Why Canon?

There have been a few threads, here and elsewhere, about why owners are fed up with Canon DSLR cameras.  The lack of features, relatively poor dynamic range, as well as anything but state of the art video, seem to be the most common complaints.  I personally have used Canon products for many years, including several point and shoot cameras,  an early Rebel XT, a 40D, and my current T6s.  So my question is, and this is not meant to be sarcastic at all, is why do we continue to stick with Canon?

For me, I am very familiar with the Canon menu structure and nomenclature, like the ergonomics, have many Canon lenses on hand,  appreciate the excellent US based customer support, and have not yet hit any "ceiling" that limits my photography hobby.  I never use the video function so, for me I couldn't care less about whether or not my camera has 4K.  I did shoot some 4K with a GoPro I owned for a while, and found my connection speeds were too slow to support uploads to any hosting sites.

Dynamic range has not been an issue for me either.  Especially at higher ISO values, it's competitive with most cameras, and at lower levels it is good enough that I don't personally have any issues.  I know several pros, and they are split between brand preferences.  One recently migrated from Nikon to Sony, another from Canon to Nikon, and others seem locked into one brand and stay there.

For those who still stay with Canon, I'm curious for the reasons you stay with Canon.  I use a Sony HX90V as my point and shoot, and it's been very good ... but not perfect.  No camera is.  Is Canon that frustrating and archaic, and that slow to incorporate new technology, that owners should be abandoning the brand?

I stick with Canon for the standard reasons, I like the color rendition and the menu layout/ergonomics.  When I take a shot, I don't feel like the camera gets in the way.  I don't miss many shots because I'm fiddling with settings - and I usually shoot manual.

And the lens selection for Canon is pretty fantastic.

Canon cameras have always pleased me.  They have never lacked anything that I needed.  The colors and skin tones are the most pleasing and ergonomics and lens selection the best around.  Others negative opinions have no effect as long as I am happy with my output.  I have seen beautiful images made by many different photographers and many different cameras.  I have in no way found Canon images to be inferior.  The Canon system is unsurpassed in my opinion.  Canon sells the most cameras and is used by more pros than any other.  I must not be alone in my assessment.  I don't understand those who would rather knock someone else's equipment or brag about dr over taking photos and enjoying photography.  Bab

Similar to you, I don't habitually push my shadows into the mid-tones and I don't shoot video. I tried Olympus and Nikon offerings, and when I picked up the 450D everything that's important to me was obvious and simple. The killer was the lens selection, which has improved a lot since then. I have no reason to change and wouldn't even if I only had one lens to get rid of instead of... oh no, I don't want to count them all.

I am also very pleased with the look of the images coming out of my camera. All three of my Canon DSLR bodies produced the same pleasing skin tones and natural looking colors. The much criticized anti-aliasing filter that Canon always uses has never given me the supposedly soft images that all tests seem to show. If I need more sharpness in certain images, it's not exactly rocket science to improve that with the simplest post processing.

Like Digirame, I find the Canon in camera jpg processing to be very effective. When I shoot jpeg, I keep the contrast low and apply post processing to get a pleasing final image. When I shoot raw,  I find the out of camera image is quite good, and often requires much less post processing than I would expect.

So, all in all, I like Canon DSLR's, I like their huge selection of good quality glass, and I feel no great compulsion to move away from the brand. If I had very specialized needs, and found that no Canon product could meet that need, I'd obviously look elsewhere. That hasn't happened yet.

There is a financial hit when changing system.  There is also a great deal to lose in familiarity.  Knowing one system and working with it for many years developers habits and expectations that will have to be changed working a completely different brand.  All modern camera systems have different levels of camera equipment and glass.  By moving up in the same system rather than going to a different brand, a great deal of knowledge about that system and work habits can be put to use more easily.  It would take something really special to get me to change.  Bab

Canon makes high quality cameras and lenses. The cameras are priced higher than competitors but it is impossible for me to say they are worth that premium.

I stopped using my T1i as noise issues above base isos lagged well behind newer cameras. I did not think the 18mp Canon sensor, still being sold, was much better technically. So the T1i sat in a box with three lenses. As a cameraholic, now in rehab, I had other better options.

Recently through a combination of gift cards, trade-ins and price cuts I took the plunge and got a T7i for next to nothing (remember I am a recovering cameraholic). I am impressed by its rapid autofocus, battery life and lower noise at mid to high ISOs but kind of disappointed otherwise. It is a bit large though light in weight and higher in price compared to the street prices of Nikon 5000 series cameras. The raw picture quality is fine but I am not seeing what I saw in that ancient 15mp T1i sensor, I think it was an extended red gamut.

Today I see a Sony 24mp mirrorless kit now with two lenses for about the price, maybe less, of the T7i with one lens and half the price of the Canon EVF version. Nikon 3000/5000 APS kits are frequently available at near give-away prices with Canon always several hundred dollars more. Even Costco sells Nikon 7000 series kits that are better values than comparable Canon offerings.

As such I think Nikon is a better value for those seeking optical APS cameras both technically and in terms of cost and Sony for mirrorless. If Nikon moves aggressively into mirrorless APS they will have to undercut Canon M prices to get any traction. I have nothing against Canon but the cameras are higher priced than competitors without delivering better performance.

I've been a Canon user for a very long time - I bought an EOS 650, the very first EOS camera (i.e. not the 650D), in 1988 when it was still the current camera. Since then I've had several film EOS cameras, plus several EOS DSLRs, starting with the D60 (yep, a Canon D60). Currently I'm using a 6D and 750D (T6i).

I'm not someone who is able to pick up a strange camera and be efficient with it quickly. However, there have been enough similarities between all these Canon cameras for me to be instantly comfortable with all them as I got them. I did make a brief excursion into Nikon-land with a D70, but although I appreciated the quality of the images I got, I never, ever got used to the differences between the Nikon and the Canons. The way the main control dial was horizontal (on the front of the handgrip) instead of vertical (on the top of the handgrip); the way the focus ring ran the other way; and several others. I also tried a s/hand Olympus OMD-M10, very briefly, but I couldn't get on with that at all!

So you could say that I'm a Canon user because I can't be bothered to learn other systems, and there's some truth in that. But does it matter? I have been tempted by Nikon in recent years, especially since the Sony sensors' better DR was revealed. But there aren't that many times when it's a deciding factor so I'm sticking with what I'm used to. In the last couple of years I've also started getting some prints professionally printed, at significant size (20" x 30") and frankly I'm knocked out by the good ones; and the less good ones are "less good" as a result of a failure in the photographer's vision, not the technical aspects of the equipment.

So I'm sticking with Canon because it's what I know. That's not all negative - I honestly think that after 30 years, nearly, of using Canon (D)SLRs I'm so accustomed to them that the strangeness of different, better equipment would itself come between me and achieving the better results the alternative system could (allegedly) produce.

Finally, there is the question - are the alternatives actually better? The Sony sensor certainly produces greater DR at base ISO, but I'm not sure of the extent that's visible in practice. I don't mean at 100% on screen - I mean in a 1000 x 1500 JPEG on-screen, or a print - the former will have surrendered detail, the latter will not be able to display the full range that might have been captured because the medium - paper - simply doesn't. Then there's DPAF, which I don't believe any other manufacturer has.

So there's absolutely no need to think that Canon is a second-best choice. It has its strengths and weaknesses, but so do all systems.

I stay with canon for much the same reasons that you do...owned lenses and accessories (Speedlites, etc.) and I really don't do much video at all. In addition, I happen to like Canon's menu layout. Canon's products are quality ones but they don't excite. That's the good news as well as the bad news.

However with that said, I'm really considering going to Nikon with their D500 for use with my hobby...aviation photography. The autofocus is lightening fast as well as accurate which is what is required. I'm not quite there yet but it's a direction that I'm leaning toward. We'll see.

Jim

I stick with Canon because it is a complete system and it works well together. Sometimes they lag technologically but if you can't get good images out of one, I don't think it is the cam. YMMV.

Jim wrote:

However with that said, I'm really considering going to Nikon with their D500 for use with my hobby...aviation photography. The autofocus is lightening fast as well as accurate which is what is required. I'm not quite there yet but it's a direction that I'm leaning toward. We'll see.

Jim

I do some aviation photography and have been generally pleased with my current setup.  Both my Sigma 100-400 and Tamron 150-600 are reasonably fast on locking on to focus, using AI or Servo on the T6s.  Is the Nikon that much faster using the same glass?

Yes, the Nikon D500 with the AF-S 80-400G ED VR lens is extremely fast in autofocus and, importantly, accurate. In addition and once acquired, it tracks the target well too.

Canon also offers an excellent lens in the EF 100-400 F4.5/5.6L IS II USM and quite a few people pair this with the 7D II. I could go either way but the Nikon is truly the system to have at this point and for THIS application.

Honestly, I'd prefer to stay with a Canon system but this has me thinking.

Jim