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

[Meow7]

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.

 

[JimCee]

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.

I would assume that many photographers are loathe to change their systems after making a investment in a particular manufacturer's cameras, lenses and associated accessories. I know that's certainly a factor in my loyalty to the Nikon system!

Jim

 

[Chan Tran]

OK among Canon, Nikon, Minolta and Pentax I chose Nikon 40 years ago. I didn't change system because I have lenses but because I think the Nikon was the best choice up to the F4. I wasn't sure about that but now I am sure because I now have many cameras of that period from the other brands. I recently got an F4s and it confirm the reason why many had switched over to Canon.

 

[RichardJack]

Like anything, personal taste is a factor. For some it might be the brand camera they learned on, or maybe that particular system as accessories that another doesn't. I have my favorites but I collect several brands (all mentioned and then some). My reason is that it is fun. I also shoot digital. For years I was annoyed with Minolta and Canon for changing their lens mount and leaving me stuck with old glass. At least my 1959 Nikkors can still mount on a Nikon DSLR, but now everything mounts on a Sony. Leica owners are the worst, they will never listen to anything negative about their system. Zeiss as well.
Use what you like, don't listen to anyone, and enjoy your hobby.

 

[Sewin]

I've three Nikons, one film, two digis and a few lenses.
I do find the lenses expensive though and now tend to bumble around in M42 land with basic mechanical cameras.

I enjoy it just as much and I don't worry too much about taking a punt on M42 gear if something takes my fancy.

 

[Alan Gales]

I was a Contax guy. The Zeiss lenses were great and the cameras ergonomic. I wasn't a camera snob though and realized that 35mm was 35mm. A better photographer could take better images than me with any 35mm camera. I guess after spending all that money on a kit, people liked to think what they bought was the best.

 

[Ian Grant]

Loyalty is/was partly because they all used their own different lens mounts, so once you made your choice you were effectively locked into that system.

Ian

 

[destroya]

nikon because thats what my dad shot and they allowed lenses to go seamlessly from manual focus to auto focus to digital. that allows a lot of used lenses to be had at bargain prices

 

[E. von Hoegh]

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.

It's a somewhat unattractive facet of human nature, and now that "branding" has come along it's become positively ridiculous.
My "working" system, when I was working semi-professionally in the '80s and 90s, shifted from Olympus to Nikon because the OM4 I had ate the battery every four to six months. A good deal on a Nikon F came along, and my 35 slr system has been Nikon ever since. No "rabid loyalty" just pragmatism. I also like the feel and function of the Nikon bodies and lenses, they just keep working because up to the F2 era (at least) they are superlatively well made; even the "lowly" Nikkormats of which I have two in addition to the F and F2 and a good assortment of pre-AI lenses from 20 to 135mm.
I also have Olympus, Canon, Pentax 42mm, Mamiya-Sekor42mm, and couple eastern European and FSU 42mm slrs because people keep giving them to me. My 35mm RF system is FSU Kiev, because I like prewar Contax cameras and a good Kiev is a Contax in all but name. I wouldn't take my 1936 Contax II hiking, for instance, hence the Kievs. Again, pragmatism. If a good Canon F1 or EF comes along, I'll snag it - they too are very nicely made, and mount excellent and inexpensive lenses.
Medium and large format, no specific make.
As for modern equipment, I want none of it.

 

[mklw1954]

Because all these brands are excellent, or were excellent in the days of 35mm SLRs, I think in many cases it's just fondness for the first good camera you owned - you remember the nice results when you first started creating images. I think it's why I favor Minolta.

However, with the big selloff of film SLRs around 2008-9, I picked up Olympus OM and Konica Autoreflex cameras and lens and they are excellent as well and I use all of them.

 

[Meow7]

Because all these brands are excellent, or were excellent in the days of 35mm SLRs, I think in many cases it's just fondness for the first good camera you owned - you remember the nice results when you first started creating images. I think it's why I favor Minolta.

However, with the big selloff of film SLRs around 2008-9, I picked up Olympus OM and Konica Autoreflex cameras and lens and they are excellent as well and I use all of them.

I have a feeling there is a big buy-up brewing. So many fabulous 35mm SLRs can be had for a song. All my med format are Fuji, apart from the Kodak 1A. I had Canon digital after I stopped film, then went to Fuji x system. Going back to Canon, I have lots of EF lenses for both film and digi bodies. Makes sense. My kids are also firmly in the Canon Digi and Film camp.

 

[BMbikerider]

Loyalty? What loyalty. When you invest in high end equipment, accessories to fit, and use it regularly so that use becomes 2nd nature, changing even the model by the same brand, or changing to a different make, then the cost will usually, nay always, outweigh any advantage gained by swapping brands.

Yes I use two makes. An ancient Minolta EX.1 and an even older SRT101b plus a string of MC/MD Minolta lenses all bought for very little money. They, the cameras, don't need the brains of a rocket scientist to use. My main cameras are a 'fleet' of Nikons (2 cameras a D700 and an F6 plus Nikon lenses which are all compatable with the Nikon 'add-ons', so they have become as familiar to me as the socks I wear every day. Both brands do what I want them to so why change? (I have more cash for beer!)

 

[Cholentpot]

I came into the game late so I have zero loyalty.

I have Pentax, Olympus, Nikon, Canon, Argus, Minolta, Kodak, Richo, Soviet stuff, and whatever else I can pick up.

Canon however is my go-to because the EOS system is compatible without issue across three of my most used cameras. If I dropped serious money on a lens it would be an EOS lens.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

From Nikon, Canon, Leica, Pentax, Minolta, Olympus, Hasselblad, Mamiya, etc., I love them all.

What does strike me as odd, and there's plenty of it on dpreview, are the nasty comments by supposed-owners of one brand (or format) against another. That's the kind of tribalism I see among sports fans and certain American-car fanatics. I cannot understand it.

 

[Cholentpot]

From Nikon, Canon, Leica, Pentax, Minolta, Olympus, Hasselblad, Mamiya, etc., I love them all.

What does strike me as odd, and there's plenty of it on dpreview, are the nasty comments by supposed-owners of one brand (or format) against another. That's the kind of tribalism I see among sports fans and certain American-car fanatics. I cannot understand it.

I got once 'FD? A bunch of crooks! Switching mounts and forcing us to buy into a new system' I was carrying an AE-1 in 2016. So, I unhooked my Nikkormat and put the AE-1 away and asked if I fit in now.

I didn't tell him about the Olympus in my pocket, or the Bronica in my trunk...or the fuji in my glovebox...I think I have a problem.

 

[BAC1967]

In my early photography days I couldn't afford much, I knocked around with a used Chinon SLR that I got from a friend in college with M42 mount. I still have it but don't use it a lot anymore. I have better M42 bodies and many lenses so I will likely stay with that. While everyone was switching to digital I was snapping up the great deals on film cameras and ended up with Canon FD, Olympus OM, Pentax PK, Minolta and several rangefinders.

It had been a long time since I used my fathers Minolta srTsc II in my high school photography class but when he gave it to me recently it all came back to me and I find I really do like it. As far as rangefinder cameras go I find I really like the old Leica screw mount cameras so I have invested in that kit. I have found that I don't get excited about using the Canon FD gear so I'm currently selling off all my kit to get something else. It's not that I don't like the results I get from them, I'm not sure what it is that I don't like. I do really like the OM Zuiko lenses so Olympus is a brand that I have invested in.

This is the Chinon SLR that I have had since around 1987. I need to replace the foam light seals and the meter is a bit off but mechanically it still works fine.
Chinon SLR by Bryan Chernick, on Flickr

 

[Patrick Robert James]

Just like most other things that have to do with humans, it is all ego. Simple really. You mostly see this with gear heads though. They chase that "ultimate" thing which is ridiculous. Digital cameras are especially susceptible to the insecurity/small wiener thing.

 

[Eric Rose]

I got into Nikon because in the beginning I was doing PJ work. In those days, mid 70's, everything was Nikon in that industry. I used the pool cameras and lenses and got use to the system. Like many people I don't like change especially when your muscle memory is so ingrained. My wife is a Canon shooter and I have used her stuff over the years and it's great.

Over the years I have used almost all the major and a few minor systems. Each has it's plusses and minuses. Many amateur photographers spend way to much time obsessing over equipment and not enough time working on their "craft".

Now don't get me going on cars and trucks, that I have OPINIONS on!

 

[Cholentpot]

I got into Nikon because in the beginning I was doing PJ work. In those days, mid 70's, everything was Nikon in that industry. I used the pool cameras and lenses and got use to the system. Like many people I don't like change especially when your muscle memory is so ingrained. My wife is a Canon shooter and I have used her stuff over the years and it's great.

Over the years I have used almost all the major and a few minor systems. Each has it's plusses and minuses. Many amateur photographers spend way to much time obsessing over equipment and not enough time working on their "craft".

Now don't get me going on cars and trucks, that I have OPINIONS on!

Chevy's and Fords is all I've owned. Well I had a Pontiac once but the water-pump died and whoever designed the stupid quad-4 engine should change it himself. Frankly I've reached the end of the line for American brands for cars. Going with something else next time. If Japan can design my camera they can do the same for my car thankyouverymuch.

 

[fstop]

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.

That's like asking why you are loyal to your wife.

 

[rrusso]

It may also have to do with perhaps a "lemming" mentality.

If you get into shooting because of a friend/acquaintance whose opinion you respect, you might tend to adopt their opinion(s). They use X brand equipment - it works well and so you too get into that brand, while shunning the others without ever trying them.

I learned in high school with Pentax, so when it came time to buy my own, that's the brand I looked for at the store (yeah, no internet back then)...in the used section, of course. No Pentax, and all they had was an AE-1 w/a 50 1.4. An excellent camera, the sales guy said, and it turned out he was right. I used that for over 10 years, happily.

Then in the 90's I wanted to treat myself to autofocus, so back to the store (not the same one, still no internet) I went. I was looking for Canon, but alas my FD lens wasn't compatible, and so, long story short, I went home with a Nikon (I kept my Canon though) because of the whole "they didn't change their lens mount like Canon did" thing, and that sounded like a good system to me.

Well, having used both, I can say I prefer Nikon. I don't think the gear is any better or worse, but I'm heavily invested in that system now and have no interest in changing.

 

[Dan Fromm]

Loyalty is/was partly because they all used their own different lens mounts, so once you made your choice you were effectively locked into that system.

Ian

Exactly.

FWIW, I went Nikon because my brother had gone Nikon. We had an equipment pool for a while. I'm glad I went Nikon in 1970 because of Nikon's mount stability over time, but these days that cuts no ice at all. From the point of view of function and price, Canon, Konica and Minolta were equally attractive back then. Not Pentax and clones because of stop-down metering. I tried it and hated it. Not Miranda because of poor quality. And not the Germans because of everything.

At one time the Nikon system was unmatched. No longer. Nikons are ok. So is everything else.

So many different SLR systems persisted for so long because they're all functionally equivalent and none has overwhelming superiority. If one system had had overwhelming superiority, it would have driven the others out of the market. Except, of course for Leica SLRs, which had underwhelming superiority and were made by a company whose owners who weren't interested in profits.

 

[TheRook]

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.

 

[Eric Rose]

Chevy's and Fords is all I've owned. Well I had a Pontiac once but the water-pump died and whoever designed the stupid quad-4 engine should change it himself. Frankly I've reached the end of the line for American brands for cars. Going with something else next time. If Japan can design my camera they can do the same for my car thankyouverymuch.

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

 

[MartinCrabtree]

Most of my cameras are Nikon. However there's Polaroid,Canon,Praktica,Yashica as well. The reason for the Nikon majority is the F mount lenses. With little modification they fit all my Nikon Cameras.