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

[Theo Sulphate]

... As for Canon's mount change, I dunno if I'd call 30 years ago "relatively recently," but I guess it's a matter of perspective.

Seems like they changed it only a year or two ago.

I would have loved to have been in Canon's boardroom, or wherever they meet, when they made the decision to effectively abandon the FD mount and go with the EF. That took confidence and resolve, especially considering the initial backlash from the pro community. Yet, after not too many years, their choice proved to be wise. It has withstood the test of time superbly. Of course, had I been in that boardroom, I wouldn't've appreciated the moment much because I don't understand Japanese.

 

[narsuitus]

Over the decades, I have owned and used Nikon, Canon, Leica, Contax, Argus, Vivitar, Hewlett Packard, Diana, Ansco, Kodak, Yashica, Mamiya, Miranda, Minolta, Pentax, Fuji, Olympus, Polaroid, Graflex, and Calumet cameras. With the exception of the Miranda, I enjoyed using all of them.

I do not consider myself loyal to a single brand. However, Nikon is my main "system" camera.

 

[drmoss_ca]

And here is a large format paper negative of the best Nikon film cameras:


Best Nikons Ever by chrism229, on Flickr
Chamonix 10x8, Nikkor 300mm/f9 @f64, Galaxy Hyperspeed paper rated at ISO100 and pre-flashed for four seconds through a sheet of plain white paper, exposed for thirty seconds with the help of two monolights, develeoped in Ilford Multigrade developer 1+9 for two minutes and scanned on an Epson V850.

The point, if I have one, is that it would look much the same if the pictured cameras were Canons, Minoltas or Pentaces. It doesn't matter what takes the photograph. Only the photograph itself matters.

Edit: Yes, this one doesn't matter. Just making a point.

 

[RichardJack]

It's not about being loyal to a brand, it's about being practical and sticking to compatible equipment. In the current professional circles it's mainly the Canon, Nikon, and Sony camps.

 

[MartinCrabtree]

Parts have never been an issue when repair is needed. There are many nice cameras out there but some of the brands can be excessive when it comes to finding and paying for parts. Tough to beat the Japanese camp in that respect.

 

[cooltouch]

Seems like they changed it only a year or two ago.

I would have loved to have been in Canon's boardroom, or wherever they meet, when they made the decision to effectively abandon the FD mount and go with the EF. That took confidence and resolve, especially considering the initial backlash from the pro community. Yet, after not too many years, their choice proved to be wise. It has withstood the test of time superbly. Of course, had I been in that boardroom, I wouldn't've appreciated the moment much because I don't understand Japanese.

Well I do -- to an extent. Studied Japanese in college for a couple years. I doubt I'd understand much of what was being said, however. Probably a fair amount of technical language and jargon.

Regarding Canon's switch to the EF mount, I recall being pretty pissed when I heard the news. But I had to grudgingly admit that I couldn't blame them. I mean, Canon did at least try moving to AF with the FD mount, but it was an unmitigated disaster. Remember the T80? So, no doubt still stinging from that experience, Canon elected to start with a clean sheet of paper. Deciding on a large, all electronic mount was a stroke of pure genius. Others have finally moved to an electronic interface, but those who have kept their original mounts are stuck with mounts that are physically smaller than the EOS mount. A larger mount reduces the chances of vignetting, especially with long telephotos. So this is an advantage Canon will always have over the other brands.

But even though I can see the advantage of the EF mount, I personally don't own many EF items. A few lenses, a couple of cameras (one film, one digital), and a flash that works with the film EOS but not the digital one. I own a lot more FD gear these days than EF gear. This may change someday, when I become independently wealthy so I can afford cameras and lenses that sell for more than what I typically pay for a used car. Or motorcycle. Same goes for the other big brands, far as that goes.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

Regarding Canon's switch to the EF mount, I recall being pretty pissed when I heard the news.

But it was no secret as "news". Canon had been beavering away as early as 1984 with the EF mount and they did hint that a change was coming (in Cologne [?]). Way back at the time of its release the first EOS cameras were a revelation but take-up, at least here in Australia, was very slow, especially since the first bodies were not particularly attractive, or for that matter reliable (and those early EOS 630/650 cameras are today best avoided). That changed with the EOS 1 (which caused quite a stampede) and again with many improvements and refinements in 1994 with the EOS 1N.

I had several FD lenses with the T90, of which my favourite was the 28-105 (I think that's right) zoom and a 24mm. But there was nothing particularly fancy about flat-lined FD lenses considering the optical engineering and manufacturing formulae that went into the first and progressive EF L-series lenses e.g. CaF2 glass, multi-aspheric elements (front and rear), smaller and lighter designs and speed. The carping stopped when people of either amateur or professional persuasion latched onto these.

 

[blockend]

I have a number of early Nikon AF lenses, before the D suffix. While they're optically very nice, most being autofocus variations of long-lived pre-AI, AI and AIS designs, the screw focus is slow and noisy and build quality nothing special. I also have a couple of Canon EOS film bodies to fit my EF digital lenses, and find the autofocus less than instantaneous, though better than Nikon. Not sure I'd have trusted film era autofocus to professional sports photography on long lenses, though clearly some made it work for them.

Thirty years after the advent of electronic AF technology there are still debates about the speed and accuracy of autofocus cameras.

 

[Armandillo]

I started out as a Canon guy with the old FD system. I had an FT, AEI-P, A-1, and T90. I hung on to this system as long as I could but by the late 1990s, the writing was on the wall. Canon was no longer supporting this system. I never connected with the Canon EOS system. I knew my dad had some Nikon equipment he never used. Around the same time, I saw a used Nikon FM2 and fell in love with it. Shortly thereafter, I traded in my Canon equipment for another FM2 body and a 180 mm ED lens. My conversion to a Nikon guy was now complete.

 

[Toyo]

Similar experience.
My first SLR was a Canon FTb and I added lenses as the years passed.
I still have these and still use them, and the mighty FTb is still as reliable as it was when I bought it in the early 1970's
By a stroke of chance, I was looking for a DSLR some years ago and a friend was selling her D300.
I bought it and still shoot with it.
Inevitably I purchased Nikon lenses to go with it - mostly MF AI or AIs lenses.
So now I have two systems.
Back when high end film SLRs were being given away, I picked up a Nikon F4s and have since added some Nikomats because they are still a bargain.
The Canon line was not forgotten and at the same time as Nikons were being given away I picked up a T90 and an F-1.
So - is there brand loyalty here - up to a point, yes - but only because I am familiar with both systems and I can make good images with either.
My family gave me a mirrorless digital camera, and of course it can use both Canon and Nkkor lenses.
Soooooo spoiled for choice we are these days
T

 

[BrianVS]

canonp_sonnars by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr

Translation from the Japanese Boardroom on the switch to EF lenses.
"Well, we all had to get over abandoning the LTM Mount. Then the R mount. The FL lenses were at least compatible with the FD mount. The FDn lenses mount differently from the real ones. So what's one more change? Let's as least name the mount after an old camera so the old-timers don't notice we changed it."

PA153276 by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr

 

[Kevin Ekstrom]

I'm going to be very honest, I do not support one brand over another and I never have. I have a fondness for Nikon's but only because it was the system I learned to shoot with, other than that I don't find Nikon to be superior to any other top competitive camera manufacturer. I honestly haven't found a camera I didn't like. Some may be of lesser quality or feel a bit awkward when holding them, but I always find that the true joy comes from the anticipation of what I may have captured from these lesser cameras. I'm usually pleasantly surprised. I'll shoot with anything, and you will rarely see me complain, rant, or try to discourage others from using specific brands.

 

[faberryman]

I'm going to be very honest, I do not support one brand over another and I never have...I'll shoot with anything...

Yes, but what brand(s) do you own?

 

[Kevin Ekstrom]

Yes, but what brand(s) do you own?

I more or less collect 35mm cameras, so my list is long. My Nikon's are pictured in a few threads, I think I posted a Minolta or 2, also a Ricoh is probably floating around here. I'm not sure if I posted any of my Fujicas, but my Fujica list is long. I own quite a few brands and will add more.

Here's a few:

 

[JerseyDoug]

I have three camera systems. About the only things they have in common are that they shoot film and don't use batteries.

My father gave me his Leica IIIf when he switched to MF. In the following 50 years I've accumulated quite a bit of screw-mount Leica gear, including four bodies and more lenses than I care to admit. They are my most used cameras. I had an M2 for a while but never got on with the bigger box-like shape.

In 1968 I was loaned a Nikon F and 35/3.5 PC-Nikkor lens for an extended project. When the project's funding was cut off they liquidated all of the equipment and I bought the camera and lens for pennies on the dollar. I sold the PC-Nikkor almost immediately and eventually sold the body to pay for another Leica. Recently, in a moment of nostalgia, I bought another prism F body and 50/1.4 and 105/2.5 lenses to go with it. Time will tell how much I actually use them (I find it a lot easier for focus an RF than an SLR).

My third system is a Hasselblad 500C/M with three lenses. It too was bought for a particular project but I can't bring myself to sell it. I don't particularly like using it but my ratio of "keepers" to frames shot is much higher than with 35mm.

.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

It's tribalism pure and simple.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I started out as a Canon guy with the old FD system. I had an FT, AEI-P, A-1, and T90. I hung on to this system as long as I could but by the late 1990s, the writing was on the wall. Canon was no longer supporting this system. I never connected with the Canon EOS system. I knew my dad had some Nikon equipment he never used. Around the same time, I saw a used Nikon FM2 and fell in love with it. Shortly thereafter, I traded in my Canon equipment for another FM2 body and a 180 mm ED lens. My conversion to a Nikon guy was now complete.

Similar experience.
My first SLR was a Canon FTb and I added lenses as the years passed.
I still have these and still use them, and the mighty FTb is still as reliable as it was when I bought it in the early 1970's
By a stroke of chance, I was looking for a DSLR some years ago and a friend was selling her D300.
I bought it and still shoot with it.
Inevitably I purchased Nikon lenses to go with it - mostly MF AI or AIs lenses.
So now I have two systems.
Back when high end film SLRs were being given away, I picked up a Nikon F4s and have since added some Nikomats because they are still a bargain.
The Canon line was not forgotten and at the same time as Nikons were being given away I picked up a T90 and an F-1.
So - is there brand loyalty here - up to a point, yes - but only because I am familiar with both systems and I can make good images with either.
My family gave me a mirrorless digital camera, and of course it can use both Canon and Nkkor lenses.
Soooooo spoiled for choice we are these days
T

A lot of people walked away from Canon when they changed their lens mounts. My girl friend had won a Tamron AF 28mm to 300mm lens for me and I had a choice of Canon or Nikon. I chose Nikon because for the Canon lens mount change and never looked back at Canon again.

 

[narsuitus]

My first serious camera (Miranda Sensorex) was a dog. After dumping it, I began using Nikon, Canon, Leica, Contax, Argus, Pentax, Minolta, and Fuji 35mm cameras.

I am now loyal only to dependable cameras that meet my needs.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

... " ... Let's as least name the mount after an old camera so the old-timers don't notice we changed it." ...

It is surprising how little information there is on the internet about the Canon EF. Many photo-savvy people have never heard of it.

 

[Armandillo]

I'm going to be very honest, I do not support one brand over another and I never have. I have a fondness for Nikon's but only because it was the system I learned to shoot with, other than that I don't find Nikon to be superior to any other top competitive camera manufacturer. I honestly haven't found a camera I didn't like. Some may be of lesser quality or feel a bit awkward when holding them, but I always find that the true joy comes from the anticipation of what I may have captured from these lesser cameras. I'm usually pleasantly surprised. I'll shoot with anything, and you will rarely see me complain, rant, or try to discourage others from using specific brands.

 

[Armandillo]

I agree. We all have preferences and it is fun to talk about our preferences and biases on forums such as this one. However, it is ultimately the photographer and not the camera that makes a great photograph. Many of the classic photographs of the past were taken on cameras (and films) far inferior to what is available today. To attribute the greatness of a photograph to the brand of camera used would be like attributing a great work of literature to the type of computer or typewriter or a great painting to the brand of paintbrush or canvas.

 

[P.johnson14]

Well...

I prefer Canon (FD, mostly) and I prefer Ford trucks. But my Favorite camera is a Polaroid Frankenstein, and the the car that just keeps blowing me away is a Subaru.

 

[Tony-S]

Regarding Canon's switch to the EF mount, I recall being pretty pissed when I heard the news.

I, too, was quite PO'd with the change. I didn't buy an EOS film camera until about 2011 when I picked up an A2E, and then a couple years later an EOS 3. Still use both with a Sigma 50mm f/1.4 HSM and Canon 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 USM. However, the switch had one fantastic benefit for me - I was able to pick up a large number of FDn lenses that I could not have otherwise afforded, and since my A-1 and F-1N still work great, I came out ahead. I still use these more than my EOS film cameras. Of course, now I can also mate the FD lenses with my Fuji camera - the one that doesn't use film.

 

[BrendanD]

I've owned a few brands over 40 years...
1976 Zenit EM - I really wanted a Canon FTbn like a cool teacher I knew who had one, but all I could get as a birthday present was the Zenit. Used the hell out of it and learnt photography.
1981 Canon AE1 - with FL 28/50/135 bottom end lenses. Funded from a summer job, I really wanted the AT1 with a 50mm f1.4, but got persuaded by a salesman to go for the AE1. Big mistake. The shutter priority AE put me off a lot (lack of control over DOF) and I didn't like the lens quality. Sold it after less than a year.
1983 Olympus OM10 50mm f1.8 - on a super cheap deal in a Cambridge camera shop that I could even just about afford as a student (those were the days eh?). Added a Zuiko 28mm f2.8 and 85-250mm f5 in 1984 with summer jobs.
1984 Olympus OM1 black (used). I was going backpacking round Kenya for 8 weeks and wanted something totally reliable so I sold the OM10 and bought a very very well used OM1 with lots of brass showing.
1987 added an OM2n also used, and upgraded to a 50 f1.4.
Used this kit till 2001. Many many rolls of film, but it had been badly stored, abused and was battered and the 50 1.4 had fungus.

Digital
2001 Sony F707. Very poor and too expensive. I should have just got my OM kit serviced.
2004 Nikon D70 with kit lens - an affordable DSLR. Got me back into serious photography again. Thanks Nikon Having by now a well-paid job I went on a fairly rapid cycle chasing digital quality... Hold tight!
2005 Nikon D2X with a 'trinity' of AF zooms and some primes.
2007 Olympus E400, E3, Olympus 4/3 zooms. Had got a bit tired of lugging the Nikon stuff round in a backpack..... Also bought a couple of OM film bodies (OM2, OM4) and some lenses for nostalgia.
2008 Nikon D3. Full frame! Decided it was worth lugging stuff round for FF. Also compounded by Olympus AF failures in low light and my E3 falling apart.... Sold everything for the D3 and a 24-70 f2.8. Had a bit of shuffling around to reduce weight and used the D3 with a 28mm f1.4 and 85mm f1.4 AFD for a while. Loved the results, but hated the size of the camera..... usual story, especially how obtrusive it was on the street. I started getting much more serious about my street photography, in a way I hadn't been since the late 1970s, so....
2010 Leica M9, 35mm f1.4, 75mm f2.
2012 Added an M Monochrom, and a 21mm f1.4.
2015 Sony RX1 (used) and A7R. Had tired a bit of the rangefinder experience, having to find the right diopters to use, having developed a slight astigmatism making the rangefinder a bit hit and miss and having the cameras go back to Leica to be recalibrated just because I'd been a bit heavy handed (and just how much money I had tied up in the system)..... I bought a used RX1 to try it out. Loved its simplicity and results. Added the A7R while on a trip to Japan. Too cheap to pass up trying. Sold all the Leica gear and put the money into a flat move/refurbishment.
2016 Experimenting with lenses on the A7R. Initially just a 55mm f2 Zeiss and couldn't find anything I liked otherwise. Too expensive, too big, too harsh bokeh.... Then I got a Novoflex adaptor to try my OM Zuiko 85mm f2 and 24mm f2 lenses (from 2007)- WOW......

2017 FILM AGAIN - full circle
Olympus OM4Ti, OM3, OM3Ti . These have halved in price since I last looked in 2007 and I've also managed to get a couple of sought after Zuikos by waiting and watching (18mm f3.5, 40mm f2, 21 mm f2, 100 mm f2). I'm shooting Tri-X again and getting it scanned and planning to go back to the darkroom (a local public lab) at Xmas.
i still use the A7R when I want digital, but solely with the Zuikos. RX1 if I'm travelling for work and can only take something small.

Brand loyalty? Maybe to Olympus OM, so more system loyalty.....In 2001 there was NO WAY I could have afforded an OM4/3Ti, but I'm enjoying using film again rather than processing my digital images to look like film.... Its the aesthetic and the beautifully made gear. I think the Sony A7 series is probably now a mature digital FF platform with no need to upgrade. It does what I need, which is simply act as a small box for my lenses when a project suits digital rather than film (i.e colour or needing a quick turn-round). No plans on upgrading the Sony and will be shooting mostly film this winter.

www.brendandelaneyphotography.com