is far from your desire to simply discuss photography; however, it's reasonably natural for your audience to question the role of AI in your writing, as well as photography, or anywhere else that you're presenting your work as a creative. Unfortunately, it's the world we live in. Honesty and integrity are at the front lines of all communication. I think it's better to respond graciously than lashing out at those who challenge our work. After all, AI is here to stay and it will undoubtedly be a part of the conversation, regardless of the subject of your articles and images. It's simply the latest iteration of: "Did you photoshop that picture?
The difference is because in the comments, especially when attacked I reply quickly and maybe a little bit offended. The editing yes, is made through instruments, like google translator. This is because English is only my third language. My writing is based on notes I have on my notebooks (computer and moleskine) that I write first time in Italian language, my mother tongue. I think is an absurd to receive this kind of accusation because I am against AI. My position with AI is: where I can sign in order to delete it from the world? So, basically, I don't get it. I think is also funny that most of those accusing me are: 1. fake/anonymous accounts or 2. photographers with the aesthetic of their photos that look AI generated images.
I don't understand why you despise AI so much. I realize the ideas presented in your articles are yours and yours alone. Nobody likes having their thoughts and ideas discredited as a copy. That used to be called plagiarism. That's not what I'm talking about.
But your use of Google Translator is driven by continuously improving AI technology. And that seems like a good thing. It would allow me to travel to Italy and communicate in a way that would never have been possible years ago. Google AI attempts to faithfully translate text from one language to another, including idioms, cultural differences, and looking at entire sentences instead of a word-by-word literal translation. As I write this comment on my phone, AI is suggesting the next word. I can ignore it, but it might help people with limited vocabulary construct a better sentence. AI basically allows you to write an excellent, grammatically correct article in your non-native language. It's not creating an original thought, as in the fashion of Generative AI, but it's a valuable AI assistant.
As far as photography and AI generative imaging is concerned, I think that's great too. It's not my cup of tea, but just like your articles, it gives some people the tools to make a certain style of image that would have been prohibitively difficult before. People claim it's not photography, and that's fine. Call it whatever you wish, but AI solves a lot of problems in the commercial photography and graphic design businesses.
Because I am a boomer...maybe because I was born in 1975 and really I can't accept the era we are living. I feel it fake. And from that I think is an insult the allegations of certain trolls here. I am pretty sure they use AI more than I do. But I get your speech that google translator is fed by AI tech.
I am not even a dinosaur, but if you ask me I would like to back to 70s. That's me and I don't pretend other share my vision of life.
I work still with a 1961 rangefinder. I mostly work manual exposure with my outdated cameras. It is not a pose mine, it is what it is, it is just me.
When AI appeared I reported the big social issue that this event would generate: I am referring especally to what right now all we have seen, with peope not able to say what is AI and what is not, not referring only to these stupid accusations here, but most of all with videos and images, even with serious international political facts. We have seen it with war and propaganda. It is risky, it is dangerous. Yes, of course, there are good applications for AI, but are we sure that we are better now? I don't know, I am not sure.
I want to add a personal reflection to this. Now I realize I made a mistake: participating in the comments section under my articles. I did it with the intention of building a dialogue with the audience, but for the future I'll be like other colleagues who only write articles and don't respond to comments.
Interesting, Alex! I, too, look at the world around me and wonder whether we're better off now than when I was a kid, and since I was born in 1954, that makes me 21 years older than you. There are many things of the good old days that I'm happy to forget. We had no air-conditioning in homes or cars when I was little. My wife's family in rural North Carolina did not have indoor plumbing in the early 1950s. The 1960s were a really turbulent time with rebellion against the establishment, and that nuisance called the Vietnam War. The 1970s seemed to settle down. I started my working career in 1976 as a salesman in the commercial printing industry. Yes, it was a simpler time. No internet, no social media, no school shootings. I loved sports growing up, and collegiate and professional sports had not yet been totally corrupted by money. I miss that a lot.
For the better part of my 50-year career, I embraced new technology. After all, I had to write my school reports on a manual typewriter, which I was really bad at. Calculators didn't exist either. Computer technology as it progressed through the 1980s was really exciting. It opened up so many doors for my work. I doubt that I'd have ever become a serious photographer without digital camera technology. I absolutely love having my own inkjet printer so I can see the fruits of my labor in a matter of minutes rather than days or weeks.
So I'd say there are tradeoffs. I suppose I'm better off in some ways and not others. Aging itself brings advantages and disadvantages. Depends on how you look at it. But all the wishing in the world won't bring all the things we like back from the 70s, or stop the world from moving forward. There are still plenty of things to look forward to. I try to look at technology with an open mind, fiddle with AI enough to get a little first-hand experience, but careful not to let it control my work or make me miserable. I hope you continue to write comments. I didn't join Fstoppers just to watch video tutorials and read lectures. Like yourself, I desire having a discussion, and that involves subjects and comments which veer off course, or challenge some of our thoughts.
By being the X generation, I am just in the middle between the analog era and the fascination for the technology. My childhood was spent when the NASA was really an exciting thing (the space shuttle), there was Spielberg in action with ET and THE SHARK, the best Stephen King and the horror movies made with rudimental stuff and real handcraft, AOR and Westcoast Rock, Charlies Angels, TJ Hooker, The Chips, The Hazzard. I was just a kid, giving kicks to a balloon on the streets. Rome was a wonderful city to live. Women were beautiful and with a style that I miss in this era. Yes, we were not out of issues: Italy in the 70s experienced terrorism, the heroin diffusion, in the 80s it started the Mafia war in Sicily. It was easy and difficult. 80s in Italy was rich for many, cool parties, a vibrant sensation everything was possible, we did have the best football keague in the world. But I realize exactly those times they were making the future very bad in many aspects. I am not against technology: I am against that technology can control our living. I am against a dystopic era where people are super controlled and increasingly deprived of freedoms and fundamental rights. I am against the wars and the monsters feeding the dogs of war. I shared the last events with the commentary here: I was invited to keep to reply to the comments and I will do, but only with people looking for healthy and constructive discussions like the ones with you. I will no longer enter into discussions with those who clearly only want to stir up controversy and destroy.
Good plan going forward. For what it's worth, I occasionally ask my customers what they think about AI. I work with a lot of interior designers who are in their 20s and 30s, and if anyone would be receptive to the concept, you'd think it would be them. I got off the phone yesterday with a young woman who said emphatically, even more so than you, that she hates AI. It might be less of a generational thing than we think. Some have told me they hope AI is a passing fad. I sense there's a lot of fear among young people that their jobs are at risk of being replaced by AI.
Oh, I am pretty sure that is a trasversal feeling and not regarding only our mature age. I think AI can exist through rules. A sort of code of ethics, my fear is that we know, rules are made and then broken. It is an interesting discussion that opens to ethics and other social issues. In any case I am glad I experienced to live the 80s and 90s.
Unfortunately, the rules are not made by young female interior designers in their 20s and 30s. Laws are made by greedy old men who are more focused on political ideology than what could be decided in behalf of public good. I just hope the world survives the idiots who are in charge of making the rules. Unfortunately, money and power are the deciding factor which determine the rules... as the planet goes down the toilet.
I really appreciate the contrast here, between the young female designer and...the scrooge. And I like to see we share the same idea about the planet going to toilet or hell... when monsters are ruling is quite easy to go in that direction...the human being is able to create wonderful things and also the worst things.
What stood out to me was: Inconsistent paragraph lengths (or unnecessary line breaks), “not X, but/just Y” or the inverse, lots of “And honestly? XYZ.”. The general cadence feels AI-influenced too.
Inconsistent paragraph lengths read a lot more human than AI generated, in my opinion. More importantly, is it possible for AI to write from such personal experience as these following sentences draw from? In other words, can AI get inside the mind of the author to say these things about himself?
I use a battered....
I've reached the age....
And I love that....
I respect that more than....
I shoot JPEG because I prefer....
I'm thinking about life unfolding....
I stopped searching....
I understand them instinctively....
These thoughts are uniquely personal to the author. I can't imagine a machine replicating them, but maybe AI is getting a lot more intuitive. Personally, I've not tried it myself. But I do have impressions about Alex's writing style that I highlighted above.
I given above an explanation. Of course I use google translator for the most of texts I propose here. If they want to believe I am using AI, when is pretty clear that I am saying things absolutely personal and that the most of photographers out of here don't share or even don't respect, let them talk...also because I repeat...most of the time they are fake/trolls. Or photographers with an AI generated image aesthetics (AI copied from them, AI doesn''t copy generally Koudelka). I would highlight that all the articles on fstoppers are checked and edited before the publication by the editors. So are they wrong too?
I'm not saying that anything is wrong. I'm merely thinking about the role AI plays in writing and photography. And wondering why writers get so defensive when the subject comes up.
I have no idea what Fstoppers editorial policy is regarding AI. Alex Cooke has been accused of publishing AI generated articles, and it seems to make him really angry too, so it's not just something that affects yourself. It just happens to be on the minds of a lot of people... more than just trolls and fake accounts. As I said, wrestling with AI comes with the territory of publishing in a public forum.
It's a hot topic in photography, music, television, movies, literature, copyrights, sports, medicine, and about all applications impacting science and math. AI will be everywhere so I think it's better to have the conversation than not.
Don't get me wrong, I get your speech but when I read: "AI will be everywhere" still there is a big part of me doesn't want to accept it. i know that this is the reality and it will not change because of me.
I can't speak for Alex Cooke, but i am a writer since...before to start with photography and to me is still writing with a pen and on paper, justr after that I reverse it on my computer, so to read those allegations, yes, it is quite offensive. Not for the AI but more for the try to put down my writing, my style and my way to think and sharing. It is a huge work I do every single day, taking time to my family, and then it arrives a comment sent with confidence and superficiality. I am sorry I can't accept it and I will fight always against that.
It is not AI, troll. It is just me writing as you can't.
Yet it's an Industar 61 mounted on that Canon 7 :)
And? I found in a local market selling used gear, with this combination. I am not any kind of ambassador endorsing a brand.
I've been a Canon user for the past 26 years, and like all things, and all camera brands, there have been both "ups" & "downs, so to me that article is simply nostalgic nonsense that any user of any brand might utter if so inclined....
While it may be true that most brands go through periods of ups and downs just like the weather, and reflecting on the good ol' days may seem like a dumb waste of time to some people... I would not label it as nostalgic nonsense.
"Nostalgia is a file that removes rough edges from the good old days." -- Doug Larson.
The older you get, the more years you have naturally to notice these sort of things. Changes and upheavals of all sorts can be hard to interpret as good or bad for each of us. Technology especially has the capacity to question our values since it impacts how and why we live so much of our lives.
I don't own Canon cameras, but the article made me think about the author's values, and the evolution of Apple and Adobe, two brands that I was loyal to for decades, but now not so much. It's hard when you wake up one day and the structure you had in your life for so long no longer exists. Cameras are just the tip of the proverbial iceberg.
Been a canon shooter since the 90s and still see no valid arguments for going elsewhere, and when I do I will move on, but for now I'm still shooting canon
Thanks for your comment!
I want to like Canon and, in fact, I have a bunch of Canon kit laying around. Also, I'll die on the hill that the Canon EF mount is the single most important lens mount in digital photography, hands down, the end.
But...
1. Canon has a history of anti-consumer moves. Even 25 years ago when I got serious about photography Canon would do things to make 3rd party (and their own!) flashes underperformed. The number of small, manual flashes I own that won't work on Canon G cameras or only work on some Canon G cameras. Stopping third parties from making lenses. All of that left a bad taste in my mouth.
2. I'm not sure if it's the case for the current Canon cameras but, I like to compose on black and white and almost every, contemporary, serious compact let me shoot B&W jpeg + RAW. Since pretty much every other, EDC camera let's me do this my non-film, Canon use just kind of died.
On the first point you are right. In this sense Nikon is superior. The second point: it is possible to make RAW + jpg in the most of cameras, Canon included.
Not Raw + JPEG, Black and White JPEG + Raw, specifically.
I like composing in Black and white. Almost every, non-Canon camera I own lets me set the jpegs to B&W and also shoot Raw + JPEG. This allows me to compose in B&W. None of my Canons allow that. I can only compose/shoot color in Raw + JPEG.
Since all other cameras let me shoot how I prefer to shoot and there really are no *bad* cameras in the space that I tend to buy cameras, Canon doesn't provide enough upside to make me switch back.
Although I 100% understand why someone would love them, that limitation stops them from being my main squeeze.
Yes it is possible
Got to admit I never thought about any brand as being cool, uncool, or anything like that. They're just tools, nothing more.
I was thinking that use of the word cool in today's conversation might be uncool. After all, I think it was my generation of baby boomers that popularized the word cool, which means kids today wouldn't dare use the same expressions as their parents and grandparents, or they'd definitely be ridiculed as uncool. Can you dig it?
Yes, I can dig it, but only if it's groovy or far out.
I'm Gen X, and we still use "cool" pretty regularly. The younger folks seem to be using "sick" to express similar sentiments.
Of course, this is just a blog post and I need to stay in certain dynamics.
Very true. I shoot birds with OM System. My regular shooting partner uses a Canon APS-C. Another guy I sometimes shoot with likes his Nikon Z8. I've run into other OM shooters, and I've seen people using Nikon DSLRs and Sony gear. We're all doing the same thing, and our conversations are maybe 5-10% gear, and only if it's relevant to the topic at hand. We sure don't debate or argue about gear.
I'm happy with my equipment, and as far as I can tell, the other shooters I know are happy with theirs.
I think people over complicate the whole brand and image feel thing. A quarter century ago I choose Canon as my first SLR (analogue still) because of their at the time superior lens motors over Nikon (fast and silent AF). I stayed with Sony with their EOS 5d for the same lenses, but when Sony came with the A7 I did not have more patients because I wanted a full frame mirrorless.
Sometimes choices are simple as that.
I would have liked the Sony to have a Fuji look and handling, and for sure find Sony menu's pretty terrible, but still prefer the design over the imo bulky Canons.