Canon camp, Nikon camp, Minolta camp, Pentax camp...

[Cholentpot]

I'm with you. I will never buy another vehicle from the Detroit big 3 again. But lets not hijack the thread.

Stupid cash for clunkers...

Over the years I've received cameras and lenses as gifts from people who have retired from photography (or at least film photography), and these cameras are of all different brands. Because of this, I haven't developed a loyalty to any specific brand. I cherish and use all of them.

Same here, I bought one camera for market price that's all. All others were gifts or pawnshop finds.

 

[jwd722]

My reasons may seem lame but I like Nikon, it all started because I liked the way they looked and felt in my hand. After using them I really appreciated the quality as well. An FG, FA, two FE's, F2A, F100 (actually my first purchase), D70, D200, D7200 and a D500 plus an assortment of lenses. Too much invested to change brands.
My backup favorite is Pentax. Only eight of them but more lenses than for Nikon. For no particular reason I've never really cared for Canon, however, I do have a Canon Model 7 rangefinder.

 

[ciniframe]

Rabid? For most here I think, not hardly. Do not mistake personal preference's for fanboy behavior. I like many cameras but since the OM-1 came out I have used it. More than 50 years on, It still checks most of the boxes plus I have no income to support two systems. My personal preference for the OM is based on size and that viewfinder. My choice of screen has always been the Olympus 1-10, a all matte with grid lines. Never liked micro-prism or split wedge screens, again 'personal preference', nothing more.

I've always had a liking for the Nikon F, but only, yes O-N-L-Y with the plain un-metered prism. It's bigger and heavier but a stable platform and Nikkors of modest aperture have usually been reasonable price wise. But there is that weight, it has kept me with Olympus. (I also have a modest Pen F half frame system.)

There are a lot of good film cameras out there, pick what makes YOU happy.

 

[mshchem]

Coming of age in the 70's, Nikon was the stud camera. I started off with a Pentax SP500, then a Pentax ES. Both great cameras. But in 73 I bought an F2S and I was king stud until a rich kid bought a Nikon and a Hasselblad outfit. I never even considered Canon or Minolta, I was hooked. I like that all my Nikon AF-D lenses that work with the latest D5 will work just fine with my F2A and my F.
Nikon rocked the world when the F came out and kept going with the F2. Today if I was starting from scratch I don't know what I would do. D5 is a great camera, The newest Nikon lenses just are too plastic for me. Too much stuff to go wrong.
Mike

 

[MattKing]

In the 1970s and a bit into the 1980s I used to sell cameras and, during part of that time, I was on commission.
I used to make money from people who would switch camera systems regularly, but never really liked dealing with them, because they tended to both be unhappy, and to take relatively few photographs.
The camera brand loyalty that arose during those years was fundamentally different then compared to now for several important reasons.
The cameras that were introduced during that period were significantly improved over the cameras from a previous generation, and the market was expanding tremendously.
In addition, and this is hard to appreciate now, that period coincided with a total sea-change in attitude about products manufactured in Japan.
As well, many of the features and some of the ergonomics were new and in many cases relatively unproven.
As a result of all the foregoing, and due to the fact that many of the people buying SLRs were in that sort of market for the first time ever, decisions being made often involved as much faith and hope and marketing spin as they did experience and long term research.
Decisions based on subjective criteria and hope and faith tend to create much more loyalty than decisions based on logic backed up by reliable, long term research and experience.

 

[cooltouch]

My first "real" camera was a Canon AE-1, so I developed a loyalty for Canon FD cameras and lenses as I added lots of stuff to my kit. But by 1989, I realized there was no real future with FD, so I switched systems to Nikon. Actually, deciding to switch opened me up to the larger world of 35mm photography because I decided to rent a table at a camera show to sell my FD gear. I ended up with a couple thousand bucks in my pocket and thought, "Hmm, maybe I should take my time switching over -- do a little buying and selling along the way." This developed rather quickly into a camera dealer business with a substantial inventory. I was also able to put together a couple of nice personal Nikon outfits along the way (a Nikon F3/MD4 and F2AS/MD2/MB1 plus about a dozen lenses). So I had this extensive inventory of all sorts of gear, much of which I used. And I developed an appreciation for quite a few different cameras and lenses. Nowadays, I have about 40 or 50 35mm cameras, most of which are Nikon, Canon FD, and Pentax (both M42 and K). I got back into Canon FD because I found that I just missed my F-1s and FTbs. I fleshed out my Nikon collection, such that I have at least one model of the F-type from the original to the F4s, and I decided to expand my Pentax collection because of my experiences with Pentax glass back when I was a dealer. I found it to be scary sharp. Toss in a couple of Minoltas and a lone Contax, plus an assortment of various rangefinders. All this has led to my horizons being expanded, such that little of the old brand loyalty remains. Well, I still have a bit of a soft spot for Canon FD cameras and lenses. First love and all.

 

[Larry the sailor]

When it comes right down to it the camera is just a tool for creating a photograph.
I don't think there has ever been a person, living or dead, that can look at a good(or bad) photograph and tell you what brand of camera it was taken with.

 

[Paul Howell]

I started with a Spotmatic, bought it used with a 3 lens kit at a Pawn Shop in Long Beach Ca in 1966, liked it and still have. In 68 I bought a Konica T because I wanted a body with shutter speed priority and after reading many reviews found that the lens were all excellent. Then in 72 I needed a camera with a motor drive, I looked at Nikon, Canon and Topcon, decided on a used Nikon F, traded my Konica and lens in for it. As I working PJ I kept with Nikon, F2 and last a F3. Once hooked into the lens mount could not afford a new system every few years, the object was to make money not to spend it. I did come close to dumping the F2 for a Pentax LX, once again cost of new lens. Right after 911 my gear was ripped off at LAX on a return flight to Phoenix. As I was shooting medium and large format I did not replace my Nikon, gave the FG and FA to my son and shot with my M42 gear. Then on a whim I bought a Sigma SA7 with 2 lens at a Kit's Camera at a local mall. Although not a perfect camera it as cheap and worked well enough that I bought a SA 9 and added to the lens kit and added a SD9 and 10, then 14. I was a happy camper, then the SA7 and 9 died from the yellow death. I looked at returning to Nikon, maybe Canon EOS, but decided on Minolta A mount, the lens were very reasonable and the bodies are dirt cheap. So I don't have brand, it has always been a balance of my needs and costs. I would be happy with a F5, EOS 1V, just a matter of costs.

 

[faberryman]

I went from Exakta->Pentax->Olympus, and have not changed in the 35-40 years since. I guess that puts me in the Olympus camp, but I think it is more that I had a nice set of bodies and lenses and had no reason to change, especially after everything began going plastic in the mid-1980s.

 

[guangong]

As noted, taste plays a role in choice. Initially I picked Leicaflex because I could unadapted my Leica lenses. Could be accustomed habit but I just preferred the way a Leicaflex sat in the hand compared with other SLRs, although I do sometimes carry a Nikon F with simple prism because very compact package without meter. Among the major brands all are capable, all have a lens or two that are outstanding and some have produced bummers.
And some cameras have quirkss. My folding retinas advance can die at any moment, but my folding Contessa's shutter must be cocked separate.
So it all comes down to tast...and budget!

 

[CMoore]

I was born in 1960. My parents were of "Modest Means", so in about 1979 i had a used Canon AE-1. I did not even know Canon made a "better" camera than that.
But i DID know that any time i went to an Auto Race, Concert.....any big event, most of The Pro Photographers had a Nikon. And SOME of the Nikon seemed Big and Ugly.....at the time i did not realize i was looking at a Nikon F with a Meter. So back then, Nikon was So Prevalent, i think the large majority of any kind of photographer wanted to be a "Nikon Guy".
If you read Modern Photography, or knew a bit more about cameras, you may have had desires for a Minolta or a Pentax.
My perception back then was that Olympus was not a "Professional Camera".
NOW...??
I go from model to model. I signed up for a Beginning Film Photography class at our local college.
For a few reasons, i did not want to bring my F1-New or my F2.....so i brought my Canon AT-1. It is simple, it has been to a tech and works well, it uses good lens...and as the old saying goes....."If you cannot take a good photo with this camera".......
So i guess i am in the...... "There are many good camps". And the cameras are all pretty much as good or better at photography than i am.

 

[BayG75]

I suppose some could accuse me of "rabid loyalty" to Nikon, but I don't really think of it that way. Other than point-and-shoots and the occasional cheap vintage body I have never bought anything but Nikon cameras, but that is mostly a matter of practicality - as many others have noted, once you have built up a "stable" of bodies, lenses, and accessories it can be financially daunting to switch to another system.

Beyond that it has just been easier to stick with one company. When I switched to digital in the mid 00's I could have looked at Canon and others, but decision-making - especially when shopping - is not my strong suit and usually I am happier with fewer choices rather than more. Given the competition among brands most offered about the same features at about the same price points, so focusing solely on the Nikon options was fine with me. Besides, Nikon products had served me very well for decades, so I didn't see a reason to change.

If I had chosen Canon or Minolta or Olympus over Nikon in the late 1970s, I might still be shooting with their cameras today (especially Canon). I went with Nikon mainly because as a teenager my two photographic "mentors" both used Nikon cameras and recommended I do the same. I was also aware that 90% of the photojournalist images I saw in newspapers and magazines were shot with Nikon Fs and F2s, and I'm guessing that had some influence on me.

That is not to say that "brand loyalty" does not play some part. As much as I like to think of myself as above such things, I am definitely not; my mother bought Crest toothpaste when I was a kid, and even today - 50+ years later - it never really occurs to me to buy a different brand of toothpaste.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

Being loyal to a brand makes sense, since you have an investment in their system and continued purchases rewarded the company for providing you with a system that has worked well for you.

What doesn't make sense is the tribalistic bashing of a different brand owned by someone else.

I've not seen that happen in the analog world for a long time, but that behaviour is alive on internet sites like dpreview.

 

[ozphoto]

For me, it was a cost factor. My folks decided to buy me a camera for my 16th birthday, and I was happy for a used one.

The larger camera store in town had a vast array of bodies and lenses in their shop window and they asked if there was one in particular that caught my eye in the price range. I took a while to go over them and decided on a Canon AE-1 Program that looked in very good condition and my cousin had just got a T70 for his birthday a couple of months earlier. I figured when we went out shooting film, we could share lenses and we still do to this day - although it's now EF gear.

I did tinker with changing when I had to change to digital for my job, but figured I might as well stick with Canon - he'd swapped to EF years earlier for his job as a newspaper photographer and that meant I could have access to his (and the paper's) vast array of gear and vice versa.

I think someone mentioned the Ford/Chevy debate that has gone on for centuries up-thread - Canon vs. Nikon is the same I think to those die-hards. I have a bunch of used cameras that I've been given - Kodak, Olympus, Agfa, I really enjoy using them all.

I *am* a Canon kid, but it's the creativity of the user that makes the photo, not the gear. I don't really care if someone makes a snarky remark that I'm not using a "real" camera when I'm out using my little Kodak 620 Junior - it has survived WW2 with an Aussie digger in Egypt, the Med etc, I bet their iGalone couldn't say the same after 6 years in combat. . .

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

Could someone please explain the reason for such rabid loyalty to different brands. The Canon "guys", vs Nikon "guys" vs others. I have always had Canons, except for my first SLR, a Ricoh and the Konica. Never even tried a Nikon, lol. I guess maybe it's like the Ford people or Chevy people. Maybe you develop a bias over time not even trying what the other camp has to offer.

All of the marques are great cameras. People with small hands often favour the Canon cameras, while those accustomed to chunkiness and a very solid feel, additional to having bigger hands gravitated toward Nikon. I briefly owned a Minolta Dynax 9000i in the 1980s (1987??); I didn't like the feel of it — the fiddly buttons didn't agree with me. Pentax? The current Pentax 67 is a definite love affair with gorgeous image quality.

There are no hard and fast rules, just what appeals to one over another. There has always been that rivalry in the two camps — Nikon and Canon, and always will be. I have owned many Nikons and Canons (especially during the 1970s and 1990s, when I settled on the form of Canon's EOS bodies, which I still use) and am very happy for that experience, instead of becoming rabidly judgemental and hysterical about one particular marque over another for largely baseless and trivial points (which in effect points to a lack of balanced, professional experience. The present debate over the merits of Nikon's D850 vs Canon's offerings is a case in point!). I am happy to point out that the madness so prevalent today among photographers squabbling over Nikon vs Canon ... well, so very many of these guys weren't even born when I was shooting any which camera from any which manufacturer I cared!

 

[cooltouch]

I agree with you, Gary, about the squabbling wrt Nikon vs Canon. Most are fanboys who are overly enamored of the tech instead of the craft of photography. Maybe they'll wise up a bit when they get older.

All of the marques are great cameras. People with small hands often favour the Canon cameras, while those accustomed to chunkiness and a very solid feel, additional to having bigger hands gravitated toward Nikon. I briefly owned a Minolta Dynax 9000i in the 1980s (1987??); I didn't like the feel of it — the fiddly buttons didn't agree with me. Pentax? The current Pentax 67 is a definite love affair with gorgeous image quality.

Funny, I've been shooting with Canon FD cameras since 1982 (started with an AE-1) and I've never thought of Canons as being compact cameras, or at least meant for smaller hands. I've always thought that the Olys and Pentax M-series cameras were a good choice for small hands. They are much more compact that Canon's A-series, which were the most compact FD Canons. Well, I guess one might also include the T70 and T50. But anyway, the Canons from the 1970s, specifically the original F-1, FTb, and EF, are large, heavy cameras -- at least as big as a Nikon F2 and just as heavy.

I agree with you regarding the Pentax 67. After many years of wanting one, I finally bought one a couple years ago. What a machine!

 

[blockend]

Brand loyalty is partly objective and part subjective. There weren't many truly professional 35mm cameras made, but plenty that could do professional photography. If you wanted brass, ball bearings, a degree of weather and dust sealing, lenses for every occasion, quick turnaround servicing, you could count such cameras on the fingers of one hand. Those professional models had a lot of influence on the cameras people aspired to, even if the only thing they had in common was the name.

The last time amateur bodies bore resemblance to the same manufacturer's pro cameras was the late 1970s. A Nikkormat offered nine-tenths of the F experience, and the Canon FTb was almost as solid as the F-1. Olympus changed things round by offering a professional lens range on a body that forsook the weight and size that was synonymous with professional cameras. Minolta made good cameras and excellent lenses but arguably were never serious about marketing their professional model. By the early 80s everything was changing and the boom was in consumer electronic cameras. This continued with autofocus cameras, which bore almost no similarity to their professional brethren in build quality.

Where people joined those markets generally determined what brand they were into. I knew guys who thought in camera metering was a gimmick, and one who tried an AF camera and declared it a toy. This long after the fact the state of a 35mm camera is more important than the brand or where it stood in the pecking order.

 

[Svenedin]

I learnt on an Olympus OM1 at school but that belonged to the school photography club. Then I used a friend's father's OM2. The first 35mm SLR camera I actually owned was an OM4-Ti and that was a (very generous) birthday present. It was absolutely what I wanted though. Now I have 4 Olympus OM4-Ti cameras and a lot of lenses, all of them bought second-hand over a 25 year period. The OM system is good enough for me and is well made. I wouldn't want to change system as it would be a waste of money; it would not improve my photographs. I make enough mistakes anyway without the challenge of unfamiliar equipment!

So I think as has already been said, you make a choice and then get rather locked in by the various lenses and accessories but there is also a distinct advantage in keeping to one system -everything becomes so familiar that it is second nature to use. Familiarity with a system makes for more enjoyable photography, faster operation and a better chance of good photos than hankering after some "wonder camera" or other.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

From my experience, the OM4Ti was memorable for two reasons: the first with additive spot metering/bias control, and importantly, a delightful form to hold in the hand (if you had small hands, it was love at first sight). At the time I was coming from the behemoth Nikon F3HP with MD4 motordrive (!), carted around in the handlebar bag of my touring bike (!!). I needed more than two hands to come to grips with that and eventually I got quite sick of the novelty.
I pimped my OM4Ti with a motor drive and one of the better OM zooms of that time (1984-85) — can't remember what that zoom was now. It too travelled widely in the trusty handlebar bag of my bike until I again jumped ship to Canon's camp and the T90 (1988).

• Photo: Me with OM4Ti on a bicycle tour, 1988
( I believe this was shot by my touring companion on Ektachrome and an Olympus XA)

 

[Sirius Glass]

I used Minoltas for decades until my girlfriend won a 28mm to 300mm Tamron AF lens. I had to choose Canon or Nikon and I chose Nikon. Now I have a Nikon N75 and a Nikon F100.

 

[CMoore]

Holy Cow...you guys are really loaded there.
You must have been in great shape.!
You certainly had some nice cameras. I always thought Canon should have made a "Better" T-90.....but they never asked for my opinion.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

I agree with you, Gary, about the squabbling wrt Nikon vs Canon. Most are fanboys who are overly enamored of the tech instead of the craft of photography. Maybe they'll wise up a bit when they get older.

Funny, I've been shooting with Canon FD cameras since 1982 (started with an AE-1) and I've never thought of Canons as being compact cameras, or at least meant for smaller hands.

The EOS 1N is very compact if you do not use the power drive booster E1 and substitute that for the 2CR5 battery(palm) grip (which I would never do).

I agree with you regarding the Pentax 67. After many years of wanting one, I finally bought one a couple years ago. What a machine!

Yes indeedy. The bloody thing is going to break my back one of these days. Such is my love affair with Pentaximus I that I will take it anywhere at any penalty...Off on another journey into the wilds this weekend — while there is a decent break in the weather!

 

[Arbitrarium]

People love things to be as simple as 'us and them'. And people love to feel like they're a part of something. Same reason so many people support a particular sports team or vote for a certain political party. They just want to know that they have a 'side' and that they're backed by many others who've chosen the same side. It's comforting I suppose, and perhaps empowering.

Cowardly behaviour if you ask me.

 

[MartinCrabtree]

So it's tribalism? If so that's one of our oldest and most successful behaviors. That's an overly simplistic and very subjective description that ignores many variables. Then again to each his own.

 

[rrusso]

Anyway, looking to sell a Nikon F100 good condition in box that comes with the hard to find CR123A battery adapter. Please send me a message if you're interested. Genuine buyers only.

You can only post for sale items in the classified section.

Edit: And you must be a subscriber.