Why canon?


May 23, 2011
Simple: Canon EOS 300D (Digital Rebel in the US I think)
Before that one there simply was no affordable digital SLR out there. (Well, affordable for me of course) The 300D changed that. After that I was simply too invested in glass and accessories to switch to Nikon. (And let's face it, those two are so close together I see no point in switching brands just because Nikon might have the edge for a little while here and there) If Nikon would have come out with an equivalent of the 300D at that time instead of Canon I am pretty sure I would be a Nikonian.
Though with the 300D, 40D, and now my second 7D I gotta have to say I never regretted my choice.


Natural progression. I had canon P&S all my life... (20odd years) so a Canon was my first choice. Although sometimes that little kid in me who wants to play with the other kids toy comes out and I think. Why did i not choose Nikon.


Axilrod said:
I was told I HAD to get other lenses, so I started looking and these were some of my noob thoughts:
1) I got 18MP yay, that must mean it's better than this guys 1DII since it's only 12mp!
2) Why are there so many 70-200mm and 70-300mm lenses?
3) I already have an 18-55IS, why is the 17-55IS $1000 more?! For 1mm!?
4) Why is this 85mm cost $1800 more than this other 85mm? I'm not sure what this f/number means but it's only .6 difference so how much better could it be?

Your "noob thoughts" cracked me up. I briefly got into photography when I was younger and understood the basics, but had no idea how much went into different pieces of equipment. I had an old Rebel and I think I just stuck with the kit zoom and a cheap telephoto zoom. But now that I'm getting back into it I'm realizing how much I didn't know, specifically how your typical concepts of "more is better" and generally quantifying quality just don't apply. This entire thread is a prime example of that. You don't see many posts saying, "I chose Canon for more MPs and AF points." Both brands make excellent products. It's mostly about feel, convenience, price, and chance/opportunity. At the end of the day, these are all just tools, and all the best tools can do is make your life/craft slightly easier. It's ultimately about how you use them. And that's why I'm leaning toward Canon at the moment. With Nikon's recent price fixing and shutting out of unauthorized repair shops, Nikon seems pretty intent on making life more difficult for their customers.


This is a very interesting thread for me, as I am just getting back into photography after a break of 20 years. I started photography with the all manual Praktica MTL3, because it was cheap, and got hooked. For some reason the importance of avoiding camera shake really made an impression on me and Canon's use of shutter priority auto on the AE-1 led me to buy that camera. When the A-1 came out shortly after I thought it was amazing, and had to have one, given I needed two cameras to do colour and b&w. When the T-90 came out it seemed space age, and I got one for the tremendous metering flexibility. Then shortly after Canon started to shift to auto-focus development, and FD lenses became obsolete. I gave up photography shortly after. When I wanted to use a camera again a few years later the T-90 shutter had seized. I got it fixed. It seized again... Now, I've been considering the Nikon D5100 and the Canon 600D. One brother-in-law uses a D700, the other a 5Dmk2. Both are supporting their brands! I really wanted to get the 5100 as I felt I'd been sold down the river by Canon, as my mass of FD stuff, which I still have, was no longer usable with EOS bodies. My Nikon brother-in-law, kept telling me how Nikon hadn't changed their lens mount etc. But the D5100 video seemed poor compared to the 600D. I don't anticipate using it much but my wife does. The handling for stills just didn't suit me - not enough direct access to what seem important parameters, if I understand digital ways of working well enough. I bought the 600D body yesterday to get the current cashback. Lens choices next! Then full-frame enticement probably as everywhere I go now I'm seeing potential photos..... Canon for APS-C it would seem, but I'm still keeping an open mind should I decide at some point to go for full frame, as the EF-S lenses needed for best match with the cropped format wouldn't be any use. At least Nikon is no different in that respect. I can envisage my son taking the Canon stuff with him when he leaves home and me starting from scratch again! Will I go for Canon for a third time?


Dec 6, 2011
For us, it is not "why canon?", but "why the hell canon?". We are STUCK with Canon, at least for the next couple of months.


Aug 3, 2011
Ditto many of the points from previous posters on this topic.

bvukich said:
Because Nikon bodies are ugly

But in addition, being a photographer, aesthetics plays a big role inside of me too.

I really cannot stand why Nikon puts those ugly flash sync and 10-pin remote terminals in the front, hence their ugly rubber cover as well. It's just sooooo ugly! :eek:

Also if you compare the top part (from mode dial to the prism housing and all the way to the shutter release) of their cameras and that of Canon's, Canon's streamlined body is just totally sexy!

Well, it's just my view of aesthetics... and it's just my little emotional feeling about Canon's camera.


Craig Richardson

In the Circle of Confusion
Dec 5, 2011
Back when I was buying my first DSLR I went into the camera store with my bag full of Nikon film lenses from my Nikon EM. I first tried the entry level Nikon cameras and the salesman could not get the camera to work with my legacy lenses.

I tried Canon next and it was a clear winner from the beginning since using old lenses was ruled out at the time. Now I use my legacy Nikon lenses with an adapter on my Canon bodies. What is funny is that since then I have used my legacy lenses on a few Nikon DSLR bodies and they work fine, I have no idea what this camera salesman did wrong!


Memories in the Making
Dec 20, 2010
Southern California
After getting a Canon AE-1 for college graduation I fell in love with it, never a mechanical issue. I've never looked elsewhere despite my younger brother's excellent concert photos from the 70's and 80s on his Nikon. Sibling rivalry perhaps?


EOS M6 Mark II
Jul 19, 2011
mine is for sure simple. its just what i picked up first. i learned everything using a 40D body, before even handling a nikon. i did also learn via a pentax K1000 but i mean in the DSLR area, its just what i picked up first. now, i have used various nikons, but the button layout, and overall ergonomics in my opinion just isnt right unlike the canon button layout. I have shot before with a Nikon D3 before and it does shoot great, but its just the buttons that now get me. also the price of conversions or differences between canon or Nikon is quite the difference. Canon is the cheaper route i feel.. to an extent of course. its still expensive. D:

Cannon Man

I think i bought my first point and shoot because there seemed to be more commercials for canon and also other canon products so i trusted Canon to get my first 250$ and stuck with canon till this day.

The reason i am still with canon are the 1D cameras and an excellent collection of lenses that i trust more than the nikkors, the lenses i can't live without are the TS-E 24mm 3.5L II and the 85mm 1.2L II USM.

I prefer Canon to nikon but having said that i have nothing against nikon. My only problem has been that the nikon cameras have been really ugly an i still don't why the D4 has the stupid wheel on top. and the 24MP D3 had a bad buffer and the pictures were slow to come to the screen. why make a 7000$ camera underpowered.

If your still reading this i would like to point out that i don't believe in religiously sticking to one brand.. why now own them all?? and the upcoming D4 is a beautiful camera that i will get as an addition to my kit just for the heck of owning one.


Simple: Back then (early 90's), Nikons were noisy buggers due to their screw focus, i.e. motor in the body coupled to lens by means of a screw driver. Scared all the birds away with the noise! Canon on the other hand was whisper quiet (by those standards) and the birds (both, winged and wingless two-legged variety) loved it :)


Jun 6, 2011
Getting good advice on web forums helped me choose Canon for the killer combination of price, features, quality and lenses. Not the high-end stuff, but beginner stuff like the decent kit lens, 70-200 f/4 and 55-250.

What has locked me in is Magic Lantern. Features like focus peaking in live view, trap focus, intervalometer, focus racking... awesome.


Jul 19, 2011
Lafayette, IN
First, the obvious reason... Because red is better than yellow in so many ways. Red shoes? Better! (Man with one red shoe as an example). Cherry better than lemon. Lasers? When do we ever see yellow lasers? Red light saber? Better!

I started out on a Rebel XS. I picked that over the equivalent Nikon because a good friend told me that I should pick what most people around me had. That way we could share lenses, accessories, etc. If more people around me had used Nikon, I probably would have gone that way instead.

What I've come to find, though, is that the used lens market for Canon is absolutely HUGE! More than half of my lens and body purchases have been purchased used. The prices are better, and if you don't find what you want, wait a day or two. It'll show up. Canon lens naming conventions are a lot clearer too. It is what it is, no extra stuff. I like that there are normally at least two lenses within a focal range. That way I can start out cheap(er) and work my way up if I know I'll use it more or have a specific need after using it for a while.

I'll definitely second the Ashton Kutcher comment. Don't really care for him, so would rather not employ him.

Deep down I think both are great. It's like buying tools. You can go to Sears and get Craftsman or Lowe's to get whatever they have. It's how the tool feels in your hand, and how it meets your specific needs. The only problem with this "set of tools" is that once you buy a lot of them, you are kind of locked in.


EOS 5D Mark IV
Aug 8, 2011
Hesbehindyou said:
Getting good advice on web forums helped me choose Canon for the killer combination of price, features, quality and lenses. Not the high-end stuff, but beginner stuff like the decent kit lens, 70-200 f/4 and 55-250.

What has locked me in is Magic Lantern. Features like focus peaking in live view, trap focus, intervalometer, focus racking... awesome.

What body do you mate the ML to, and how was the transition experience? Is it intuitive or does it have a steep learning curve. Would appreciate your input.
The reason I shoot Canon is two-fold. I was a Minolta shooter but I was outgrowing my Minolta 5d. A co-worker was a wedding shooter who used a 30d and I was impressed by how it felt in my hands and the availability of lenses, batteries, and accessories there were compared to Minolta/Sony so I saved up my milk money and purchased a 40d which I still use, and have never thought about looking back.


I think of it like this.. Are you a Jeep or a Land-rover person or Chevy or Ford. (you like what you like)
Me I'm Jeep(I own 3). When it came time for the Digital world my first was a Nikon Cool pics P/S. But it went back and I got canon. Then when it came time to move up to DSLR, I have sitting at my feet a older Minolta x700 SLR and I could of bought Sony and used those lenses. I looked at the Canon vs Nikon. I chose Canon. Anyone can buy a Nikon and I see a lot of people in my camera classes have them. For me I like to standout.. Be a Rebel!.


EOS 5D Mark IV
Aug 8, 2011
eeek said:
Years ago the XTi was on sale. $15,000 worth of equipment later, here I am.

+1: short and sweet, says it all doesn't it?

How does a sales campaign justify itself, how do they quantify that by losing $100-200 they gained thousands... very interesting.
<-- start Taboola -->