Perceptions of reliability...

Hooky

Hooky

Messages
714
Name
Alan
Edit My Images
Yes
Ok, I may be biased because I shoot Nikon, however, I have noticed a lot of threads recently that are pointing out similar problems with various Canon lenses and bodies.

Do you think this is a reflection of the fact that more people shoot Canon than Nikon, hence we get more reports, or is it an issue of quality control??

I remember seeing an article recently that told the story of a photography trip in the (Arctic?) and the problems seemed to be predominantly with the Canon cameras...

This has struck me as strange, because as far as I am aware,the majority of Pro's shoot Canon, and I would have thought that reliability was near the top of the list as far as Pro requirements...

This is post is meant to promote a genuine discussion and is not meant to degenerate into a A v B is best.

:)
 
Could it be a complacency thing with Canon? I'm sure whoever is at "the top" at the time gets to a point where they think they are invincible, and things get bad, the tables turn, and so on....

Both myself and Mrs. Outlore use Nikon, but really only because I have always used it, and that was only because my Dad did....

I have started to wonder recently what it would be like to use some Canon kit... I've handled it and it didn't "suit" me, but could be that it was just different to what I am used to...
 
There is an old addage, "when you are only number 2, you try harder!"

Nikon were always the descerning pro's choice (from japan - leica was the real choice) and Canon started to claim a share. The white lenses did start to take over the press scrums, especially when they first introduced the Eos range of autofocus cameras....I know a lot of Nikon shooters who jumped ship then.

The original Canon pros were hghly miffed that their FD lenses, which they had invested not inconsiderable sums into, would no longer fit the new canon bodies....Nikon saw this and determined to stay loyal to their existing customers. canon took a BIG PR hit over the lack of compatability. They are over that now becausethere are not so many old Canon users about who remember the revolution.

Nikon might look to be following the Canon lead, but the truth is, they have always been careful with their R&D - you can bet your bottom dollar that future technology and ideas are being worked on. Canon have always seemed to be ahead of Nikon, their launches steal the limelight and they come out with something first, but when the Nikon version eventually arrives it generally has the niggles ironed out.

Reliability has always been a Nikon strongpoint, maybe not on their budget end cameras, but certainly for their pro models. They have always been built into very strong frames and put together like a swiss watch. I still have several film cameras which have been going fine since the early 1980s, even with pro use. I have an FE2 which I bought in 1982 and an FA which was a bit later. These cameras have never missed a beat in all the work they were put to.

As you come into the electronic age of cameras, so they become more delicate. Electronic circuits and saltwater, for instance, do not mix very well. I shoot a lot of powerboats, so saltwater is an issue - Nikon have always withstood the salt spray very well indeed - Iknow other photographers with canon gear are forever sending theirs back to be repaired because of the saltwater damage. We are often shooting from the same press boats, so in the same situation.

I also saw one Nikon dropped from the helicopter as we were coming in to land after the Class 1 race in Plymouth - the 180 f2.8 on a body fell out of the chopper at about 60 - 80 feet and landed with a thump on the turf. When we landed the camera was still working and the lens, although the bayonet had bent, was still in one piece and the focus ring still turned. It was repaired and the film was fine. At that time canon had already moved over to composite bodies and I don't think that would have withstood the impact.

Anyone else got any anecdotes? I haven't drawn any conclusions really have I? But some food for thought.
 
It's possible that the important reason that we hear of more problems with Canon outfits, is because of the way the Canon system works.

Unlike Nikon who have the AF motor in camera, allowing the use of most F mount lenses, when Canon designed their own AF system, the designed a new lens mount EF, rather than keeping the old FD mount. This meant that all the new lenses had to have onboard AF motors, which as well as complicating the lens somewhat, it also meant that if the motor faulted, then so did the lens. This obviously makes for more faults - two systems, twice as many faults.

Why Canon compromised reliability in this way, is a matter for conjecture. I suspect that it's because they thought they'd make a lot more money by ensuring that ussers had to buy new lenses, as well as a new camera.
 
Anyone else got any anecdotes? I haven't drawn any conclusions really have I? But some food for thought.
Click to expand...

Good points raised :)

The other thing I have noticed is that a lot of the recent Canon faults listed are in their entry level / prosumer cameras - issues with QC maybe?
 
Issues with QC?

No I don't think so. Canon are as careful about their build facilities as anyone. I think it is more a case of building to a budget in the lower end....same deal with Nikon, their cheaper cameras are nowhere near as well put together as the top end kit. Same with lenses, the AFS lenses are a big step up from the variable f-stop lenses. heavier, stronger barrels and different lens elements, although the same glass to make the elements from - not many AFS lenses have moulded glass elements though - they are all ground to precision and given different coatings. These processes cost in terms of design, materials, facilities to produce them and labour - which is why they are more than double the price of lower spec lenses.

Canon do the same. They have a "run of the mill" range of lenses, built down to a budget. They are as OK as the Nikon ones. Then they have their premium range too. Every bit as good as Nikon. Both companies now put motors in their lenses. Why Nikon can do this with their old mount and Canon can't is beyond me....probably they can but saw a marketing opportunity to rob their existing customers by making them change their glass for an whole new kit!
 
If a camera manufacturer had a truly bad reliability problem then they wouldn't be around for long.OK Canon had a real problem with the early 1Dlll, but they rectified it. Not good if you where one of the early adopters but hopefully they've put that behind them.

I saw a photograph recently of the "Photographers enclosure" at the Beijing olympics. I must say it was awash with grey lenses. Canon claim to have 70% of the Pro Market, well they did up to a year ago. Nikon have certainly uped their game with the new range of cameras. Good for them ( and I'm a Canon user). I've got 5 Canon cameras, some older than others, but not had any real problem with any of them. Is that luck or simply good manufacturing and QC. I hope it's the later
 
dougdarter said:
Why Canon compromised reliability in this way, is a matter for conjecture. I suspect that it's because they thought they'd make a lot more money by ensuring that users had to buy new lenses, as well as a new camera.
Click to expand...
There is an upside to this concept. There is a greater likelyhood of having multiple lenses than multiple bodies. An in-body motor failure would be a show-stopper whereas an in-lens failure is more likely to be a focal length limitation.

Chappers said:
.OK Canon had a real problem with the early 1Dlll, but they rectified it.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't class this as a reliability issue but more of a design issue....ultimately the same result for the owner but borne of a different
cause.

Bob
 
Swings and roundabouts:

Faulty Nikon rant

Any manufactuer trying to pack in lots of features at a consumer-level pricetag is going to have to cut corners somewhere. Quality costs money. Personally, I would look to spend a minimum of four figures on a SLR from any manufacturer - it's a precision piece of kit, and you soon realise where the extra money goes.

A few words on my experience...

I jumped ship from Nikon film SLRs to a Canon 5D earlier in the year. I decided that I had to have a full-frame sensor - this was several months before the D700 came out, so without spending silly money, Canon was the only way to go. It wasn't an easy decision to make - I'd put a lot of time and money into my Nikon setup over the years, and it never let me down.

Canon's EOS lens mount appealed to me. It seemed better to start from scratch and design a new lens system based around autofocus technology, rather than shoehorning every new development into a mount system that was already decades old. (Although kudos to Nikon for coming up with a mount that's stood the test of time so well!)

Nikon used to claim that their SLRs were fully comatible with old lenses - I don't know whether this is still the case, and whether, say, an old AIS manual-focus lens would work with any useful degree of functionality on a digital body. I ran into exposure problems trying to use a 50mm AIS lens on a Nikon AF body using a dedicated Metz flashgun, and that put me off the concept of backwards-compatibility somewhat. I suspect with Nikon, we'll see a gradual decline of compatibility between the oldest lenses and newest bodies.

A.
 
Yep - you can use the old lenses on even the D3...I do! BUT, you onlyget what you had in the old days....manual focus and aperture priority with standard ttl exposure measurement, because the old lens cannot supply all th einformation to the camera required for modern, evaluative metering. So what, you stick it on the front, you tuurn the focus ring and you set the exposure - just like in the old days! OK, so you don't have a "modern" camera when you stick an old lens on the front - but it works within its own limitations.

Modern lenses are much clearer and have better colur rendition too - so it pays to keep your glass fairly up to date.
 
Flash In The Pan said:
One complaint?
Click to expand...

Well, no... a fair few of the follow-up posts were coming out in sympathy with the original poster.

And check out his link... Googling "nikon" and "err" produces 120,000 hits :eek:

Anyways, this is all pretty pointless. All it proves (apart from steering clear of Nikon if you live in New Zealand, perhaps :D) is that electronic gadgets sometimes go wrong - no &*?!! :LOL:

Apart from anything else, you'd need to consider the number of units in circulation before analysing failure reports. Also the sort of use they're getting - is a 40D/D80 user who takes the trouble to register on a photo forum going to be giving their camera a hammering, compared to the casual buyer who uses it for holidays and special occasions?

A.
 
Anorakus said:
Well, no... a fair few of the follow-up posts were coming out in sympathy with the original poster.

And check out his link... Googling "nikon" and "err" produces 120,000 hits :eek:

Anyways, this is all pretty pointless. All it proves (apart from steering clear of Nikon if you live in New Zealand, perhaps :D) is that electronic gadgets sometimes go wrong - no &*?!! :LOL:

Apart from anything else, you'd need to consider the number of units in circulation before analysing failure reports. Also the sort of use they're getting - is a 40D/D80 user who takes the trouble to register on a photo forum going to be giving their camera a hammering, compared to the casual buyer who uses it for holidays and special occasions?

A.
Click to expand...

You get 545,000 results if you do "Canon err" :LOL::bonk:

I agree with what you say though ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top