The Good and Bad of Canon Cameras

Canon cameras are some of the most popular out there, but just like every other brand, they are not perfect. How do they compare to other options? This excellent video discusses the good and bad of Canon cameras.

Coming to you from Manny Ortiz, this great video discusses the good and bad bits of Canon cameras. For me, the best thing about Canon cameras (and arguably, the worst) has nothing to do with the cameras. It is actually the lenses. I have thought about switching camera systems several times and even used Sony cameras with adapters for a few years, but I always came back to Canon simply because there are certain lenses that I could not live without. On the other hand, lenses are arguably the biggest downside of the Canon ecosystem at the moment. While Canon's RF lenses are generally quite impressive, they are also very expensive. Meanwhile, the company has essentially disallowed all third-party autofocus lenses, forcing users to either buy those RF lenses or use adapted DSLR lenses. And given how third-party lenses have exploded over the last few years, that is a real shame for a lot of users. Hopefully, we will see them license the RF mount eventually. Check out the video above for Ortiz' full thoughts. 

Alex Cooke's picture

Alex Cooke is a Cleveland-based portrait, events, and landscape photographer. He holds an M.S. in Applied Mathematics and a doctorate in Music Composition. He is also an avid equestrian.

Log in or register to post comments

I have never read such a useless article, with false and inaccurate information. Sign of a person with very little experience. Leaving aside the quality of the latest L-series RF optics, which remains undisputed, in the last 15 years, if not more, Canon EF L-series optics have set the pace for other brands. The legendary white zooms much used by professionals in sports and reportage up to wide-angle zooms and fixed. We also add that many EF lenses used with R adapter ring on R5 and R6 have improved the yield even more. Please change jobs.

Manny is just an average photographer who takes simple images of good looking people and happens to have a Youtube channel. As you say, he has very little experience but he gets the views from equally inexperienced people watching his videos thinking his someone who knows what his doing. Watch his Nikon one, it's comedy how much he believes his own crap. If it makes him money though at least his happy :)

Wow! So much rant... Show us what you have shot so far dude...

Feel free to look at the UFC, Bellator, Redbull, Monster, PFL websites and you'll see plenty. Also, not ranting just facts, the guy is average playing the Youtube crowd and nothing wrong with it, but, call it as it is. I'm a cunt I know but that's why I never use social media because I just take the piss constantly!

Under which name?

He may be an average photographer, but he has a far-above-average subject / slash / wife. I think we all understand why he gets the clicks. I laugh at the outrage but then the thumbnail is a joke just to piss off people like in this comment thread.

No pissing off. When I read bullshit, I point out how many bullshit useless people are on the net. It amuses me.

Are you talking about the video that Many did or the intro article that Alex wrote ?

Add to that the holding his camera at arms length, real amateur.

Well, I would have to agree with a lot of what you said, other than the fact that he doesn't have lots of experience. He actually has quite a bit of experience, but like a lot of Youtubers who have big audiences and get gear sent to them for free or to use for free and who also are ambassadors of other brands, they tend to rant about things they either like or don't like and they have their biases (like most of us), however, sadly a lot of people take them at their word b/c they either like their work and/or shoot the same brand and need "justification" for their gear choices. That's me 2 cents on this.

Yeah, that's why most of us right away discredit most YouTubers who post videos on regular basis.

I wouldn't say I immediately discredit them, but take it with a grain of salt, particularly if I have my own experience with said product or topic. I think most of them try to give an unbiased opinion, but when they make outrageous claims that you just know aren't true, then I pretty much discredit them and move on.

This is how you put it nicely, I’ll go back to being offline for half a year instead of sounding like a dick ha!


Sure Reginald, I've seen many people enter a shop with bags full of sony and nikon equipment to buy back the canon MLs. The important thing is that the money moves.

So much angst. Penis envy perhaps?

You claim he's an average photog. Well, what's wrong with that? Average = competent in must professions, so no problem with that. If he was providing "how-to" videos then average might be a problem, but his videos are gear focus, and he knows his gear. Not only does he know gear, but he is an excellent communicator who provides images that support his points. I for one find his commentary spot on in most situations. I don't agree with his analysis 100%, but I do appreciate his explanations for his positions. I shoot both Canon and Nikon. Nikon is my choice for wildlife due to their excellent and unmatched long primes. Yet, I find that I gravitate back to Canon for most other shooting. I'm not missing any lenses that I need/want, so I don't find Canon's RF lockdown problematic for my shooting. I don't need RF glass for all my shooting, so the combination of RF and EF lenses works for me. However, it may matter to others. Canon has rolled the dice and is betting that its compelling bodies--I agree that the R5 is the best all-around camera under $4000 and the R7 may be the best APS-C body--can overcome any deficiency on the lens front.

So... I didn't watch this silly thing... But please, someone correct me: the lens in the thumbnail is a Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM... The first generation...

And the minimum focal distance on that lens is 98"... So... Just on the very basic premise he stages a picture of him not actually using the lens?? Yeah I get it. It's a look... But c'mon.

Hey, I've got a kicker of an idea for a YouTube video: Ford or Chevy, which is better?? *Sigh*

The one in the thumbnail has a shorter body. I think it's the 200 f2.

Yeah, it's the 200mm f/2.

So... The MFD is ~1800mm... So... Yeah he's just vamping for the thumbnail... 😝😝😝

But yes. Thanks for lending your eagle eyes to the answer. I feel validated🌻

So basically, the only disadvantage he could imagine is Canon's "closed" RF mount. Which isn't even that closed, there are third party manual RF lenses and a lot of EF lens options to adapt. Which together gives you the largest pool of lenses, you can currently choose from, some quite a bit cheaper than what you gotta pay for if you have a Sony.