Why Canon?

[obakesan]

My first SLR was an OM-1 I was a student and could only afford that (with a 50 and 80-200 lens). All the professional photographers around me were using Nikon and a friend had a very nice new FM2 which I very much liked. There were definitely times when I could not easily see the the match needle to set exposure.

 

As time drew on I moved over to a Pentax MX and had opportunity to use the companies Minolta X-700

 

I added a Chinon CE-4 body to my set for various reasons but stayed mainly Pentax while looking at the alternatives available.

 

Nikon: I loved the look and the operations, but the smaller lighter bodies from the OM-1 and had sold me on that front.

 

Canon: I'd handled a few of the earlier bodies (FD mount)and while I liked the mount on the body wasn't really keen the lens side (way too easy to get grit in there). Then EOS came out and I liked this idea more.

 

The crunch came for me when I was working on an a contract and my Chinon camera body failed. I bought a Canon EOS 630 and some lenses to do the job while the service company dicked about with the body (I didn't want to piss off my client so I just used it as an excuse to try something new and wore it).

 

This particular job was a public relations gig with lots of people in groups and general conference stuff. The AF system of the EOS was a little distracting to use (center focal point only) but when it worked was fantastic!

 

I was further sold when the camera had a little failure and Canon gave me a replacement body while mine was being fixed. Meanwhile my Chinon was still sitting in the workshop waiting for parts.

 

So in the end it wasn't just that I liked the camera, it was the service support they provided. The Nikon presence in my city at that time wasn't as good.

[kfeige]

33 years ago my classmate Thomas was the first one to buy a Canon FTb, and so did his friends. If Thomas had had an Asahi Pentax at that time, I would probably be reading the Pentax Forum...now seriously, there are of course many possible reasons, marketing eg. I am living in Poland now, and it seems to me that far more people (no tourists but locals) use Nikon, and also in the shops there seem to be more Nikon and Sony than Canon.

I still have 4 FD bodies which work fine and which I use every now and then, but I switched to Nikon DSLR some years ago. I was just curious.

And they did not disappoint me!

[lilserenity]

Personal recommendation and explanation of the EOS system mainly.

 

I could have quite easily have gone with either Nikon, Canon, Olympus, Pentax, Minolta (as they were) etc. but after a recommendation on the EOS 5 (the A2/A2E in the US) and loving it when I got it, I had no reason to change. I have stuck with Canon for SLRs, as my EOS 5 broke last Christmas and whilst I was gutted, it did spur me on to get an EOS 3 which is a profoundly excellent camera to work with, if a bit heavy. I'll stick with the EOS 3 until it dies, and I'll probably get hold of another EOS 3 for backup. The 1v is too heavy for my needs and does nothing that I find compelling to improve what I do with the 3. This is the same reason as I have absolutely no reasons to look at something like a Nikon F100, it won't make a difference.

 

I have other cameras (Olympus XA, Trip 35 and Mamiya C330 TLR system and soon a Voigtlander Bessa R3a) so I'm not alergic to other brands, I just use what I like in that respect. To me my Canon equipped with a telephoto e.g. 70-200 f/4L is excellent kit to work with and great for portraiture. Going to another system wouldn't make me think "Oh my goodness my photos are at least five times better!" -- they would be as good I am sure of that as they are now.

 

So really it's not about I thought it was best, it was a case of I was told it was good, I agreed but not to the detriment of other systems and built up a small system that would be a bit silly to change.

[ulrich_brandl]

History: When I bought my first DSLR Canon was way better in noise performance than any competitor. My

Olympus OM film equipment was obsolete including the lens mount, so I had to buy a new system from scratch.

 

Now: I still would go with Canon. Currently Nikon has very good camera bodies but the cost of a whole system is

significantly higher. Most Nikon lenses are more expensive than comparable Canon lenses without offering better

performance. Pentax has a nice body (K20D), but besides some very good (and expensive) prime lenses, the current

Pentax lens lineup is far behind Canon's. I haven't looked close enough to Sony and the Four Thirds system, so I

can't say anything about that.

 

All in all I feel quite comfortable with the Canon system. Even if one or the other manufacturer has added an

attractive feature to the camera body or may be an attractive lens missing in Canon's (large) lineup, this does not

justify the cost and the learning curve implied by a system change.

[lester_wareham]

I had a Canon FD film system, however I was pissed was Canon for abandoning FD and moving to the EF mount that I was thinking Nikon. (I got most of by FD system around 1980, so it had a fairly short mainstream life)

 

However, on investigation I found that the famed Nikon backwards compatibility was not so straight forward as Nikon present it. Also I found the Nikon range of lenses difficult to understand in terms of functionality and quality.

 

Finally I realised that Canon had it right with the EF mount and this was an excellent engineering solution; I came to realise what a brave and bold maket decission it was for Canon to abandon FD. Also Canon had a clear lead in the Imaging sensor technology. They had a fairly clear lens line up that was relatively easy to understand.

 

Thus I stayed with Canon.

[antoniodacruz]

Growing up I always wondered why all the photographers on the side of the football field, olympic field, race track, pool , etc, used those enormous white lenses. Now I know ! It's all about those lenses. Like motor cars the top camera manufacturers all produce great bodies. Insignificant differences. Stop bitching about the kit and go take some pictures.

[dougolupski]

I started with a Canon F1 and loved so I figured stay with the same brand. Also at the time I went digital Canon had hands down the best sports shooting setup around. Now times are changing and Nikon once again has alot to offer the sports photographer. 1D MKII and a 300 f2.8, oh yeah........

[nathancraver]

I used to own a Nikon D200, I traded it in on a Mamiya 645 AFD II, I loved my D200, but I started loving medium format

film even more. Now I am thinking of getting a new digital SLR. It is a hard choice between Canon and Nikon. They both

make some fantastic cameras. I will have to give Canon credit because pretty much every camera the make is worth every

dime (including point and shoot). Nikon's point and shoots, in my opinion are not quite as good, but their DSLRs are

excellent. I have to give Nikon credit for lens compatibility. All in all, they both have advantages and disadvantages, but I

wouldn't think twice about either one. It more boils down to which one do you feel more comfortable shooting. Which one

feels more like an extension of yourself and does not get in the way of making good shots. The camera does not make the

photographer, a good camera just makes it easier for a photographer to achieve their goals with little interruption.

[matthijs]

When I was young (between 7 and 9 I'd guess) the father of a friend of mine bought a Canon A1. It had a magical

attraction to me. That father was a very serious -though sometimes equipped with a dry humor- man that seemed

wise and proficient in anything he did. He was no true professor but had that certain highbrowed absentmindedness

of one.

 

When I made some money (around 21 I'd guess) I bought a Canon EOS 650 based upon those memories.

 

Two years ago I bought a 400D after 18 years of using my 650 which always performed well for me. (And because of

lens compatibility but the 35-70 isn't that good and the Sigma 70-210 doesn't work on my 400D...)

 

So let's summarize at "for sentimental reasons".

 

Matthijs.

[irmeon]

My wife and I had a D70 and D50 respectively, untill, living in South Africa suffered the inevitable burglary and lost all equipment. When we tested the various options, including the 30D with various lenses, we found that the autofocus impressed us, being very fast and quiet compared to the Nikon. That sold us.

[bob_king2]

While on a holiday in 2004 I stopped off in Singapore. After an hour's haggling in a camera shop I got the store

owner down to $600 off what I could get a Canon 300D for back home. The 300D in 2004 was the first "affordable"

DSLR. So I got it and have been with Canon ever since. Regrets? Not really, though I think Nikon has closed the

gap, which is good because that will continue to drive Canon to new heights. My main gripe is a lack of in-body

IS. But both Canon and Nikon have a legacy to protect... There are far more choices in 2008 than there were 4

short years ago. Would I still choose Canon now? Well, yes because I have a fair investment in lenses and

accessories and am quite happy with their performance. I see no reason to switch to other systems though I

believe Pentax deserves a serious look for a non-professional like me.

 

Cheers, Bob

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

"Realizing of course that there are exceptions to any rule dealing with human behavior and emotion, my theory is that most Nikon owners are in love with their cameras. (The same goes for Leica.) Canon owners tend to see their cameras more in terms of being the best tools for the job, or perhaps as the most convenient way to do the kind photography they practice, without having that same emotional fervor as the owners of the the other prestige brands.

 

Whadya think of that theory?"

 

It's not a theory, it's a hypothesis. Theories are actually supported by fact.

[grodis]

Canon saved me big on lens. I rather my Nikon for build quality & ISO but Nikon Glass is and has always been pricey. Canon was simply economics for me.

 

 

-Joe

[hal_a]

I heard God uses a Canon. No?

 

Actually, I was leaning towards Pentax, but my dad really liked the Canon he picked up, so I ended up getting a Canon instead.

[ryanjoseph]

The 300D was the cheapest DSLR at the time...

 

Not very glamorous but its how I entered the EOS system.

[borek_lupomesky]

Image quality. When I bought my 20D, Canon was clearly ahead the rest. And also, old manual focus lenses are adaptable to it.

[frank_page]

After my Canon FD system was stolen in the early 90s, I compared Nikon and Canon - and at the time, the Nikon's

user interface was incomprehensible to me and Canon's made sense, so I went with Canon. Since then I built up my

lens collection so I am staying with Canon. It would cost way too much to switch compared to any benefits gained

from switching.

[rico]

The lenses. I wanted a 100mm f/2.0 for my Canon film slr. The only AF 100mm available is the Canon EF 100mm and the Nikkor 105mm DC. The Nikkor cost more than twice the Canon.

[nolax_montemar]

i'm a nikon user, and my concern is, which has the better image quality nikon or canon? i haven't tried canon yet. any thoughts?

[vikneshn]

Canon has better lens portfolio.

Good body and features.

 

I just love the simplicity in the ergonomics and layout on the Canon.

[danbliss]

It's simple. It was the 5D. I was waiting for a full frame that I could afford (sort of). I was shooting with a Pentax 67II,

which I still miss a little, but I wanted to move over to digital. I am happy that I did, and that I got the Canon. Now Canon

is teasing us about a 5D replacement (http://www.dpreview.com/news/0809/08090501somethingcanon.asp).

[peterq]

Why not Canon ? ;-)

[swilson]

We had Canon film SLRs, going with any thing other then a Canon DSLR would not have made much sense. If we had Nikons Film SLRs we most likely would have gone with Nikon.

[kelly_flanigan1]

With a Zorki one can use Canon; Nikon; Kodak; Leica

[steve.elliott]

Canon are a very large company with a good reputation for producing excellent cameras and lenses. And traditionally they've always produced cameras that generate the lowest noise at high ISO settings (a high priority for me). A Canon camera also looks and feels well designed and made, so is a joy to use.