Brand dislikes..

We all know what we use and sometimes love, but I though a tread of what we don't like could be somewhat amusing?

My brand journey has been somewhat slight, I have owned Slrs from Pentax, Nikon, Olympus and Canon, and Dslrs from Pentax and Canon. Now solidly on the mirrorrless M43s from Panasonic.

I dont like Nikons in general, by some sort of reason, I owned a very mint Nikon FM with a 50 f:1.4 and a decent Nikon tele-zoom, 70-210 of some sort, if I recall correctly, for some time, but traded it in for a (very) well used OM1N and a Rollei 35, both of which I still have. Much later I was issued a rather nice set of Nikon gear, with (probably) a D5000, regular- and telephoto zooms of the 2.8 category and a somewhat larger compact reminiscent of the 70s 35mm compacts, both fresh out in 09, never warmed to either of those either.

I somewhat like the F3 and have done for quite some time, and could be interested in giving the Coolpix A a spin, if I can get my grubby mitts on one, other than that, not so much and I dont normally do brand loyalty as such, nor do I like to consider me very "fanboi" oriented, more towards performance and fullfillment of my perceived needs in a somewhat most bang for the bucks type of mentality (it crashes somewhat with my Leica fascination, but then again, I am not likely to go down that particular rabbit hole).

Any others with an "actively" disliked brand and if so, why?

Please, take this with a tongue in cheek air, I am not hating on Nikon, I am just somewhat disinterested in them and cant really understand why it is so. :confused:
 

agentlossing

All-Pro
Location
S. Oregon Coast (the Northernmost-Cal of them All)
Real Name
Andrew Lossing
I'm also a bit anti-Canon, and it's purely pettiness. Most of their DSLR styling never appealed to me, plus I got a Nikon D40 back around the same time that a friend got a Digital Rebel XTi, so I had to represent my choice. Now I don't love Nikon either, but I towed the line back then. Hahah.

Biggest low-key brand bashing I like to do is Fuji, I know I'll shock half the population of the forum, but they just never captured me with their retro cachet. The bodies I've handled and used (admittedly a bit earlier on in their lineup) all felt too light, which was counterintuitive with their metal shells - always felt like a "real" camera that had been hollowed out. Their menus were complicated and a little ugly. I've stuck to my snobbiness even though I'm sure I'm missing good cameras now.
 
Canon.

Along with Nikon, it was king for a while and even more so when they inadvertantly/accidentally pioneered DSLR filmmaking with the 5D Mk II. They could have taken the ball and run with it, but no.

I began to realise that they'd been working with Nikon to hold back technology. They'd release a new model every couple of years with the tiniest incremental improvement in performance. They'd market it like each new model is at the forefront of the photography world: "LOOK AT THE ONE STOP ISO IMPROVEMENT, JUST LOOK AT IT!!".

But Magic Lantern demonstrated that Canon intentionally locked up the technology within each of their cameras:


At the same time, Red camera disrupted the industry when they came in with Red One, they pushed the tech with giant leaps in photography/videography. I remember Red intentionally scheduled the release of their Red Scarlet on the same day as Canon released their C300, and the most ridiculous part of that day was that the Red Scarlet was released with full compatibility with Canon lenses whereas Canon's own C300 couldn't even communicate with their own Canon lenses for autofocusing.

Then Sony came in and further disrupted the consumer market with their A7/S/R series cameras. Meanwhile, Canon continued to sit on their laurels and continued to produce their incremental tech.

Boo. Just boo.
 
Last edited:
Tesla. Nothing to do with photography, I know, but they frustrate me by being so BLAND!

I think it's like industrial engineers. They can design and build marvels of industrial tech but they look ugly as all hell get out. They know their tech for sure, but have no artistic taste.

They need to work with actual creative designers, architects. Engineers can build a solid, energy efficient building that will never fail you in an earthquake. An architect will turn it into a beautiful home that people will actually want to live in.
 

rayvonn

Hall of Famer
Canon.

Along with Nikon, it was king for a while and even more so when they inadvertantly/accidentally pioneered DSLR filmmaking with the 5D Mk II. They could have taken the ball and run with it, but no.

I began to realise that they'd been working with Nikon to hold back technology. They'd release a new model every couple of years with the tiniest incremental improvement in performance. They'd market it like each new model is at the forefront of the photography world: "LOOK AT THE ONE STOP ISO IMPROVEMENT, JUST LOOK AT IT!!".

But Magic Lantern demonstrated that Canon intentionally locked up the technology within each of their cameras:


At the same time, Red camera disrupted the industry when they came in with Red One, they pushed the tech with giant leaps in photography/videography. I remember Red intentionally scheduled the release of their Red Scarlet on the same day as Canon released their C300, and the most ridiculous part of that day was that the Red Scarlet was released with full compatibility with Canon lenses whereas Canon's own C300 couldn't even communicate with their own Canon lenses for autofocusing.

Then Sony came in and further disrupted the consumer market with their A7/S/R series cameras. Meanwhile, Canon continued to sit on their laurels and continued to produce their incremental tech.

Boo. Just boo.
Yes I think you hit the nail on the head as to why I’ve historically shifted against Canon, not their smaller sensor cameras (the original G9 was special) but their DSLRs. But the thing is, Sony has pushed Canikon so much so that they (well, Canon) now probably have the best mirrorless gear which tbh I’ll probably be owning in the next 5 years, so no brand loyalty here.

Also, Leica, of which I own a camera and accompanying lenses. Compared to other brands it’s a bit of a nonsense how one has to consider as normal sending the camera away every 6 months so they can take a month or often longer servicing it. There is something unique about the experience and the files of an M8/9 but honestly, after they inevitably die as they will, then I’m really not going to get better value with their new/ current cameras and lenses as against the competing brands in terms of image output.
 
Yes I think you hit the nail on the head as to why I’ve historically shifted against Canon, not their smaller sensor cameras (the original G9 was special) but their DSLRs. But the thing is, Sony has pushed Canikon so much so that they (well, Canon) now probably have the best mirrorless gear which tbh I’ll probably be owning in the next 5 years, so no brand loyalty here.

Also, Leica, of which I own a camera and accompanying lenses. Compared to other brands it’s a bit of a nonsense how one has to consider as normal sending the camera away every 6 months so they can take a month or often longer servicing it. There is something unique about the experience and the files of an M8/9 but honestly, after they inevitably die as they will, then I’m really not going to get better value with their new/ current cameras and lenses as against the competing brands in terms of image output.

Sony pushed Canikon but Canon is reacting like an indifferent sloth, while Nikon went back to sleep and never really woke up.

I own 4 Leicas and have never had to send them away for CLA except once when I dropped my M10 on a rock a couple of years ago and it knocked the rangefinder focusing out of alignment. I got it CLA'd and it's been fine again ever since. I had my M8.2 for years, I carried that camera with me everywhere and took photos of everything, every single day. I've never had to send it in for a service ever. I used it so much that sensor is wrecked now but that's another story!

But yeah I hate that if this is something you had to do regularly, it's $400+ each time, and it's gone for a few weeks each time too (if not a month or two).
 

bartjeej

Hall of Famer
Real Name
bart
I think it's like industrial engineers. They can design and build marvels of industrial tech but they look ugly as all hell get out. They know their tech for sure, but have no artistic taste.

They need to work with actual creative designers, architects. Engineers can build a solid, energy efficient building that will never fail you in an earthquake. An architect will turn it into a beautiful home that people will actually want to live in.
I think you'd like my father in law, who heads a uni program that gives you dual titles of both engineer and an architect. He loves bringing those two together.

As for camera companies: yes Canon's lack of innovation has long been exceedingly boring to watch. But if they'd release a model that suits my needs best, I'd be happy to switch back to them (when photography became a hobby to me in my early teens, my parents got me a Canon zoom compact, film, that I was very proud of.

As much as Fuji's are on top of my wish list, I feel their Xtrans sensors are, in 2021, at least 98% marketing and at best 2% tangible benefit, so I wish they'd just switch to Bayer. Every Bayer sensored camera they've released has had IQ that's been just as impressive and easier to work with, so I wish Fuji would just swallow their pride and stop (imo) unnecessarily complicating our lives. Especially since LR is my favorite raw editor for convenience.
 

mike3996

Hall of Famer
Location
Finland
Sony absolutely. Has to be Sony.

I'm sure they are more than capable cameras, with the distinct possibility that they would actually offer even me a very good solution for adapting MF lenses for example.

Fanboyism never leads to optimal results and the same goes for hating brands, but the digital camera market is so saturated with great cameras I can afford to entirely dismiss an entire brand and not be left out any way in particular.
 

QBI

Veteran
Sony is my 'never again' camera brand too.
They are incredibly well specced, can be made to take amazing pictures BUT so ridiculously complicated there should be a whole Harvard Degree program 'Deciphering Sony Menus'
Have a look at The Snap Chick's review of the Panasonic S5 - there's a hilarious bit where she wants to compare it to a Sony for portraits...
Many have said, and I agree, using a Sony camera is one-step removed from photography because there's a computer interface in the way.
 

jyc860923

Top Veteran
Location
Shenyang, China
Real Name
贾一川
Fuji and its film simulation fetish.

I know, people love Fuji for all sorts of reasons and Fuji needs different thinking to survive the competition, to me, they've done successfully, but not right. I've loved almost everything with my X-E3, but the idea of "it's supposed to look like film" has led me to think I needed to manipulate the photos to look like something else.

And ISO cheat.

I don't dislike Fuji cameras, and I love Fuji lenses, but I just don't like being fooled by far-fetched claims, they produce nice cameras not because of these two reasons.
 
(when photography became a hobby to me in my early teens, my parents got me a Canon zoom compact, film, that I was very proud of.

My parents did that for me too but I was always too afraid to waste film. So I counter-intuitively took photos sparingly only and consequently never really got into photography properly. It would've been a different case if digital cameras were available back then.
 

drd1135

Zen Snapshooter
Location
SW Virginia
Real Name
Steve
I'm also a bit anti-Canon, and it's purely pettiness. Most of their DSLR styling never appealed to me, plus I got a Nikon D40 back around the same time that a friend got a Digital Rebel XTi, so I had to represent my choice. Now I don't love Nikon either, but I towed the line back then. Hahah.

Biggest low-key brand bashing I like to do is Fuji, I know I'll shock half the population of the forum, but they just never captured me with their retro cachet. The bodies I've handled and used (admittedly a bit earlier on in their lineup) all felt too light, which was counterintuitive with their metal shells - always felt like a "real" camera that had been hollowed out. Their menus were complicated and a little ugly. I've stuck to my snobbiness even though I'm sure I'm missing good cameras now.
Sony is hardcore tool. Fuji has a flavor to it. It you don't like the flavor, it's hard to like the system.
 

bartjeej

Hall of Famer
Real Name
bart
Fuji and its film simulation fetish.

I know, people love Fuji for all sorts of reasons and Fuji needs different thinking to survive the competition, to me, they've done successfully, but not right. I've loved almost everything with my X-E3, but the idea of "it's supposed to look like film" has led me to think I needed to manipulate the photos to look like something else.

And ISO cheat.

I don't dislike Fuji cameras, and I love Fuji lenses, but I just don't like being fooled by far-fetched claims, they produce nice cameras not because of these two reasons.
Most of the simulations aren't actually made to look like a film stock, they're just designed for a similar use case as the film stock they're named after and consequently share some of the broad characteristics (shadow / highlight contrast, general saturation, skin tone saturation). They're much better suited for these purposes than the equivalent film stocks ever could be, since they're not dependent on chemical reactions anymore and simply consist of digital manipulations.

Only the "Classic" simulations (Chrome, Negative and Nostalgic Negative) are supposed to really look like film. My guess is that, by the time Fuji decided to make actual film simulations, they had already used up a bunch of their own film stocks (and Classic Chrome emulates Kodak film so that always needed a different name. Hence, confusingly, the film sims with a film name in them don't actually try to look like film, while those without a film name do...

As for the ISO: I'm a bit rusty on the exact details of this, but there're several ways to measure the sensitivity / ISO value. Fuji uses a different method, that is equally valid as the other manufacturers (and iirc even a bit more accurate from a theoretical point of view). Point is, they're not cheating, just using a different ISO definition. But yes, ISO 3600 on Fuji is similar to ISO 2400 or so for the other manufacturers.
 

bartjeej

Hall of Famer
Real Name
bart
Now there's a person who thinks with both their right and left hemispheres and is able to bring them both together.

Which uni is this and dept? What's your FiL's background?
He's an architect and builder (built and renovated dozens of buildings himself; seeing him think with his hands and work his way around surprises during a renovation is truly a thing of magic), and now a professor at University of Cincinnati's DAAP. He heads a joint program with (and hosted by) the college of Engineering and Applied Sciences, called Architectural Engineering:


Just read that in order to gain a full architect's license you need another two years of studying, so I slightly oversold it in my post above, but the foundation (heh heh) is there
 

Latest posts

Latest threads

Top Bottom