Canon is Dead, but Don’t Blame the iPhone


Canon’s camera business was pronounced dead on August 25, 2016 when they made the official announcement of the Canon 5D Mark IV.

Until that day, there was still some hope that the rumors and leaks weren’t correct, and that Canon might realize that they had to deliver something great for their flagship camera. Instead, the camera world let out a huge collective groan on that day, as Canon released an overpriced, underfeatured dud of a camera.

The reaction from the camera blogs, tech press, and actual users, has been very interesting.

How Tech Blogs Reacted

Tech blogs wrote articles about the announcement that call the 5D Mark IV a worthy successor to the previous 5D, and were generally re-hashes of the specs from the press release. On sites that aren’t photography-specific, the actual reviews have largely been comparing the camera to the Mark III, and finding that the new model is – shockingly – an improvement to a camera from 2012. None of the reviews I’ve seen on tech blogs have really hit the 5D hard,

I think the main reason for this is that these reviewers may be nerds, but they just aren’t camera nerds, and they don’t grasp how far behind the times the 5D Mark IV is. A lot of the reviews are fairly tepid, but I think Canon have gotten away a bit easy on these venues, because of two reasons:

  1. These blogs are not in the business of really criticizing tech. Sometimes, a product by some small company will be bad enough that they can really rail on it, but for the most part, they’re not looking to offend anyone, or get to the heart of things.
  2. I reckon that a number of reviewers actually have had the feeling that the 5D Mark IV is a dud, but they’re a little nervous of saying it, in case they’re missing something. Saying that the product is good in certain ways is a lot safer than saying it’s terrible and then potentially getting a lot of blowback.

Having said all this, the commenters on a lot of these articles have not held back, and quite a lot of the posts I looked at had readers really ripping the 5D to shreds.

How Camera Blogs Reacted

Camera blogs live and die based on how many people they can get to read them. If they get too critical of any company, readers go crazy and call them shills, say they’re biased, etc. Of course, Canon are the biggest traditional camera company, and the 5D is their flagship DSLR, and the Mark III was insanely popular among professionals. This means that professional photography websites have a very, very tight line to walk when reviewing the Mark IV.

On one hand, the camera sucks badly, and the writers know that it sucks. On the other hand, if they make a big deal about how much it sucks, a huge amount of their readers will get mad at them, and they might even experience problems from Canon themselves. It’d be very tough to run a big photo blog without early access to Canon’s cameras, or contact with their PR machine.

I believe it’s for these reasons that the photo blogs have largely focused on comparing the Mark IV to the Mark III, and pointing out its few strengths, and then mentioning its insane price at the end of articles, as if that’s a separate issue to the crappy specs. (Let’s be honest, if Canon released this camera for a third of the price, it still wouldn’t be great, but it would at least be somewhat competitive with what else is out there).

How Actual Users are Reacting

This is the most telling part. On almost every website review I’ve seen, the commenters have been absolutely brutal in their criticism of the 5D Mark IV, despite the actual reviewer being diplomatic and downplaying the (many) letdowns and lackings of the camera.

If you look at Youtube, apart from professional reviewers (who have to play it safe, at the expense of being brutally honest), video after video after video mocks the 5D Mark IV. Many of these photographers are saying that the 5D Mark IV may be the straw that broke the camel’s back and forced them to switch systems (usually to Sony).

Who Killed Canon?

So much talk about the death of the camera market these days points to smartphones. Of course, it’s true that these have become the #1 way for most people to take photos, but it’s tough to really blame them for Canon’s death, no matter how many sales of cheapo point-and-shoots they ate up.

The next obvious suspect is Sony. Their A7 line of full-frame alternatives are released and updated often, and they offer a way bigger feature set than the MarkIV, while still allowing the use of Canon lenses.

A recent Twitter poll by Dave Dugdale showed almost 50% of respondents switching from Canon to Sony – more than the number who said they hadn’t switched:


So are Sony the culprit? Nah, Sony just came along at the exact right time and ate up what was left of Canon’s lunch, but the damage had already been done.

Canon Killed Canon

Perhaps unsurprisingly, the damage was self-inflicted. Canon have done almost everything possible thing wrong up to this point, and the 5D Mark IV was the last nail in their coffin.

Before the 5D MarkIV came out, they were releasing a lot of unremarkable cameras that nobody was too enthusiastic about, but those were just the side offerings. People sort of laughed them off. “Oh haha, Canon’s mirrorless system is pathetic, sure, but just wait until they update the 5D, then you’ll see Canon what Canon does best!” photographers said, across numerous forums, in camera stores, etc.

And Canon definitely did have a chance to pull things out. They could have made the 5D MarkIV a real beast, with usable 4K, a decent EVF, good buffer (1000 other things). And they could have lowered the price to reflect current market pricing, but nah, nope, no deal.

The Innovator’s Dilemma

There’s a very interesting book called The Innovator’s Dilemma. It talks about how successful companies, who dominate their industries, often fail when someone else comes along with a disruptive product. These new products are usually nichey to begin with, and don’t seem like a threat, but then they explode and take over the industry.

The obvious example in the camera industry is the smartphone. When the iPhone was released, the camera was terrible, and traditional camera manufacturers were not worried about it. But it got better and better, because Apple/Samsung/etc were willing to put a lot of work into it, and were fanatical about making it as good as possible. After a while, the stupid little camera that seemed like a joke to serious photography people was what everyone on the planet was using to take pictures.

At first, I did think this was what had happened to kill Canon, but the more I thought about it, and researched, the more I realized that it’s more than that.

The whole theory behind the innovator’s dilemma is that the existing company just focuses on improving their product and meeting current customers’s needs, while the insurgent, niche product anticipates the future needs of consumers, and then dominates when it meets them. But that’s not really what happened to Canon.

Canon were hit on 2 sides, by the iPhone, and just by better, less greedy manufacturers like Sony and Panasonic, who didn’t hold back key features from their cameras arbitrarily.

When Panasonic released the GH4, and when Sony released the A7r (and most of the other A7 models),the amount of features it provided for its price were amazing. For years, people had become used to the slow, lumbering update cycles of camera manufacturers, even as every other piece of consumer electronics got better and cheaper on a constant basis.

Once Canon saw that their careful, and slow, meting out of new technology had been shown to be a greedy, lazy move, they could have sped things up, gradually lowered prices, and continued to dominate the industry, but they didn’t. The announcement, and release of the 5D Mark IV was their final grand gesture, giving the middle finger to photographers who still thought they might help them out and catch up with the industry.

When you read the current reviews about the 5D Mark IV, remember what you’re reading, because it will be interesting to see them change. I guarantee, I mean absolutely guarantee, that in a few years, the Mark IV will be remembered as a colossal failure, one of the biggest mistakes that a camera company ever made, and possibly the greatest thing to ever happen to Sony’s camera division (and Metabones).

Canon are dead, and it was suicide.


  1. Couldn’t agree more. Very happy to have found a photography website that actually shows a photographers opinion and, seemingly, doesn’t have its tail between its legs to say the truth when it needs to. Keep up the great work! You have just found yourself a new reader 🙂

    • Woo, yay, glad to hear it Bruno! It frustrates me how everybody seems to be scared to be accused of bias, so they actually say better things about Canon and the 5D MarkIV than it deserves. Yuck! Good work on this article Casey.

  2. What an utter pile. The Sony’s are great cameras. But not for Pro’s, they’re too flimsy. And who on earth needs to change their camera every bloody year? Canon gear from 2005 still produces well good enough images for almost every use case. We got by on film for a hundred years, personally I still use my EOS3 and my AE1 alongside my 7D, with great glass they do what is needed. Don’t need wireless, live-view, GPS etc. just need good sensor or film, good glass and good metering, oh and a good eye. Frankly I hardly use autofocus either. If you are any good as a photographer you know when to press the shutter, you don’t need umpteen frames per second for seconds or minutes on end, we already have something for that, it’s called video. If I want to shoot 4K I’ll rent a proper camera for the job, Arri Red etc. Canon build photographic workhorses, designed to take still pictures and take them well, along with great lenses, just as Nikon do

    • Hi Martin. First of all, the AE1 is a very cool camera, and I don’t disagree with using that at all, it’s a great choice. But I think the point of Casey’s article is more about digital photography, and how Canon hasn’t kept up with anyone, and is charging too much. I agree that old Canon film gear creates good enough images, but I think if you really look at 12 year old digital cameras, the pictures are so far behind current standards that it’s sad (and way behind 2005 SLR standards too).

      I probably agree with your choice of cameras more than even Canon would. After all, if everyone had the same preferences as you, nobody would buy anything new, and they’d be out of business right quick.

    • Ironically, Martin, if you rarely use autofocus the Sony A7 series would be a far better choice for you than even the best OVF-based Canon DSLRs.

  3. […] Full list of todays Gold Box deals at,, Bhphoto, eBay and A User report for the Sony RX1RMKII on The Inspiring Eye blog. Nowość! A99II, w naszych rękach! (Youtube). A6500, stabilizacja w bezlusterkowcu z matrycą w formacie APSC! (Youtube). DSC RX100 V, gorąca nowość 🙂 (Youtube). Sony A7R2/S2 lens choices (Youtube). Canon is Dead, but Don’t Blame the iPhone (FlatFocus). […]

  4. So, in recap “Major reviewers aren’t destroying the MK4 so they must be getting paid” and “every actual user is destroying the MKIV” despite the fact that is actually not the case whatsoever. Well whatever, the MKIV must still be dead because this guy says so in his very “professionally” written rant.

    Heres the thing though, Canon isn’t dead, and there are actually things they do better than Sony…*Gasp*

    Let me explain as someone who makes quite a bit of money from photography. I’ll also add that I have a degree in aerospace engineering and I like going on spec crusades as much as the next person, however I’m rational enough to look at the whole picture and not simply the spec sheets.

    1. Size: Sony’s decided to try and make their cameras as small as possible, this was done by reducing the flange distance (as it no longer needs the space for the mirror) and putting in an absolutely laughable battery. Here’s the thing, the short flange mean the light is hitting the outer edges of the sensor at much larger angles. This leads to vignetting and color shift and other bad effects at the edges. Can this be mitigated through lens design? Yes, but guess what, that also now means those lenses will be more expensive and take longer to develop. Not to mention, in order to mitigate these problems, the faster lenses are longer and heavier (2.8 zooms, ~1.4 primes, basically the lenses professionals use) and again, more expensive (a7r ii + 70-200 2.8 = $5800, 5dmIV + 70-200 2.8 = $5500). So now the weight you thought you saved from a small body, you actually get it back and then some if you carry more than one fast lens (as I do) since extra weight was put in multiple lenses rather than a single body.

    Now as I said, faster lenses are longer and heavier than their Canon counterparts, and Sony decided to make the a7 cameras take the form of a point and shoot. With that being said, big, heavy lens with a small body isn’t so comfortable for extended periods of shooting. It’s basic physics, if you have a longer and heavier lens, you are putting a larger moment around the pivot point which is the camera body. Not to mention, since the camera is so much smaller, you don’t have as much grip for comfortable holding.

    Lastly, because of the point and shoot form factor, you have less buttons for quick setting changes, and some of those buttons (such as an af point selector) are very important if you do any fast paced shooting and don’t have time to go looking through menus.

    2. Autofocus. Naturally, dedicated AF sensors in DSLR’s are producing better results the OSPDAF in mirrorless cameras at this point. However, my major problem and deal killer with Sony at this point is they have set the lens firmware to focus at working apertures in effort to avoid focus shift (I would hate to think focus shifting is a major issue on their new expensive G Masters). Personally, I do a lot of fashion shooting in studio with strobes. Naturally, the studio is pretty dim until the strobes go off. Well when you are typically working at aperatures of f7-f11 as you typically would in studio, lets just say focusing can be next to impossible as the camera is trying to actually focus at that aperature. I’m not the only one saying this, look around, there are quite a few studio photographers who have essentially said their lenses are paper weights in this situation.

    3. AA filter. This one is personal preference, but I’m throwing it up here because so many people are bashing Canon for putting it into the Mark IV, when it actually makes quite a bit of sense for their target audience for this camera. With that being said, I actually like the AA filter, as effects on image quality is so subtle that you’ll only notice it if are pixel peeping a fine writing section of an image (head over to DPR and compare the 5DS to 5DSR). When it comes to choosing an imperceptible softness to obvious moire, I’ll go with the softness every time as I do lots of shooting of clothes (fashion, weddings, etc…). Just like you can remove moire in post, you can also sharpen in post, however sharpening is much quicker as you don’t have to do any painting in lightroom. Time is money, and having less to do in a workflow is always preferable.

    I could go on and on, talking about the fact that Sony doesn’t have nearly as many native lenses and the fact that the a7 series isn’t weather sealed, but at this point I’m pretty bored.

    I’m well aware that Canon has left some features out, seemingly on purpose. I would love to have things like focus peaking and having a modern codec for 4k. The thing is though, the issues in numbers 1&2 above are so much more important to me compared to lack of focus peaking an a less than optimal codec. I can work with the lack of peaking and large 4k files, I can’t work excessively expensive lenses that can’t focus in a studio environment.

    Finally, I do like that Sony is pushing the envelope with some of their technology. I’d love to have the in body stabilization and a BSI sensor, but there are more things to a professional camera. As of now, the a7r ii is the best camera for a techie and hobbyists, however it’s nowhere close to being the best camera for professionals.

    • Just to be clear, a professional photographer may prefer one system over the other even though it’s not “the best”. this is most common with wedding photographers who are more concerned about their ability to make changes quickly without losing a moment. But this raises some questions about your response. First of all if you’re shooting in a studio environment you should be shooting a 5DS. It’s simply a better tool for the job. Arguably the files would be too large for a wedding photographer but not for studio work.

      I am a commercial/architectural photographer so for me it’s a different tool. I made the change from Canon film cameras to Nikon digital, and then to Sony digital for very specific reasons. The primary reason is the ability to adapt lenses. I am able to use a full movement tilt shift adapter on my Nikon 14-24. This is something that no other full frame system can do. Also I retouch images for several other photographers. I have the luxury of seeing raw files from nikon canon and sony. The Nikon and Sony files have more dynamic range, and less noise. The Canon (5Dsr) file has the most resolution. If you’re shooting fashion in the studio and controlling the light, the Canon is a better option. However if you’re shooting on location and you don’t have as much control, the Nikon or Sony are better.

      now you seem to have some preconceived notions about Sony, but you’re simply wrong.

      1. I use an a7rII with lot of different adapted lenses. I’ve never had color shifting or artifacts on the edges. I do my research first and buy a lens that works. and not every lens that works is large. I have a several lenses that are very small, work perfectly. Yes, the cost of the newest sony lens is more than the cost of the Canon equivalent that is several years old. This shouldn’t be a surprise and next year when Canon updates their lens, the roles will be reversed. as for the ergonomics? Have you actually used one? Personally I can’t speak to this most of what I do is on a tripod. So I wouldn’t know. Shooting in studio don’t you use a tripod most of the time?

      2. You can set the camera to focus at maximum aperture, or at the set/working aperture. It simply camera setting. If this was your major reason for not switching to Sony, I would think it’s time to put your existing kit on eBay. Nikon and Canon still rule autofocus for sports. The new Sony a99 might be competitive? I don’t know of never tried it. But there’s one thing I know for sure and that is if you’re shooting in the studio any of these modern cameras will work if there set-up properly.

      3. you’re concerned with moire? If you’re shooting at f7-11 you’ll never have moire (Diffraction). The only time I’ve ever seen it is in images from a Nikon D700, and Canon 5D (M1). I have never seen moire with my Nikon 800e, or A7rII, and I’ve never seen it in any of the 5Dsr images I’ve worked on. Architecture is one of the two places that it’s most common. again this sounds like something that you may have heard of. But have you ever used one of these cameras and actually seen it?

      Yes it is a fact that Sony doesn’t have as many native lenses for this amount (It’s still relatively new). It’s also a fact that I can mount and use more lenses than any traditional DSLR format. It all comes down to the way you shoot, and what’s the BEST TOOL. Canon loyalists refuse to acknowledge this point. Just like the Ford versus Chevy argument, people fall in love with the brand. And guess what, Canon loves this! This allows them to trickle out technology at a pace that their accounting department will approve. If you disagree with this I suggest you go out and shoot with a Nikon and Sony shooter. Afterwards compare the raw files. I have, and the 5Dsr is only competitive with the others.

      Canon is catching up, not dominating, not even leading. When the Nikon D800 came out it was far and away better. I think we were hoping that Canon had a similar “wow factor” camera up their sleeve. They probably do but they decided to release a ho-hum camera instead.

      I hope Canon is not dead. This also goes for Nikon, Pentax, Fuji, and so on. All this competition is bringing us great products. And these great products are allowing us to do things that would have been very difficult. The 5DIV is not as bad as the author makes it sound. It’s just an incremental improvement, when a lot of photographers (myself included) were hoping for a major improvement.

      • First off, I never meant to make it seem like the a7r ii is a bad camera. It’s a very good camera that excels at things compared to Canon. My post was simply to point out that not every professional photographer hates the 5d MkIV (as the author would have you believe) and in fact, there are many things that Canon excels at compared to Sony and why a photographer would determine that the a7r II isn’t an adequate option for them compared to a 5d MkIV. So again, I wasn’t meaning to say any camera is horrible, just making the point that each camera offers value compared to the other.

        Now to answer your questions:

        1a. The key word in with regards to your lens not having issues is “adapted”. The adaptor adds the length which give approximate equivalent flange distance which those adapted lenses were designed for. My point was the issues creating native lenses with such a short flange distance, you are building extra complexity in each new lens and as a result, they end up bigger and heavier than their dslr counterpart. Again I’m only referring to fast primes and zooms.

        1b. I agree I think we should wait on the cost comparison as you bring up a good point about the time of previous canon lens releases. With that being said, the engineer in me the bigger something is withs similar components (the fast Sony primes and zooms are bigger on average) the more expensive the final product will be. This of course assumed similar quality components used throughout which I would expect. I’d still prefer that the flange distance wasn’t so short because the extra weight in multiple lenses is worse than extra weight in the body.

        1c. Iv’e held the a7r ii and it simply wasn’t nearly as comfortable as the 5d MkIII for me. I just have a strong suspicion that I wouldn’t quite like long shoots with big lenses (although in fairness I’ve never tested that scenario). I also never use a tripod, I still shoot at fast enough shutter speeds where it isn’t necessary and prefer the flexibility of holding it as I love to get shots with different angles.

        2. From everything I’ve been reading recently, Sony updated the firmware for various lenses/body combinations where the “setting effect” (I’m assuming you are referring to this) doesn’t matter whether its set to on or off. Until this is fixed (it’s apparently been a problem for awhile) I simply can’t invest in a system that could give me a $2000 paper weight in certain conditions. Sources below:

        As for the a99ii. I love that camera. That body solves the vast majority of the issues keeping me away from the a7r ii (comfortable body, quick controls, much faster AF, much faster frame rate AND resolution than the 5d MkIV.) It ticks off more than enough boxes for me that I WANT to switch to it. Even though I do weddings from time to time and the thought of the potential nightmare of brushing out moire in a lot of the images, I’d still take that risk with the higher resolution sensor sans AA filter as most of my work is fashion. Although I can certainly see those who do only weddings who wouldn’t want to deal with that risk. The thing is, I’m not convinced about how long they’ll support and actually create NEW lenses rather than just update old designs with new coatings. As a photographer will easily spend more money investing in lenses than bodies, I need to be sure that they are truly committed to developing NEW high quality lenses for that system.

        3. When I was talking about Moire, it’s because I do a lot of fashion shoots outside along with things such as engagements, weddings, etc…In those circumstances I certainly won’t be stopped down to f11. The other thing to keep in mind, is that those cameras you mentioned are higher resolution. Moire becomes much less common when you go higher resolution. For the 30MP in the MkIV, I’d rather not risk it as again, it’s impossible to know if a camera has an AA filter simply by looking at an image unless you have the same image blown up and viewed side by side (AA vs. no AA image) and even then, only the finest of edges will be noticed. As you are in architecture, it makes sense for you to go without the AA filter because you’ll have more of those fine edges and it’d be a time waster to sharpen all of your images for those details.

        I think why people are most disappointed at the MkIV is because they’ve forgotten what the MkIV was always supposed to be. The best generalist camera. It’s good at everything, however being good at everything means missing out on being the absolute best at any one thing. For example, they upped it to 30MP, which isn’t too big to cause massive file sizes and slower frame rate for the wedding people, but still offers a resolution that is very suitable fashion work.

        I know a lot of people were wanting full frame 4k readout. That would be nice, but the thing is, no one is doing that without pixel binning on high pixel density cameras. I don’t count the a7s ii as it is one thing to do a full pixel readout and downscale on a 12 MP camera, it’s a totally different thing to do it on a 30+MP camera. Once you go down the binning route you are losing quality, introducing moire and losing low light performance. Personally, I’d see myself using the highest quality cropped option. With that being said, does the tech exist to do full frame readout without pixel binning? I haven’t seen it anywhere yet, not even in Sony’s a99ii with that awesome LSI. If the chips to do that are already out there, I’d have to imagine they’d be very expensive and put a pretty big dent in the battery life.

        In summary, the 5D MkIV certainly has its flaws. There are definitely features that would be easy to implement that Canon decided to leave out (looking at you focus peaking), but when you remember what the 5d series (outside of 5Ds,sr) was always meant to be the ultimate generalist camera, and the 5d MkIV is exactly that.

        • I agree with most everything you’re saying, with only a few counterpoints.

          1. Having a short flange distance allows you to add adapters, and therefore increase the overall size of the camera. But keep in mind that not all lenses require a large flange distance. Example would be leica “c” 40 mm F2. this lens is tiny, very sharp, and has no strange color artifacts on the edges. And I paid $400 for it on eBay. What I’m getting at is that if you own a Nikon system you can only use their lenses the way they were intended. Canon gives you a little more flexibility, I know that people were adapting the Nikon 14-24 to Canon.
          So Sony systems are not always small, but it can be depending on what you’re doing. When I use the tilt shift adapter on my 14 – 24 it’s still a big setup. But when I’m scouting a building with the VC 10mm it’s very small.

          2. My “settings affect off” works. But this may also point out a different kind of issue. All camera manufacturers have had bugs. People that are experiencing this may simply have something going on with their specific camera? That seems like a possibility especially when you look at how new system is, and how quickly updates are coming out.

          3. Again I agree with you that you would be more likely to have an issue with a 30mp sensor. However I think that it’s not a big leap to 36mp the Nikon and Sony used without an AA filter. I guess this goes to what many perceive as a lack of innovation on the part of Canon. I’m sure they have the technology to put a variable AA filter on that sensor or some other innovative way to deal with moire. This leads us to the real issue of the discussion “lack of innovation”, or “lack of Implementation of innovation”. go to DPR And compare the image quality to the two-year-old Nikon 810. Even though they are similar in resolution 30v36, you can see a clear difference when you look at text of fine detail.

          The MkIV is clearly the best camera on the market for the wedding photographer. But the reasons why it’s the best are not so clear. It’s partially the best because the Nikon 800 series is getting old. And the Canon 70-200 VII is the best lens for that type of portraiture. It will be interesting once the Sony version is readily available to see how it compares for focus breathing.

          The MkIV is a very good camera that’s part of a great system. But, they had for five years to develop this camera, and I can see no clear reason why there’s not something innovative in it.
          In body stabilization,
          variable AA filter,
          more dynamic range (Canon is just catching up),
          crazy good ISO capability (Canon is just catching up) …
          All these things would have added some WOW, and all of these things would have been valuable wedding shooters. If they had added eye detection to the reliable DSLR autofocus system that would’ve been a big deal the wedding shooters.

          So some accountant over at Canon decided that their margins would be better if they released a camera without any of the above. And I’m speculating that they did this believing that there loyal followers would accept it.
          Hopefully these same accountants don’t start saving money by cutting back on R&D?

          The point that the author was making, is that the loyal followers are starting to look at other systems. Over the next five years the competition will continue innovate. The marketplace is changing. imagine if Apple stopped innovating. All Windows PCs made meaningful advances, then once every five years Apple did something to catch up. It would not be long until Apple was wondering what happened to their loyal followers.

          Thank you for the thoughtful discussion.

  5. I think all the signs are there. I recently spent two weeks at one of the most photographed capital in Europe for a photo trip. What surprised me most was the number of Sony cameras (A7 and APS-C models) people were using. I go on a 2-week photo trip every year to one of the famous locations. This is the first time I have seen so many Sony camera. It used to be 90% Canon and Nikons (excluding smartphones). What I observed was about about 40% Canon, 25% Sony, 25% Nikon and 10% others. This is a very significant increase in the number of Sony cameras in a very short time. The big market for this type of camera is the enthusiast market and Sony is very strong in picking up steam. Will Canon really die, probably not, or will take a while as there are still a lot of Canon fans. But I think the general trend is there and the writing is on the wall. I have switched from Canon to Sony two years ago. I used to be a die-hard Canon fan with 2 bodies (1D4, 5D3) and about 6 L lens. I sold most of them and I have not looked back.

  6. IMO Canon has always been the brand that was “OK”; not the best colors, not the best DR, not the best ISO performance, not the best ergonomics, not the best lenses … But overall, it was OK and you couldn’t go totally wrong with Canon. But now, that we experience much better packages from other brands, Canon users are more likely to switch – also because it was the largest brand which attracts also more beginners.

    So while the choice for Nikon, Minolta, Leica etc. was most likely a conscious decision, Canon was more chosen by people like “My friend has a Canon”, “I can’t go wrong with Canon, right?”, “It was cheap and available”. There’s not enough that Canon does better/best.

    Now the other brands got more news coverage and do/offer something different. People just stick to their iPhone, get small mirrorless, get the “Leica look”, get a pro Nikon …

Leave a Reply