10 Reasons I Chose Canon: Even When the Internet Thinks It’s “Not Cool” Anymore

Fstoppers Original
Photographer's hands holding a vintage rangefinder camera in bright sunlight

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.

Collection of vintage film cameras and accessories arranged on wood surface

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.

 

 

Alex Coghe is an Italian editorial and documentary photographer based in Mexico City. His work explores contemporary life, culture, and human presence through documentary photography and portraiture. His images have appeared in international publications, reflecting an approach centered on authenticity, atmosphere, and visual storytelling. Alongside his photographic work, he also leads workshops and masterclasses focused on photographic narrative and observation.

Related Articles

64 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.

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.

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

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.

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.

Your right. Forget brand image. The question is does it work for you? I can remember buying a Pentax 6x7 for medium format work (loved that camera) and Hasselblad people would look down their nose at me. Quite frankly I didn’t give a shit it was great for what I was doing and if I needed a high speed sync I could rent one and save the cash.

That always has been and always will be a thing with some people... the snub continues with folks who believe there's no way an ancient DSLR such as my Nikon D800 from 2013 can possibly make as good of a photo as their modern mirrorless camera.

Of course it can. I can't really say the quality went up through the years (apart form things like iso etc.). The thing is that some features did matter for me to make a jump to a new system. I care for size, weight, af quality, ease of use of the electronic finder. These were some things that made me decide what camera to buy or change a system even. Brands I hardly care for.

My DSLRs are all Nikon. My mirrorless camera is Canon.

I don’t think anyone needs to justify their camera choices to anyone else. I just hope we can get to a point where people stop overly obsessing about gear and use whatever they feel most comfortable using. I, for example use Sony cameras. Not because of some false perception they are the best but because it makes economical sense for me to use a system where I already have lenses, batteries and a charger instead of buying into another system from scratch that won’t guarantee any better experience than I’m already getting. At the end of the day I find it’s about getting out there as often as possible to practice and improve my photography rather than get bogged down with the camera system I’ve chosen to use.

As a writer here, I need to make a balancement of the proposal between these articles and the others where I try something more cultural and going towards the visual and the philosophical in photography. If you ask me or you talk with me in person I really hate talking about gear because I am more focused on photography that is not at all about gear. Maybe with time writing here I will post only about the visual, but you know what? Always the same problem: the views are generated if we put Leica, Canon or any other brand in the title.

Gear does unfortunately generate much more clicks but it is it’s sad people are forced into titles mentioning camera brands or other clickbait titles just for traction. Same as people posting photos following trends on Instagram just for likes and comments. No idea how we can get more thoughtful debate on social media beyond the gear talk.

EDIT: It could be those more interested in the photography than the gear are spending their time out taking photos rather than spending (wasting) their time commenting on social media.

I've been wondering a lot lately whether I'm spending time here in Fstoppers for some good reason, or just wasting time here.

I am suprised of the controversy going on because I don't think being paid is the problem. Writers should (always) be paid for their work, just like photographers (always) should be paid for taking pictures. The real issue is that publications survive on readership, and gear articles consistently attract a much larger audience than essays about the philosophy or culture of photography. That's simply the economics of online publishing. In my articles that are not simple gear talk but conversations also with a philosophical and onthologic approach I try to make a mix in order to have more people reading and immerging them in something different because I am not just talking about gear: the poin is get it.

Ironically, some of the articles I've enjoyed writing the most, the ones about creativity, documentary work, or why photography matters, have also been among the least read. I still write them because I believe they deserve to exist, but it's hard to ignore what readers consistently choose to click on.

And yes, I think your edit is probably true as well. The people who are most invested in making photographs are often out shooting instead of arguing online about cameras. If you ask me: I shoot every single day.

I don't think an article such as this indicates an obsession with gear, or demands that anyone justify their particular choices. And one article isn't going to compel me to throw all my gear in the river and start over with a different brand. However, it is interesting to me how other photographers use their camera's features for their own purposes. Which always goes back to gear. Besides, Alex is right... articles about gear always stimulate the most comments. It's an easy subject to respond to because how you make a picture is easier to articulate than why you make a picture.

I take it as a challenge here. I want to give more rooms to visual culture topics and onthology of photography in order to elevate the discussions. The fact is that the reviews are paid more also on fstoppers. But I like to think we can go further in other directions. Do you think that can be interesting to do?

Interesting... yes. But best approached with an invitation rather than declaration. Putting labels on something or drawing preconceived conclusions about someone for the way they interpret photography sets up the discussion as a battle zone and defeats the purpose of the article. Saying that one thing (visual culture) is greater or better than another thing (technical detail) alienates a portion of your readers. Stating that my technically perfect images are cold and your imperfect images are emotionally warm triggers a defensive oriented attack and counterattack. What's the point in that?

Consider elevating the value of one idea without insulting another idea. Both may be valid. Avoid using comparisons such as best, better or greater. The key in my opinion for articles which explore the human mind instead of gear is to write it in a way that asks questions and invites thinking instead of outright criticizing those whose position you've already decided are wrong or inferior. We're dealing with thoughts here, not camera specifications, so it's important to not close the door on other opinions. You've already decided storytelling and emotional impact are far more important than sharpness and detail, so how can the conversation progress without just one side bludgeoning the other with redundant arguments? I enjoy your articles, but would like to see something which at least gives the illusion that one side is interested in listening to the other.

Thanks for your feedback. I admit it is a scheme, responding to internet dynamics. When I write here, I need to respond to some SEO. There is the need to make as more as possible visits. Not saying that I am aiming the clickbait post, but it needs that. I am sure that in person you will not see all these angles in me. In fact I am not a photographer talking about cameras most of the time. But here, is a world apart...no? But...as I said, I consider important your feedback for the future.

Writing in a particular style that is not sincere or genuine in order to satisfy SEO dynamics or get more visits is kind of like making photos that fit popular trends in order to get more social media likes.

They are not things I am not believing. I believe everything I write, but also there is the hyperbole, the sarcasm, sometimes, the irony, and a narrative style that helps. I am not looking for social media likes, but I am paid for my articles here, and the articles need to make views to earn money. In the other conversation I explain that we are in total misunderstanding because I am talking always as a documentary photographer and not about èphotography in general.

I think between this and the Leica not being about the cameras article, I think there's just a lot of overthinking about brands. Leicas are nice because how many other camera brands will even try to service something from 20 years ago, let alone 50, Canon may have great support for professionals as an advantage.Anything else about whether they're cool or whether a company exists floating on a cloud of exclusivity is kind of ethereal to me.

I've got Nikon, Panasonic, and Olympus gear at the minute thanks to some well timed acquisitions. I've had Sony and Pentax cameras before. They're all excellent. I've never met a camera that can't get me a good photo. I'd love (eventually) to have one of every mount and brand to choose from so I can see what I enjoy using most for what.

I'm sure if I was in a high pressure industry then the Canon would probably have been where I put my money. But if it was creativity-based (e.g. abstract art), who knows, I'm easily affected by what I'm using so maybe the Leica would feel better for that (assuming I could afford one) or a retro feeling Fuji or Zf!

I think there's too much emphasis on pitting brands against each other. Probably because society has been encouraged to be divisive for so long in the West. Systems and companies can compliment each other better than they oppose each other!

You can be surprised but I agree with you on this. Al, the speech about brands and being a brand ambassador or even worse, a fan boy is sad and typical of these times. So why I do articles like that? I am a writer here, and I am paid for this. This is not an excuse but I am trying to share some articles where I post about visual culture, or like an upcoming piece dedicated to Michelangelo Antonioni and his Blow Up movie and yet that kind of articles don't make the pageviews of articles where there is a camera brand in the title. I try to balance the proposal, and maybe we can change this state of things. Thanks for your comment here.