Why I Mark Off the Canon Logos on My Camera Gear

I had a few questions regarding why I mark off the Canon logos on my camera gear based on the video I posted earlier today with Marc Silber. I thought I’d explain that here in a new post.

In 2007 I had the tremendous honor of having my portrait taken by photographer Bill Wadman as part of his 365 Portraits series. Bill’s project involved shooting and posting in the same day a different portrait every day for an entire year. Bill is one of the best portrait photographers working in the business today, and in addition to my shot (which is probably my most favorite shot anyone’s ever taken of me) Bill shot a number of amazing people, including folks like astronaut Buzz Aldrin and CNN commentator Tucker Carlson. If you missed this series back in 2007 you should definitely check it out for some truly inspirational portrait work.

Anyways, when I met Bill I noticed that he had all the Canon logos on his gear taped off with black tape. I asked Bill why he did that and he said for two reasons, 1. Because he wanted to make his camera gear look less expensive (and hopefully less interesting to steal) and 2. Because, what had Canon ever done for him and why should he give them free advertising.

And so those are probably the exact same reasons why I do that now myself. I’ve had two Canon cameras stolen now — A 5D and a 10D. I know that some people will steal anything, but I think a big Canon or Nikon logo on your gear only makes it that much more of a target. By changing my Canon strap for a plain black one and taping off (with black electrical tape) all of the logos, hopefully this makes me and my camera less of a target. I taped off the red rings on my L series lenses where I could as well. I’d rather be incognito than look like the hot shot photographer.

Secondly I got kind of pissed at Canon over the whole release of the Canon 5D Mark 2 and especially felt after that why should I walk around every day advertising their product on my body. I shoot all the time and so that’s a lot of free advertising for them. I was pissed because I had such a hard time getting a hold of a 5D M2.

Originally I talked to Canon back in July of 2008 at the Microsoft Pro Photography Summit and asked if there was any way that I could get a review copy ahead of the release so that I could write a review on it. Not a free one mind you, just a loaner, like any other member of the press, that I could use to write a review in the same way that newspapers, magazines, and everyone else does. Canon told me that they didn’t do that sort of thing which was fine I guess. Although I’m pretty sure that some people got them based on the early reviews and press on the product.

So I did the next best thing and I got on a preorder list ahead of the release (which was slated for the end of November 2008) — but come early December I still hadn’t gotten mine. I was pissed because I saw all of these other reviews being published and I wanted to publish one myself and couldn’t get my hands on one to review. So I contacted Canon and basically said look I want to write a review. Is there any way I can get a review copy or can you at least help me out and point me where I can get one of these? I felt I’d done everything right by preordering and yet still was not getting the camera to review.

Canon responded saying that I should probably expect my preorder from Wolf soon because a new shipment had just been sent to them. So I didn’t get my 5D Mark 2 in the next week. In fact I didn’t get it until over a month later from an entirely different vendor in January. What was worse though is that Canon just blew me off. After I sent them multiple emails they simply never responded to repeated additional emails on the situation.

I want to be clear I didn’t want special treatment here. I felt that as a blogger with a prominent photography blog that I should be treated like any other member of the press. But if they couldn’t provide me a review copy then I’d hoped that they could at least point me in the right direction where I could buy one so that I could review it. You’d think publicity would be good.

The fact of the matter is Canon doesn’t give a rats ass about social media or bloggers. Their PR and marketing team are happy to treat the mainstream press well but view the sort of stuff we are doing as insignificant. So that made me mad too and probably contributed all the more to my not wanting to advertise their product.

Even though I use my Canon 5D Mark 2 every single day and love it, I have no interest in promoting their products. I never did write my review on their new camera, because what’s the point in writing a review in January on a camera that came out last November?

So those are the reasons why I black off the Canon logos on my gear and they are the same reasons that I tell to everyone who asks me (and I get people asking me about it every single week). Hopefully someday Canon decides that our opinion on their products matter.

  • May 27, 2009 at 4:26 pm Tom
    Our conversation on Saturday prompted me to probably do the same with mine...Until that Nikon endorsement comes through, of course.
  • May 27, 2009 at 4:26 pm Simon Wicks
    Now we know. Thought it might be about the stealing part, didnt think about the why bother with free advertising though. Thanks for clearing it up, I asked on the other thread :)
  • May 27, 2009 at 4:29 pm Aaron Hood
    That's some pretty terrible awareness and customer service by Canon.
  • May 27, 2009 at 4:42 pm Gregg Le Blanc
    Similar theory http://photojojo.com/content/tips/theft-proof-uglified-camera/ I will probably start uglifying mine...
  • May 27, 2009 at 4:45 pm Thomas Hawk
    Aaron, Canon and whoever their PR agency is just doesn't care. I'm surprised that so many big companies still don't understand or care about social media. They need to hire a PR firm like Edelman who gets it and understands the value of social media in addition to mainstream press.
  • May 27, 2009 at 5:16 pm ChiliMac
    Interesting. Since I'm starting to consider buying a DSLR I may give Nikon a little more consideration now.
  • May 27, 2009 at 5:48 pm Steve Lacy
    Oh please. This is about the same as people who "de-badge" their cars to make them look cooler. You really think that any reasonable thief won't know the "red ring" of an L-series lens? Oh, and by the way, your photo on thomashawk.com has the Canon logo showing (albeit reversed).
  • May 27, 2009 at 5:56 pm Thomas Hawk
    Steve, I haven't always marked the logos off. That's an old photo. It's more a decision I made a few months back. Lots of my old photos have Canon logos in them. But why should I advertise for Canon?
  • May 27, 2009 at 5:59 pm Brian Sullivan
    Do you cover other logos as well? Apple? Dell? Levi Strauss? Toyota? Chevrolet?
  • May 27, 2009 at 6:05 pm andy brudtkuhl
    Funny - when I was a kid I'd always get Nike or whatever clothes with logos on them and my dad would ask "why are you advertising for them for free?" or "how much did nike pay you to wear that shirt"
  • May 27, 2009 at 6:07 pm Ken Sheppardson
    I generally don't mind (subtle) branding on the stuff I use/buy, but the black/yellow "Nikon - Nikon - Nikon" straps are one of the few things I go out of my way to remove/toss. I also blacked out an entire mountain bike with electrical tape back in school and made it a point to leave a good layer of dust on to deter theives... this was the replacement to the one week old bike that was stolen from the rack outside my dorm the second day I was on campus.
  • May 27, 2009 at 6:08 pm Steve Lacy
    As an aside, I do find the factory-supplied shoulder straps egregious, and have been thinking of replacing mine to get rid of all the branding. That one does scream "advertising" to me. EOS DIGITAL!
  • May 27, 2009 at 6:11 pm Thomas Hawk
    Brian, I don't. But photography is probably more personal to me than other things. I also spend far, far, more time with my camera than my car or probably anything else that I have with me. In terms of clothes, mostly I buy pretty non-descript stuff without prominent logos. Old Navy's pretty cheap and pretty plain. But a button that says Old Navy on the button on a shirt is far less prominent than a big Canon red strap and logo. It was super easy to mark my Canon stuff off with black electrical tape.
  • May 27, 2009 at 6:13 pm Thomas Hawk
    By the way, I don't mind promoting something if I really like it and feel that they are engaging social media. I've worn my FriendFeed Tshirt to the last 2 photowalks I went on for instance. :) I think Canon's total disregard for social media though sort of sucks.
  • May 27, 2009 at 6:14 pm Brian Sullivan
    The camera strap thing I understand - wouldn't use them myself -- not because of the logo issue -- but because they are cheap and uncomfortable. But taping over logos on cameras and lenses seems a bit much.
  • May 27, 2009 at 6:15 pm Brian Sullivan
    Besides everyone here and probably everywhere online knows you use Canon equipment and that is where your influence likely is.
  • May 27, 2009 at 6:22 pm Kenton
    Interesting thoughts. I certainly understand the theft reason but I'm having trouble wrapping my head around the PR stance. You are constantly "advertising" for Canon in social media by telling people how awesome their equipment is (and, yes, how poor their customer service is). Yet you won't advertise it on the equipment itself. I think if you really like the product and promote it through word of mouth, you shouldn't have a problem promoting it visually. If you are that pissed at Canon, switch to Nikon, that would have a much more significant affect then taping off their logos.
  • May 27, 2009 at 6:24 pm Simon Wicks
    Its just about promoting it though is it, as is said in the article its about dumbing it down and making it appear less pricey to prying eyes. EDIT. You said that in your first sentance Kenton, i missed that compleatly somehow :)
  • May 27, 2009 at 6:28 pm Ken Sheppardson
    I wonder how many thieves are smart enough to know that when you see something with electrical tape on it... that's the stuff you want to snag... :-/
  • May 27, 2009 at 6:31 pm Kenton
    lol @Ken
  • May 27, 2009 at 6:41 pm Thomas Hawk
    Kenton, think about it this way. This past weekend I spent probably 20 hours a day with that camera for 5 days straight (I even shot on the airplane). That's 100 hours. I will literally be out with this camera thousands of hours over the life of it. Why should I advertise Canon for thousands of hours when they can't take 10 minutes to respond to an email? The only thing Canon's doing in social media is trying to shut down blogs when they don't like criticism as they did with their cease and desist letter to WordPress over the fake chuck westfall blog.
  • May 27, 2009 at 6:42 pm Kevin Fox
    You could just cover the C. Then you'd be anonymous.
  • May 27, 2009 at 6:43 pm Thomas Hawk
    I actually tell people about how awesome Canon products are a lot less than I used to and who knows maybe I will switch to Nikon at some point. Right now though I'm not up for the learning curve or expense that comes with a new system, that, and I'm somewhat addicted to the 135 f/2 lens. When I grow up though I wanna ditch them entirely and be a Hasselblad.
  • May 27, 2009 at 6:44 pm Thomas Hawk
    Kevin, I thought of you when I was in Chicago. I got a great shot of a neon sign for Fox Lumber. I took a shot of just the Fox part of the sign which looked pretty cool. It's going to take me a while to process though my Chicago shots but when that one pops up it's for you.
  • May 27, 2009 at 6:45 pm Brian Sullivan
    You are probably drawing more attention and getting more PR/advertising for Canon by taping over the logos than if you did nothing -- but if it makes you feel like you are doing something with your protest I guess you should go for it.
  • May 27, 2009 at 6:46 pm Kevin Fox
    Awesome. I'll watch for it. It's funny, but once or twice I've thought "Hawk is such a cool last name. I wish I had.. Oh yeah."
  • May 27, 2009 at 6:46 pm Ken Sheppardson
    Kevin: You could be Fox Hawk.
  • May 27, 2009 at 6:48 pm Thomas Hawk
    Brian, I doubt it. Thousands of people who would have seen the logo now will not see it. Thousands of people that I'll never interact with in any way shape or form.
  • May 27, 2009 at 6:53 pm Thomas Hawk
    Also, when I do have conversations with people about it, maybe some of them will also mark off their logos. I only got the idea when I saw Bill Wadman do it. I might never have thought about it otherwise. I doubt that marking Canon's logo off is a win for them in the PR department by any measurement -- otherwise they wouldn't mark their logos so prominently all over their gear and camera straps. If they won't take 10 minutes to respond to an email, why should I spend thousands of hours advertising their product?
  • May 27, 2009 at 6:57 pm stretta
    People who use the stock camera strap on a camera are dolts. Canon's camera straps are horribly uncomfortable, especially if you have any serious glass on. People who use the stock strap 99% of the time are also using the kit lens. Masking an expensive camera's logo does nothing to hide the fact it is still an expensive camera. So, you blank out the red ring on L lenses. What do you do with a 70-200mm? It is impossible to be inconspicuous. I don't want to attract attention, I just want to take pictures, but you have to pick your battles. Nothing screams Canon fanboy like a big beige lens.
  • May 27, 2009 at 7:06 pm Scott of Two Countries
    I'm not sure I would be bothered enough to go to the inconvenience of marking off the logos, but I am impressed that you are passionate enough to go to those lengths, and I respect that a whole lot.
  • May 27, 2009 at 7:39 pm Kenton
    I can understand that Thomas. You seem to generate way more comments when you have something negative to say about Canon. Someday hopefully they'll come around. Have you thought about not publishing your EXIF data on Flickr? Can you even do that?
  • May 27, 2009 at 7:49 pm teymur madjderey
    these are very good and valid points you make. I had some trouble with nikons nps lately and I guess I should do the same thing. regardsless of nps. hope my ego can cope with that :-D
  • May 27, 2009 at 8:21 pm Thomas Hawk
    Kenton, I like publishing the EXIF data because people refer to it all the time. It's useful and I don't think I'd ever hide it. The Canon logos though provide no value to me or others at all. I do hope that they come around someday but I doubt it. They don't engage bloggers, they are not on FriendFeed or Flickr that I'm aware of. Heck I don't even think they are on Twitter and *everybody's* on Twitter these days.
  • May 27, 2009 at 8:38 pm Ken Sheppardson
    Thanks, Mr. Donut.
  • May 27, 2009 at 8:45 pm Brian Sullivan
    Isn't there some sort of irony in somebody called "Leather ♥ Donut" thinking he is somehow outing Thomas Hawk?
  • May 27, 2009 at 9:16 pm Chris Heath
    when i'm old enough i'm gonna change my name to Hudson Hawk - that will be epic!
  • May 27, 2009 at 10:11 pm Daan
    Are you also removing your Exif data??
  • May 27, 2009 at 10:15 pm ChiliMac
    @LeatherDonut. You're right, it isn't cool to use a fake name. I am glad to see you don't. :D
  • May 27, 2009 at 10:27 pm Thomas Hawk
    The fact that I use a professional name as a photographer, and have for many years, is pretty irrelevant. Mark Twain was really Samuel Clemens. John Wayne was really Marion Morrison. Marilyn Monroe was really Norma Jeane Baker. Elton John's real name is Reginald Kenneth Dwight. There are of course hundreds of more examples. I'm certainly not hiding my identity. My blog is registered under my legal name (anyone who looks it up under a whois query sees it right there), I get checks and W9s for my photography under my legal name and many, many more widely read publications than "Leather Donut" have published it including the Los Angeles Times. Leather Donut somehow thinks that he is "outing" me by bringing it up repeatedly. Ironically Leather Donut is simply a troll and a hypocrite who *is* actually hiding his/her identity and unwilling to provide his/her legal name while constantly chastising me for choosing to adopt a professional name, something many people do.
  • May 27, 2009 at 10:36 pm Thomas Hawk
    like I said. Leather Donut is simply a troll. His name is not Thomas Hawk.
  • May 27, 2009 at 10:45 pm John the Parrot of FF
    I think taping could have a deterrent effect since (1) thieves won't know if it's taped to hide a logo or taped because it's cracked and (2) taping alters the camera's appearance enough to reduce its value (without doing some rehab work). It becomes more worthwhile to target new-looking, unmarked items.
  • May 27, 2009 at 11:13 pm Thomas Hawk
    Why so quiet Jauder?
  • May 27, 2009 at 11:15 pm Thomas Hawk
    I guess the cat's got Leather Donut's tongue
  • May 27, 2009 at 11:17 pm Johnny Worthington
    You could be called Shirley Bloody Temple, I don't care. I just like your art :D
  • May 28, 2009 at 2:52 am Thomas Hawk
    I guess Leather Donut / Jauder Ho decided to STFU.
  • May 30, 2009 at 5:13 am Tracy McLaughlin
    I think blacking out the name is pretty brilliant. I am going to do mine but mainly for the fact that I don't feel safe as a small female walking around my town with a dslr. I live in a town called Rockhampton which is in Queensland, Australia and it's really not the type of place you want to be advertising the fact that you have expensive things in your bag at all times.
  • May 30, 2009 at 10:56 am Mitchell Tsai
    I use a non-computer bag to carry my laptop, an anonymous bag for my camera, etc.. Nice idea. I've had one camera, one computer, 2 GPS units, and 2 car stereos stolen.

27 Comments

  1. joe sleeper says:

    As a fellow Canon photog, I feel your pain. Nikon does seem to do better with the blogosphere than Canon. I’d love an equivalent of D-Town to watch!

    /me goes to find the electrical tape.

  2. Ari says:

    I often black it out because it seems less people want to chat about gear when they have no clue what you have and I’m not a big gear head.

  3. Brian K says:

    You said in your video with Marc Silber that you also mark off the red line on the L series lenses so you don’t advertise having thousand dollar glass on your camera. I was wondering what you use on your glass.

  4. Enigma Arcana says:

    Tucker Carlson’s “amazing”?
    Clearly, bowties have magic powers

  5. Phill says:

    Interesting, I suppose when you’re in your league of superstardom you should have an agent secure the rights to which camera you use, and you appear in their advertising in return no? Just like sport stars?!

    Seriously though to you debadge your car? Computer, food?!

    Tbh if I leave it on it’s one less what gear to you use question :)

  6. ForeveR says:

    Less Whining, more pictures. Thanks.

  7. Paula says:

    My car was de-badged by vandals, which I don’t mind so much, since I prefer not to give any company free advertising unless I consider myself some kind of evangelist… I don’t wear logos on clothes, and dumped my Canon strap as soon as I got the camera… might have to consider also de-badging my equipment as well…

  8. brett says:

    i use black gaffers tape on my 5dm2’s, it also protects them from the inevitable scraps and scratches that come from my crawling around abandoned buildings … thus increasing potential resale value …

    and yes, for the two reasons mentioned above …

  9. Rick Bucich says:

    I knew of a pro studio photographer in LA who had his car broken into and ransacked. All off his Hasselblad gear was found in a nearby dumpster. Apparently it looked too old fashion to fence easily, go figure…

  10. Nomar says:

    Sounds like you need to Photoshop some gaffer tape over the Canon logo on your Blog portrait.

  11. Jeff Lynch says:

    Please don’t take this the wrong way but why not buy a Canon Professional Services (the gold level is $100 I believe) membership which includes their Trial/Loaner service for members? I know several professionals that have been a part of this program for years and often ask for a trial / loaner to evaluate before making their purchase decision.

    As for the free advertising we give Canon by displaying their logo, while I agree with you in principle, its just a fact of life these days. We advertise for all sorts of companies like Apple, Microsoft, Dell, HP, GM, Ford, Honda, Nike, Callaway Golf, etc. these days just by leaving the house. There’s really no way around it.

    Just a thought!

    Jeff

  12. Brad says:

    I shoot in SF all the time, and in some not so great areas. No one has ever taken a 2nd look at my cam. Have never had an issue. Shooting street is about the attitude you project.

    I talked to one guy a photo get-together a couple months ago at Thirsty Bear and he said he cuts out a thin band of black tape and covers the red band of his L lenses…

  13. Fuck that, I’m not giving YOU free advertising MANNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN *drawn out stoner voice*

  14. Adam T says:

    I agree Mr. Hawk. I think with all my experiences good/bad that there is no reason I should be putting free adverts out there. This weekend before I go walking about I will probably tape off my logos and stripes with some gaf-tape.

    I hope to see you around SF one day on a walk or something. I miss the city and can’t wait to try and shoot it again.

    Take care!

  15. Will says:

    I am going home and covering my Car logo, Yankees log, camera logos, Gap logos, Nike logo, Apple logo. Wait, what has wonder bread done for me, I will cover my bread logo too. Why stop at cameras. Let’s be consistent. Hey, I’ll even cover my wedding band with black tape. Not your best post.

  16. James says:

    You seem very tightly wound.

  17. Scott Bourne says:

    Back in the day, we did the same thing. We blacked out the camera brand because there were so many – and a Nikon (again – back in the day) was much better known in foreign lands than a Pentax or a Minolta, etc.

    Now, with Canon and Nikon owning 94% of the market, pretty much everyone knows you’re shooting one or the other. I don’t bother with marking off anymore partly because I no longer travel internationally and I don’t worry about it – but I think it’s a valid thing to think about doing.

    And Thomas, if it makes you feel any better – I can’t get Canon to send me review units or even to respond to interview requests. It seems they practice a special sort of “reverse PR.” :)

  18. Paul Eaton says:

    I know your pain! I’ve been blacking out my logos for about 10 years now solely on the “why should I advertise for you” principal.

    I was one of the lucky ones in getting a pair of 5d’s shortly after release. I have a friend that works at Canon and I happen to live in NJ so I had luck on my side. However the friend couldn’t really do much for me so I took anything he could give me which happened to be just the info on what vendor would be getting the next shipment so I got on their list asap and called A LOT!

  19. Little Stinking Jimmy says:

    I echo some of the remarks – stop whining, more pictures! You sound like a very tightly-wound moaning little gimp.

    You have a ‘prominent’ photo blog? I’d never heard of you until someone posted a link to ‘come and read about this moaning little twat’.

    You met someone you admired who blanked ‘Canon’ off his cameras? Then you went away and did the same, whilst masturbating using your tears as lubricant? Pathetic.

  20. I think this is a great idea. I used to have all logos marked off all my things, because I worked as an extra (background artist) in Hollywood all the time. I always enjoyed the clean look, and I’m surprised I didn’t think of it myself. I have some black gaffer’s tape around here… =)

  21. It makes sense. If thieves think they will not get much for selling the camera they are less likely to steal it. I disagree about the advertising though. Canon offers a product at a low price and should be able to place their logo on their products.

  22. Russ says:

    I think concealing the logos is silly, but I also think Canon’s lack of service and lack of in-touchness with the social media community is wrong.

    Maybe Canon’s problems stem from the way their employees are treated. Don’t sit and walk fast!

    http://gizmodo.com/5273192/canon-employees-are-forbidden-to-sit-down-walk-at-normal-pace

  23. Scott says:

    Um, blacking the logos out fine, on problem, but if Canon’s practices bug you so much, stop giving them money.

    They don’t care that you black out their logo, they’re very happy to keep taking your cash though.

  24. Spike says:

    What a wanking post.

  25. Roger says:

    Why not “advertise” for Canon. What’s it do to hurt you?

    Do you feel that your relationship is a one way street with companies like Canon? That all the benefits flow in only one direction towards Canon? Like “they got my money so why should I give them free advertising?”

    Did you ever consider that you might actually be greatly benefiting from using their product? What value do you place on all the photographs that you’ve taken with their gear? Are they worthless to you? I think most photographers, even amateurs that don’t depend on income from their work would place a value on their work far in excess of whatever the gear cost that made them. It’s called value creation and in the grand scheme of things it’s the photographer that is the greatest beneficiary in the relationship.

    In addition, don’t photographers benefit when companies like Canon do well financially and are able to do research that improves camera technology? Maybe having their logos visible will have an effect on the people in public that see it or see your work that was made by Canon gear and maybe convince some of them to buy Canon, which in turn helps Canon make better products that you’re able to use?

  26. Mark Rosoff says:

    Years ago people entering the states from overseas had to black out/scratch out the names on their cameras. Honeywell had the rights to Pentax, so BOTH the Asahi and Pentax names had to go. I forget if EPOI made Nikon buyers do it. On the “steal me” issue I often tell customers (semi joke)to use a diaper bag as a camera bag and put a chocolate and lemon stained diaper on top.Once I got a beautiful Hassie decal-all silver and blue and metallic- then I thought- bumper, uh, no. Maybe on my hard case- hell no!

  27. Robert Malin says:

    OMG What a bunch of sissy’s,
    Look the guy doesn’t want to advertise a logo and uses black tape to cover them up.
    I hate it when people go so far to the left or right that they loose sight of reality. (Nuts)
    Look the average thief is going to know that any cannon brand that has removable lenses is worth some bucks, Thieves are stupid and the majority would not know that a cannon l series lens has a red ring around it and they WOULD more than likely take another look at your gear if it had cannon smeared all over it.
    Personally shooting micro stock and dealing with a large number of models and professionals i would not cover my gear because i would want the models to know that i was using top shelf equipment and feel more comfortable in front of the lens.

Leave a Reply