# Canon Says No to Retro Design for Them



## Triggyman (Feb 20, 2014)

This will be an interesting read. So nothing like a Fuji X100 (or possibly Nikon Df) coming for retro fans. 

http://petapixel.com/2014/02/19/canon-admits-kept-distance-retro-design-movement/


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 20, 2014)

Ok by me. Retro styling to 'look cool' at the expense of functionality is lame (I'm looking at you, Nikon Df).


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Feb 20, 2014)

While there are fans of Retro designs, and they can look cool, Canon recognizes that their core competency is in mass production. That means they are very good at churning out huge numbers of cameras for a low manufacturing cost.

Having been in a manufacturing environment for high tech goods for 30+ years, it is true that the internal workings of a company are usually optimized for a particular mode of operation, and change does not come easily. Some companies are good at short production runs and that type of thing is best left to them. Canon's tooling and that of their subcontractors is designed for churning out huge amounts of parts, but would be very inefficient for making just a few thousand.


----------



## dickgrafixstop (Feb 20, 2014)

What the camera looks like is relatively unimportant - what it does is what matters. Unfortunately, with the 
exception of the dual pixel 70D (which has yet to prove itself), Canon seems to be lagging in almost every
department, sensor development, high iso performance, mirrorless, etc. On the other hand, it seems to be working for the bottom line when other manufacturers are struggling.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 20, 2014)

dickgrafixstop said:


> What the camera looks like is relatively unimportant - what it does is what matters. Unfortunately, with the
> exception of the dual pixel 70D (which has yet to prove itself), *Canon seems to be lagging in almost every
> department*, sensor development, high iso performance, mirrorless, etc.



Troll much? Best AF, fastest frame rate, best high ISO performance, etc. I'd say the only area where Canon is lagging is in sensor DR _at low ISO_. Oh, and mirrorless which it seems they have not prioritized for development.


----------



## Maui5150 (Feb 20, 2014)

Fstoppers Nikon DF Digital Camera Hipster Review

'Nuff said


----------



## sdsr (Feb 20, 2014)

dickgrafixstop said:


> What the camera looks like is relatively unimportant - what it does is what matters. Unfortunately, with the
> exception of the dual pixel 70D (which has yet to prove itself), Canon seems to be lagging in almost every
> department, sensor development, high iso performance, mirrorless, etc. On the other hand, it seems to be working for the bottom line when other manufacturers are struggling.



Behind whose high ISO performance does Canon's lag (the 6D's in particular)? As for arguably the single most important aspect of a camera, focus accuracy (and, perhaps to a lesser extent, speed), who beats Canon in the dslr context? It's true that they don't seem to be interested in mirrorless, but it's hard to blame them for that - outside parts of Asia, they just don't sell well (however much some of us may like them, however much it seems they *ought* to succeed).


----------



## sdsr (Feb 20, 2014)

The retro thing may be a temporary fad anyway. I happen to rather like the look (it's partly what drew me to the Olympus E-M5), but aside from the clunky Nikon DF it seems confined to the realm of mirrorless cameras, which don't sell well regardless of what they look like, and even there the latest flagship mirrorless cameras don't look retro at all (any of the Sonys, Olympus E-M1, Panasonic GH4 (which looks just like a slightly undersized dslr), even the upcoming Fuji whatever-its-name-is).


----------



## pdirestajr (Feb 20, 2014)

Aren't all of Canon's DSLRs considered "retro" in design? They all still look like the T90 from '86!

Where is the retro cutoff?


----------



## BL (Feb 20, 2014)

pdirestajr said:


> Aren't all of Canon's DSLRs considered "retro" in design? They all still look like the T90 from '86!









True that. Although I was handling my T90 just now and how I wish the current 1D series could go on a diet and trim down a bit.


----------



## erjl (Feb 20, 2014)

DP recently ran an interview with Nikon exects.
They were amazed at the Df's popularity, but
also mentioned the decline of sales both for
p&s as well as DSLR's.

That made me think that people might
be attracted to retro designs like the Df
because it looks like a safe investment.
Possibly it reminds people of those great
cameras of the 70's and 80's they still
value so highly?

Personally, I think Canon is making the
right choice. For one thing, Canon changed
its lens mount and everyone would laugh
if their retro design did not offer compatibility
with those earlier lenses and I agree.


----------



## abcde12345 (Feb 21, 2014)

Guess what? Canon is saying no to 14-24mm F2.8, more auto-focus points in the beginner's models (including 6D), dual memory cards and others. It feels like Canon is more into the higher ends (note: 5D Mark III and 1DX) and try to squeeze out the rest (not including 70D though, it sounds amazing on paper).


----------



## pdirestajr (Feb 21, 2014)

erjl said:


> DP recently ran an interview with Nikon exects.
> They were amazed at the Df's popularity, but
> also mentioned the decline of sales both for
> p&s as well as DSLR's.
> ...



Those "Nikon exects" are lying! The DF has been a total bust- based on info I received while spending a weekend with a few B&H reps.


----------



## Maui5150 (Feb 21, 2014)

erjl said:


> DP recently ran an interview with Nikon exects.
> They were amazed at the Df's popularity, but
> also mentioned the decline of sales both for
> p&s as well as DSLR's.
> ...



I would chock it up to the posers... i.e. the people that bought the DF are casual users who bought it to look cool.

They will grow tired of it.

They will go back to their iPhones and Instagram as their main photo outlets...

They will not INVEST in lenses...

In the end, probably far more will be turned off to the Nikon brand, because they will remember the $3K paperweight.

I like Canon's model better, though I would like a high MP and some fresh lenses


----------



## scottkinfw (Feb 21, 2014)

You had me until you lost me.

I think that the appearance/aesthetic of a camera has some importance. The ergonomics has great importance. The most important thing is that it will do what you need it to do, be durable, and give you head room to grow. People who focus on the aesthetic without the other most important factors are more interested in making a fashion statement. I don't degenerate them, they are entitled, as are serious photographers.

Regarding your Canon comments lagging, I can' agree. I would love them to improve everything and not charge for it, and make it light and small and ergonomic, but, wait, wake me up.

I'll keep my 5DIII and Canon glass until the 1DX replacement comes out. But that is just me.

Thanks for your thoughts though.

sek 



dickgrafixstop said:


> What the camera looks like is relatively unimportant - what it does is what matters. Unfortunately, with the
> exception of the dual pixel 70D (which has yet to prove itself), Canon seems to be lagging in almost every
> department, sensor development, high iso performance, mirrorless, etc. On the other hand, it seems to be working for the bottom line when other manufacturers are struggling.


----------



## ClayStevens (Feb 21, 2014)

Though I believe the retro design is a marketing trick of the manufactures, I also think that "Canon says no to retro" is a another kind of marketing trick.


----------



## Aglet (Feb 21, 2014)

I'd say Olympus and Fuji are doing retro right, in their own styles. And yes, even Canon's G-series.

The Df was hugely disappointing to me. I think it looks great on the shelf but that's were I'll leave it; it's ergonomics are just wrong IMO. Tho, it would not take much tweaking to make it much more practical without changing the look of it for those to whom that appeals. Old Nikonians I know just love it tho.


----------



## sdsr (Feb 21, 2014)

dilbert said:


> The only people that the Nikon Df is really going to appeal to are those that started out taking photographs with film and remember what it was like "back then" when video cameras were used to create video and photographers had cameras that took photos, not video. They'll already have a collection of lenses to use the camera with. The iPhone and Instagram crowd couldn't care less for it.



You may be right; but won't they be disappointed too, at least to the extent their lenses are manual focus? It's all very well being able to easily attach an old mf lens, but without providing the means for relatively easy mf that film cameras had, and by avoiding the mirrorless advantage of in-EVF magnification and focus peaking etc., Nikon doesn't seem at all user-friendly (leaving aside all the other ergonomic issues). For someone with mf lenses s/he wants to use on a ff camera, a Sony A7/A7r makes more sense to me (that's one reason why I bought an A7r).


----------



## gshocked (Feb 23, 2014)

No loss there.

The Nikon DF was a Definite Fail...sorry I went there.

If Canon does one, please go in the same line as the new FujiFilm camera or the new sony A7/r...
Or they could be different and evolve the EOS-m and revive their Canonet rangefinder style cameras

Or the lazy option and just clad the EOS-M in a nice silver Mag body like the Canonet cameras.

Just do it right!


----------



## fussy III (Feb 23, 2014)

If going retro is the same as to (re-)introduce some more straightforward mechanical design for the most important settings, than going retro for me is a good thing that should not be disregarded as if it was a mere fashion.

e.g., I'd be happy if Canon-lenses had an aperture ring again, especially macro-lenses and TS-E lenses. Having the Iso more accessable when wearing gloves would be another great thing. Overall, I really dislike the need to push little neighboring buttoms while turning a wheel. 

Just because Nikon messed it up with the Df, Canon should not be to proud of their own rather lame design.

But I must admit there is one great thing about EOS-functionality that I wouldn't want to sacrifice to any designer's needs: It is the positioning of shutter-release, digit-wheel and how one's hand fits into the grip. Allows to adjust most everything manually with one hand, including ISO (although that I would prefer on a designated wheel, like I said, but maybe that is just me). Try setting all that single-handed on a Nikon and you will likely drop your camera in the process.

Conclusion: I wouldn't mind having a few more accessible wheels on top of the camera. The G series has always been ugly, but it worked. A7 isn't exacly pretty either.


----------



## lightthief (Feb 23, 2014)

Hello forum,

i'm a long time reader and until today, i thought i have nothing important or meaningful to post ... but now...

I do not like retro. And so it is difficult for me to understand why other people like retro. But to all who love the retro style, i can say, i think Canon will surprise you with the most old fashioned EOS you can imagine. 






http://www.fotocommunity.de/pc/pc/mypics/1844886/display/33214896
Seen in Venice.

Have a nice day!
lightthief


----------



## 9VIII (Feb 24, 2014)

"Canon has kept its distance from this trend. As a result, the design is not pretentious"

This sentence gave me the warm fuzzies. Canon is exactly the company I want them to be.

For me, the most beautiful thing in the world is something that makes absolutely no compromises on function or form, where the two complement each other and the aesthetic and function are integral parts of each other. When something has an appealing look, and that look is entirely derived from its function.


----------



## traingineer (Mar 14, 2014)

If I want a "Retro" Canon SLR, I would just get some tape, write CLASSIC on it and stick it onto my 7D, done.


----------

