So what is it about Canon?

[Mikehit]

With the rapid introduction of new models and some definite improvements in Canon capabilities, we have the same old discussions about how much better Nikon/Sony are regards ISO, dynamic range and how the D8xx AF is as competent anything Canon can produce and a host of other parameters.

So, taking the adage that 'the proof of the pudding is in the eating', why are high-profile events dominated by Canon? As far as I can tell it is pretty much the same in wildlife. A working pro will use gear that delivers the goods and will not change simply because DPR/DxO tell them how superior one system is over the other. And the advertising for Nikon is far more high-profile than anything I remember Canon for.
So why do people think Canon does dominate in this way if all the technical guff says otherwise?

20 years ago it was Nikon who ruled the roost and Canon seemed to take over the mantle with the advent of digital. So possible reasons I can see with varying degrees of cynicism are:
(1) a professional in any area of life is a conservative beast who is reluctant to change a system that works and that inertia, combined with the historic reputation of Canon, means they are to some extent living off past glories and their market exceeds what the systems are capable of
(2) Nikon is great in the lab but in the 'real world' those differences are actually less important (maybe even insignificant) than the reviewers would have us believe
(3) the Canon pro service is so far in advance of what other manufacturers offer that the profile that you see on TV is skewed by things that don't matter to the non-pro.
(4) Canon may lack technically but it is the complete package: from body functionality to lenses to after-sales care to accessories that attract people even if in practice they won't avail themselves of any of that
(5) maybe basing my view on televised events (often sports etc) is itself misleading

They must be doing something right.

 

[J.R.]

I don't care who's doing what. My photos look good and that's all that counts.

 

[Orangutan]

So, taking the adage that 'the proof of the pudding is in the eating', why are high-profile events dominated by Canon?

...

They must be doing something right.

If you listen to those who complain about Canon sensors at low ISO, you'll notice something interesting: almost all of them say something like if Canon could match Nikon low-ISO DR I'd have no complaints. That's telling: it means they believe Canon's offerings are as good, if not better, in every way other than low-ISO DR. Neuro will talk about "systems," others talk about ergonomics and UI, others talk about lens selection.

If Canon could match Sony sensors at low ISO, it might put all the other companies out of business, or price most of us out, and that's not good for anyone.

BTW: I have no personal experience with anything other than Canon, so what I wrote above is my observation of what others have said.

 

[AcutancePhotography]

I think it is more a case of there are some people who like Canon and other people who like Nikon and a whole bunch of people who like other brands of cameras.

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

I'd say it's a bit of each cited reason.

I particularly do not give up ergonomics, buttons and menus arrangement of Canon. I've used some Nikon cameras when I worked for other photographers, and I can say that those who designed cameras is NOT a photographer, NOT think like a photographer, NOT know what a photographer really needs to work.

 

[jthomson]

It's the long lenses. The big whites. The fluorite lens elements. Nobody has anything better. You need to go greater than 300mm you go Canon. Sport photographers shoot ooc jpg, there is no five stop push.

 

[Refurb7]

Canon does a lot of things right. One of those things can be summed up as: Good Design. I think good design comes through when you hold and use the cameras. It's very perceptible and many users appreciate it. When I hold any Canon DSLR, I know a lot of thought went into the design. That translates into a very smooth functionality in use. I don't get that impression from many other cameras.

 

[unfocused]

I think a more accurate question might be: "What is it about Nikon?"

When I was a newspaper photographer almost 40 years ago, Nikon controlled the market. Consumers bought other brands (mostly Pentax) but every working pro had a Nikon. If you bought Canon you weren't just in the minority, you were a minority of one.

At the time, the main appeal of Canon was that it was less expensive than Nikon. I bought two bodies and three prime lenses and was able to buy an additional lens for what I saved by buying Canon.

Canon did a couple of very smart things. First, they were more willing to incorporate new technology into their cameras (think AE-1) than Nikon. Canon was not the first with autoexposure (I owned a Konica that had autoexposure several years before Canon). But they were better at marketing, perfecting the technology and incorporating it into their system.

Canon also started focusing on a couple of key niche markets: sports photographers and wildlife photographers. They started advertising heavily in magazines like National Geographic and really catering to those two markets.

Nikon unfortunately had a base that was shrinking. Newspapers consolidated and cut costs. Since most newspapers are run by writers, when the cuts came down, it was the photography departments that bore the brunt.

Nikon was also slow on the uptake with new technology. Canon correctly predicted the revolution in autofocus and autoexposure and made a controversial call to abandon the FD mount. (When people extol Apple for being willing to cannibalize one segment for another they forget that Canon did so long before Apple)

Of course the digital age changed everything again and Canon may have been a little quicker to adapt.

But, even with all that said, the truth is that Canon and Nikon are both excellent brands and Nikon seems to be doing its best to catch up and even outperform Canon in some metrics. That's as it should be. We should all want vigorous competition between brands.

As to why many professional prefer Canon. You've identified some of the reasons.

One thing that I think people don't always realize is that professionals are far less interested in the newest technology than forum participants. They put a high premium on consistency, durability and familiarity. I strongly suspect that if you took 1,000 1DX and D5 professional users and surveyed them about dynamic range you would get a whole lot of blank stares.

 

[Zv]

Reliability and support during big events.

I guess as mentioned already pros just need something that works. What do they care about half a stop of extra DR at ISO 100 when they're shooting in an indoor arena at ISO 6400 or above? Getting the shot is priority and 14 FPS will help get them there!

Oh and lenses. Sweet sweet supertele big white L lenses! Mmmmmm

 

[AcutancePhotography]

I'd say it's a bit of each cited reason.

I particularly do not give up ergonomics, buttons and menus arrangement of Canon. I've used some Nikon cameras when I worked for other photographers, and I can say that those who designed cameras is NOT a photographer, NOT think like a photographer, NOT know what a photographer really needs to work.

And strangely, there are a lot of people who prefer the ergonomics of the Nikon. Ergonomics are a personal preference. So to be more accurate "You" don't care of the ergonomics of some of the Nikons and "You" prefer the ergonomics of some of the Canons. And that's great. But that does not mean that Nikon's (or any other camera's) ergonomics is wrong or bad.

But in any case, I am pretty sure that the people at Nikon know a little bit about photography too.

That's why both companies exist.. different customers prefer different models.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Be aware that both Canon and Nikon have bought out sports events by offering sweetheart deals to trade your gear from the other brand for shiny new cameras and lenses. This is not as prevalent recently.

The take away is that you cannot always be sure that someone may have a big truck in the stadium giving loaners to photographers in order to sway them to switch brands, and to give the perception to those who do not know what's happening that their brand is more popular.

 

[Mikehit]

Be aware that both Canon and Nikon have bought out sports events by offering sweetheart deals to trade your gear from the other brand for shiny new cameras and lenses. This is not as prevalent recently.

The take away is that you cannot always be sure that someone may have a big truck in the stadium giving loaners to photographers in order to sway them to switch brands, and to give the perception to those who do not know what's happening that their brand is more popular.

I don't go with that - a professional will surely not risk their income and reputation on a camera just because it is offered as freebie from a truck at an event.
There have been high-profile defections such as Scott Kelby and Andy Rouse - even if you take the cynical view that they did it for the money I cannot see them dong so unless their new camera was able to maintain the quality their reputation was built on. So either the new model is genuinely better and that manufacturer is taking advantage of their preference, or (to reiterate my earlier point) the overall difference is so small that they can pocket a few grand while still keeping their standards high and getting a free camera into the bargain.

 

[Loswr]

I think it is more a case of there are some a whole bunch of people who like Canon and many other people who like Nikon and a whole bunch of few people who like other brands of cameras.

There, fixed that for you.

 

[dak723]

I am clearly a minority when it comes to the typical user profile for this forum. I don't believe, however, that I am that different from the majority of folks who buy and use DSLRs.

I have absolutely no brand loyalty to Canon. My first SLR was an Olympus - and I still love Olympus cameras, and own an E-M1. My first Canon Rebel was bought around 1995 and I have owned Canon cameras since. Reasons I like Canon cameras:

Reliable. I have owned 5 Canons (2 pre-digital and 3 digital) and never had a problem with any of them. Unlike many gear-heads, I see very little difference in the photo quality from one generation to the next and in fact owned my 6 MP 300D for 9 years before buying a 6D and then an SL1. I hope my 6D lasts 9 years, too. I can't afford buying a camera every couple years and see absolutely no reason to. Every generation of every brand of camera has only small evolutionary changes, despite the gear heads claims. Many of the new bells and whistles are mainly toys to play with - not things a photographer really needs, in my opinion.

IQ. I think the color and tonal curves of the Canons give a better result than Sony (which I have tried) and Nikon (which I have seen). People love talking DR, but contrast is more important in my opinion. I shoot almost only in daylight and found no discernible difference in DR between my 6D and the Sony A7 under those conditions. I post process minimally and have never once had a problem lifting shadows adequately with the 6D - even when compared to the pics I took with the A7. The tone curves, however, gave me better differentiation between areas of light and shadow on the 6D, which is one reason I kept the 6D and returned the A7. My intent was to replace the 6D.

Ergonomics. Obviously, much of what a person like about ergonomics is what they are used to. The fact that the zoom rings rotate the opposite direction makes Nikon and Sony something I will probably not try again. The EVF on the Sony was also a negative (nowhere near as good as the EVF on the E-M1) and the kit lens was awful. Which leads to the final reason I like Canon...

Lenses. They are high quality. The inexpensive kit lens and 55-250mm lens for the SL1 are very sharp and perhaps the best lens deals you can get.

Reliability, excellent color and contrast, good ergonomics and high quality lenses. Those are my reasons for using Canon cameras.

 

[j-nord]

I shoot Canon because more lenses, better lenses, and more unique lenses. Bigger new market, bigger used market, more online support and discussion due to the larger user base, cheaper than Sony and typically cheaper than Nikon, etc. etc.

It seems this new gen of Canon sensors has closed the gap on DR and high ISO performance so I don't see this as much of an argument anymore. Canon certainly has the m-pix and fps war under control...

Im not blindly loyal to a brand and I don't understand people who are. I want the best product/quality/features/value/reliability/resale etc for me.

 

[mnclayshooter]

I shoot Canon because more lenses, better lenses, and more unique lenses. Bigger new market, bigger used market, more online support and discussion due to the larger user base, cheaper than Sony and typically cheaper than Nikon, etc. etc.

It seems this new gen of Canon sensors has closed the gap on DR and high ISO performance so I don't see this as much of an argument anymore. Canon certainly has the m-pix and fps war under control...

Im not blindly loyal to a brand and I don't understand people who are. I want the best product/quality/features/value/reliability/resale etc for me.

I'll 2nd this with the added statement that I'm already pretty pot-committed to the lenses from a pure time-gathering and $$ spent standpoint, so staying with the bodies seems to make sense. Selling it all off an starting over with a different brand doesn't sound like the weekend adventure I want to have.

 

[Refurb7]

There's another thing about Canon besides good design: good value. Sony just priced their 70-200/2.8 at 3,000 Euros, or about $3,345.

 

[Deleted member 91053]

and how the D8xx AF is as competent anything Canon can produce and a host of other parameters.

Err have you tried one? I should state that I have only tried the D800/D810/D4 on the Nikon 500 F4 VR and 300 F2.8 VR lenses - not the latest E models. Let's just say that the owners had a bit of a shock when they played with my Canon gear an an F5.6 lens.
Much more recently I have had the opportunity to have a play with the Nikon D4S on their 300 F2.8, 400 F2.8, 500 F4, 600 F4 and 800 F5.6 (all except the 300 were E models). Admittedly the light was poor but unless there was very good contrast subject the AF was hesitant and frequently hunted before achieving focus in all cases. On poorer contrast and more dimly lit subjects with the F4 and F5.6 lenses the cameras often didn't even try to focus. These were not subjects that would have overly challenged my 7D2 on my 800 F5.6 - let alone my 1DX. At the same venue I tried 4 Canon Mk2 supertles mounted on 1DX Mk1 bodies - they just locked on everything I pointed them at - even a plain carpet.
Certainly very far from scientific but the bottom line was that the Canons just focused (as do my ones) and the Nikons struggled with their latest lenses.
Many love these cameras and get great results, I respect them as they must be far better photographers than me, but the AF on Nikon's top bodies and lenses that I have tried is simply not up to my needs. I even got one of the Nikon reps to check that the D4S mounted on the 600 F4 E was working properly, apparently it was - I thanked him politely but didn't say anymore.

 

[retroreflection]

Why do you see many pickup trucks with stickers in the rear window denigrating other pickup truck brands?
Because a significant fraction of people think that the only way to gain membership in a group which supports their need for belonging is to hate those who don't belong to that group. In a world dominated by shopping, purchase decisions within a mature market with no clear or absolute leader seem to be absurdly attractive nucleation sites for this defective thinking.
Perhaps the absurdity is part of the point. The trolls are dedicated to tribalism, and reasonable people are dedicated to facts. Arguments never end when the two sides aren't even having the same argument.

 

[YuengLinger]

Why do you see many pickup trucks with stickers in the rear window denigrating other pickup truck brands?
Because a significant fraction of people think that the only way to gain membership in a group which supports their need for belonging is to hate those who don't belong to that group. In a world dominated by shopping, purchase decisions within a mature market with no clear or absolute leader seem to be absurdly attractive nucleation sites for this defective thinking.
Perhaps the absurdity is part of the point. The trolls are dedicated to tribalism, and reasonable people are dedicated to facts. Arguments never end when the two sides aren't even having the same argument.

So what's your problem with pickup truck drivers?