Canon shooting themselves in the foot; did Nikon too?

[patrick j dempsey]

<p>How about the early synthetic foams and rubbers used in every kind of electronics from VCRs to cameras and even in camera bags and straps throughout the 1970s and 1980s? It turned to dust when exposed to sunlight and to sticky black goo when exposed to just about any kind of solvent. I think it's the major reason you are more likely to find working record players from the 1960s than working tape players from the 1980s.</p>

[tomwatt]

<p>I'm sure that all the new Nikons are built to Ashton K.'s rigorous standards of construction. I've seen it on TV.<br>

This same argument (the OP) applies to automobiles, rifles, and battleships. No, it's true they don't use enormous slabs of steel as much as they used to. Often not necessary in order to gain functional operation. Plastic can be extremely rugged, especially if the weight load on it is less than what one expects from older, heavier equipment. Aluminum can be quite rugged. Titanium will outperform steel in places where weight becomes a factor. Ceramic/plastic materials do remarkable things (think stopping bullets, etc.) and synthetic fabrics can be built to have a shape/form memory while remaining incredibly tough - I "cut" myself trying to pull a single thread of Kevlar that was hanging off a piece of equipment.<br>

Structural fatigue sets in on a lot of materials aside from plastic parts on cameras... think of the airplanes that have cabins peeled apart in mid-flight. In the case of digital cameras, most become 'outmoded' in a decade anyway, so why build something to last a century unless you plan to adorn museum shelves with it?</p>

[mike_hitchen]

<blockquote>

<p>Plastic is crap. Cheap, and ages terribly. It breaks.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>So the high performance Mach-2 fighter jets, are in fact a waste of money, being made of plastic and all. I'd better tell the aircraft designers before they try to make them.</p>

 

[h_s1]

<p>Some have mentioned ditching the fd mound in favor of ef mount as a big mistake.</p>

<p>I did not mention that because (I wasn't around taking photos at that time so missed the war), Canon seemed to have redeemed themselves with their EOS cameras and their autofocus system. I have read on some places that the personal responsible for changing over to ef mount staked his reputation on it and that the rest is history - no idea whether this is true. Apparently, Canon were the pioneers in bringing the fast, silent and reliable autofocus to the SLR cameras, even for the professionals (who, apparently, initially vehemently refused to believe that anything other than manual focus could be for professional uses).</p>

<p>So, ditching fd mount is probably a bad decision for all those people who had invested heavily in that gear, but engineering design wise, one can easily argue Canon made a tremendous improvement. In any case, it was not an engineering design flaw of the class of, say, command dials breaking off within a few years of use.</p>

 

[hal_b]

<p>I have to speak on the Canon FD mount: Canon wasn't in the same league as Nikon at the time. Nikon was always a pro brand, and Canon was an amateur brand trying to catch up. The only reason anybody considers Canon a pro brand today is because they revamped their mount to something state-of-the-art and finally overtook Nikon at something. Even today, Canon sells cheaper than Nikon because Nikon maintains their elite status. As long as this is the case, we'll see Canon take daring moves in order to strengthen the brand.</p>

<p>Too many people are feigning nostagia over the good old days when they were pro photographers shooting Canon FD mount cameras, but are really forgetting that it didn't actually happen that way. Those pros were other people, and they were shooting Nikons back in 1982, not Canons. That is, if they weren't shooting on Leicas or Hasselblads. A Canon was something that a Nikon shooter bought for his mother for Christmas.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Yeah, in ye ole' days, when all was better and made of pure metal!<br>

<em>(mental note to self: do prefer to crash in a 2009 plastic car rather than a 1950s metal one...)</em><br>

<em></em><br>

So, all manufacterers sometimes deliver a design that does not work as well as intended. Some of them because of wrong assumptions, some of them because long term testing cannot always reveal the effects that real age and real day-in day-out usage has. Since Nikon and Canon both tend to produce a lot, their mistakes will be more visible and more debated. The real question with these problems is never whether they occur, but how they are handled when they occur, and whether they repeat themselves. Of the examples you gave of Canon, I see no history repeating and I see decent after-sales service stories. So where is the problem?</p>

[sfcole]

<p>"Those pros were other people, and they were shooting Nikons back in 1982"</p>

<p>I still remember when, in the late 80s, I was sent by a studio to photography a property. A lawyer for the disputed property came up to me and demanded to know why I wasn't using a Nikon.</p>

[KenPapai]

<p>Had Canon not ditched the crappy FD mount in 1988 or so, I have no idea what I'd be shooting today. Maybe nothing? (because back in 1990, Nikon's were too pricey and Minoltas were no good to me anymore, and also pricey then and Olympus were toys)<br>

It wouldn't have been Canon. ;=-) Mucho gracias!</p>

[tomscott]

<p>Geez is this the Nikon forum? I guess I was mistaken when I thought it was Casual Conversations. I did not say that Changing to the EF mount was a major design error, the question was "I wonder, have there been any similar faux pas by Canon in newer digital SLRs as well"? There is a difference in Faux Pas and Major engineering design error. And for those of you who think the FD mount was so crappy, you seem to forget that the F1 was one of the most popular Pro cameras from 1971 on. The T90 was no slouch either. I was making a joke about the FD lenses but, I guess it proves that Nikon users are just as big of snobs as Leica users. :-)</p>

[JDMvW]

<blockquote>

<p>Plastic is crap. Cheap, and ages terribly. It breaks.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Oh Yeah? I'll have you know that the Trabant was made of plastic. No one has ever seen a "broken" Trabant!</p>

<p>The Trabant is indestructible (though unfortunately that's not a good thing. Also pretty much unrecyclable, too).</p><div></div>

[paul_de_ley]

<blockquote>

<p>Oh Yeah? I'll have you know that the Trabant was made of plastic. No one has ever seen a "broken" Trabant!<br /> The Trabant is indestructible (though unfortunately that's not a good thing. Also pretty much unrecyclable, too).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Trabi's were indestructible only as long as they didn't actually hit anything: check out <a href="

youtube crash test</a> . Ashes to ashes, duraplast board to duraplast dust...</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Ah, Paul. My Mercedes did pretty much the same thing-- a safety feature to protect the driver, you know...</p>

<p>LOL Thanks for the link, I had missed that one.</p>

[michael_oxford]

<p>... and none of these problems brought up affect professional models - the ones that ultimately matter (well, in my book, anyway).</p>

<p>... and is teh A series squeak that annoying? I didn't mind it that much (before mine died)...</p>

[earl_calderwood]

<p>is there a point to all this?</p>

[dangoldman]

<p>so in the last 30 or so years canon put out a few cameras with minor imperfections. My A1 had a squeak, and i took it in for its first ever CLA this summer. got it back in two weeks and the meter is accurate enough for chromes, and it sounds great. Guess what, its probably a good idea to take any old camera in to get it looked at to make sure something isnt going to break, the meter/speeds are set, etc. Wupty do. Plastic dials v. metal ones? fairly certain that nearly all of the cameras today have a plastic dial. The battery doors on any camera i've ever handled has had a flimsy door. Guess what... dont push on it! agh. its 4:30am, i have work to do and finals in a day. little wound up...</p>

[johnw436]

<p>If you are a working professional then wear and tear (tool breakage in industrial terms) should be built into your cost structure. A tool that is making your living should earn money for its own inevitable repair and replacement. A camera is a tool and nothing more. Handing it down as an heirloom is a personal choice, not part of its original design spec.</p>

<p>After reading all this I'm afraid there is no hope for my view camera! (Being made of wood, leather, and brass and all.) Except for the fact that my Tachihara survived 300 miles in 3 days on an ATV in the New Mexico backcountry, bouncing so hard my teeth got loose! The camera was stuffed in an ALICE pack with a piece of foam sleeping pad under it. I was sure it would be toothpicks when I was done but it survived without a scratch.</p>

<p>Honestly: I think that unless you are a combat photographer or a sports shooter who drops his 400/2.8 on the ground when three gorillas plow into you then build quality can be slightly overrated. Every tool does not have to be a tank. </p>

<p>I've got Bronicas, Nikons, Pentax, rangefinders, view cameras, TLRs, and a host of little odds and ends cameras. Some are built tough and some are not. I've not broken any one of them. With enough use any of them will wear out and fail. My Pentax K20d is built darn near as tough as my Bronica ETR cameras. My Yashicamat might be the toughest of all. Oddly, my Nikon N65 which feels like a plastic replica of a camera has bounced off the pavement more than once and is none the worse for wear. </p>

<p> </p>

[tomwatt]

<blockquote>

<p>build quality can be slightly overrated. Every tool does not have to be a tank.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's an interesting point, as I have been looking at sextants for navigation... several thousand dollars for the top of the line new, and WW2 era ones, when available, cost a thousand or so and work just fine. There's a time and a place for building indestructibility into a tool. Hardly anyone uses a sextant for navigation anymore.<br>

What if you'd invested in manufacturing a solidly built buggy whip?</p>

[colin carron]

<p>The list of faults quoted by the OP shows exactly how good Canon's (and Nikon's ) engineering is. These faults are trivial and easily fixed. The quality of their engineering is better shown not by small niggles which appear years down the line but by the fact that these two camera makers are market leaders by some distance.</p>

<p>Engineering s not about making something which lasts forever but about making something which functions (and sells) over its lifetime.</p>

[johnw436]

<p>@ Tom Watt,</p>

<p>Exactly. And how many ships in WWII were lost at sea due to worn out, broken sextants? I imagine old Ferd Magellan did ok with one that was probably made out of wood or filed from bronze.</p>