# Canon exec confirms that the EOS-1D X Mark III is Canon’s last DSLR



## Canon Rumors Guy (Dec 28, 2021)

> The writing has obviously been on the wall for a long time, but a Canon executive has confirmed that the Canon EOS-1D X Mark III will be Canon’s last DSLR.
> This information falls in line with 2022 potentially being the year of the Camera body as Canon modernizes its lineup. I also believe the EOS M lineup will suffer the same fate as Canon moves to one mount for all.
> In an interview held by Yomiuri Shimbun (one of the five major newspapers in Japan) with Canon’s Chairman and CEO Fujio Mitarai, we can learn about Canon’s strategy regarding its Imaging System division. “It is natural that mirrorless cameras will become the mainstream of digital cameras… The market needs are acceleratingly shifting to mirrorless cameras. In line with this, we are steadily shifting manufacturing” Mitarai stated (Google translated). According to Mitarai, Canon will end the development and production of the flagship model of the digital SLR cameras a few years from now, stating “Canon’s SLR flagship...



Continue reading...


----------



## Bahrd (Dec 28, 2021)

"Kill'M All" again?


----------



## Doug7131 (Dec 28, 2021)

Am I missing something? Nowhere does he say that the 1dxmk3 is the last DSLR - He says it's the last model in the EOS-1 lineup.


----------



## vangelismm (Dec 28, 2021)

Can we assume no more Rebels and xxD ?


----------



## tcphoto (Dec 28, 2021)

Shocking!


----------



## Andy Westwood (Dec 28, 2021)

RIP DSLR’s it’s been fun shooting with them over the years, but time and tech moves on.

I can’t imagine many people being advised to buy new 6D II or 850D these days unless desperate storekeepers are needing to shift old stock, somehow selling them off to newbies.

I still think there is a market for a tiny compact interchangeable lens body I.E the M Series, M6 II M200, M50 II plus future upgrades. The RF mount is surely too big to accommodate that type of compact system! Or maybe not!


----------



## Maximilian (Dec 28, 2021)

Just


----------



## RoscoeVanDamme (Dec 28, 2021)

Doug7131 said:


> Am I missing something? Nowhere does he say that the 1dxmk3 is the last DSLR - He says it's the last model in the EOS-1 lineup.


-“The latest model EOS-1D X Mark III released in 2020 will be the last model in fact”.- It seems
to plainly imply that it’s the last DSLR, not the last DSLR in the EOS-1 series, as he makes no specific mention of the EOS-1 series. Just the last model. Nothing smoke and mirrors here, it’s plainly stated.


----------



## DaveGershon (Dec 28, 2021)

Still a great sport Camera, which makes great images!!


----------



## Doug7131 (Dec 28, 2021)

RoscoeVanDamme said:


> -“The latest model EOS-1D X Mark III released in 2020 will be the last model in fact”.- It seems
> to plainly imply that it’s the last DSLR, not the last DSLR in the EOS-1 series, as he makes no specific mention of the EOS-1 series. Just the last model. Nothing smoke and mirrors here, it’s plainly stated.


This is the quote :
“Canon’s SLR flagship model is known as the “EOS-1” series, the first of which appeared in 1989. The latest model EOS-1D X Mark III released in 2020 will be the last model in fact”.


----------



## dolina (Dec 28, 2021)

Doug7131 said:


> Am I missing something? Nowhere does he say that the 1dxmk3 is the last DSLR - He says it's the last model in the EOS-1 lineup.


Historically speaking did Canon come out with a new film SLR or other film camera after they moved to a newer system?

Sales volume may dictate whether future R&D spending will continue.

EF mount will now be positioned as a budget product line until such a time that units sold arent economical to continue selling.

I really wish I never bought beyond the 3 fast L zooms.


----------



## unfocused (Dec 28, 2021)

Doug7131 said:


> Am I missing something? Nowhere does he say that the 1dxmk3 is the last DSLR - He says it's the last model in the EOS-1 lineup.





vangelismm said:


> Can we assume no more Rebels and xxD ?



While machine translations are great for getting a general idea, they are horrendous at accurate translation, context and subtlety. We can all speculate on the future of DSLRs, but don't read more into this than the most rudimentary concepts. My interpretation is that the 1Dx III is likely the last of the 1 series DSLRs. But beyond that, no definitive statements about the entire DSLR line, including Rebels. Personally I wouldn't be betting on future full frame DSLRs and expect a gradual phasing out of APS-C DSLRs. But, I wouldn't base that on this brief and flawed translation.


----------



## entoman (Dec 28, 2021)

A rather misleading click-bait headline!

Canon are saying that the 1Dxiii will be the last "flagship" DSLR, they are NOT saying that it with be the "last DSLR"

You can bet your life that there'll be at least one more budget APS-C Rebel model, and it wouldn't surprise me if there was also an upgrade to the very popular 90D.

But don't expect a DSLR replacement for the 5DMkiv, or the 5DSR.


----------



## BBarn (Dec 28, 2021)

No new DSLR introductions. Not really surprising news. The signs have been there for some time. I suspect in just a few years Canon will have built their last ones.

After acquiring my first mirrorless, I had little interest in using my DSLR. Perhaps many others feel the same way.


----------



## Bahrd (Dec 28, 2021)

unfocused said:


> While machine translations are great for getting a general idea, they are horrendous at accurate translation, context and subtlety.


_Mane, tekel, fares_ of the XXI century?


----------



## Berowne (Dec 28, 2021)

The 1Dx-Cameras are great, but I dont care about the DSLR-System. I was never realy happy with the AF-Performance of my Canon-DSLR's, exepct the once rented 1DxII. My R6 is nice, adapted EF-glass works fine for me and my analog SLR's (Leicaflex) will never die.


----------



## dlee13 (Dec 28, 2021)

This is good closure for the DSLR users expecting a 5DV or 6D3. It’s not surprising either, the focus has been Mirrorless for a while now and if they aren’t going to be making EF lenses either there’s no need for new bodies too.


----------



## Pixel (Dec 28, 2021)

Stop being delusional. There will be NO more DSLR’s period. They’ll sell out the remaining EF inventory and be done with it.


----------



## entoman (Dec 28, 2021)

BBarn said:


> After acquiring my first mirrorless, I had little interest in using my DSLR. Perhaps many others feel the same way.


I've got an R5 and a 5DMkiv - I actually used my 5DMkiv today, and really enjoyed the experience.

DSLRs are a bit heavy, a bit noisy, the sensors are outdated, they don't have IBIS, and they can't track subjects very well, but the AF on the 5DMkiv is lightning fast, and the optical viewfinder is a joy to use - instantly available and with zero lag. If my R5 suddenly disappeared, I'd be just as happy with the DSLR. It's also more than capable of handling "difficult" subjects like BIF, macro etc. I find it rather sad that MILCs have all but ousted DSLRs from the marketplace.


----------



## Dragon (Dec 28, 2021)

Doug7131 said:


> Am I missing something? Nowhere does he say that the 1dxmk3 is the last DSLR - He says it's the last model in the EOS-1 lineup.


He also doesn't say a thing about EOS-M, but Craig can't miss an opportunity to take a shot at M. Methinks the whole post is clickbait.


----------



## PhotoGenerous (Dec 28, 2021)

entoman said:


> You can bet your life that there'll be at least one more budget APS-C Rebel model, and it wouldn't surprise me if there was also an upgrade to the very popular 90D.
> 
> But don't expect a DSLR replacement for the 5DMkiv, or the 5DSR.


Canon can't make a 90D successor. The 100D is already the SL1. =P We ran out of numbers! No more DSLRs!


----------



## kirbic (Dec 28, 2021)

I would not dismiss this as "clickbait." Frankly, if Canon will not develop any further flagship DSLRs, I find it very unlikely that they would further develop lower-cost DLSRs, which are more cost sensitive. Not saying it is impossible, just unlikely.
They have had smashing success with the RF mount, and with R&D resources needing careful allocation, why would they devote those precious resources to DSLR tech?


----------



## canonnews (Dec 28, 2021)

I had to jump in. The article is misleading. The original newspaper article clearly states that Canon will continue to DEVELOP and PRODUCE beginner and intermediate DSLR's .. that really the 1DX Mark III just the last DSLR flagship.


----------



## Czardoom (Dec 28, 2021)

canonnews said:


> I had to jump in. The article is misleading. The original newspaper article clearly states that Canon will continue to DEVELOP and PRODUCE beginner and intermediate DSLR's .. that really the 1DX Mark III just the last DSLR flagship.


Thanks for the clarification. Of course, people will continue to mis-read or mis-represent was is said in the article, including (alas) Canon Rumors Guy.

The quoted article is completely clear - it refers to the flagship model.


----------



## canonnews (Dec 28, 2021)

Czardoom said:


> Thanks for the clarification. Of course, people will continue to mis-read or mis-represent was is said in the article, including (alas) Canon Rumors Guy.
> 
> The quoted article is completely clear - it refers to the flagship model.


To be fair Craig is on a beach somewhere in Costa Rica, I think he just took what photorumors stated as correct and went from there. I mean who would spend a lot of time researching the backstory when you're surrounded by Costa Rician chicas on a beach right?


----------



## bergstrom (Dec 28, 2021)

Can someone get the ceo on the phone and confirm the specifics!


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Dec 28, 2021)

With the R3, R5, and R6 I can't see DLSR versions in those lines anytime soon. I expect the R1 will match or best the Z9 which fixes all the issues I had with EVF shooting. So really DSLR's fit in the low end but those customers also want compact mirrorless bodies with eye AF so where can a DSLR really fit in?


----------



## entoman (Dec 28, 2021)

PhotoGenerous said:


> Canon can't make a 90D successor. The 100D is already the SL1. =P We ran out of numbers! No more DSLRs!



7D, 6D, 5D and 1D have all had "Mkii" versions, so nothing to stop Canon calling it "90D Mkii"...

Come to that, they could even go for "99D" if they wanted to.

Where there's a will, there's a way.

I'm not sure what features they'd add, or what improvements they'd make to the 90D, but I'm sure they could spice it up at minimal cost to ensure its continued popularity. I don't think they'd change the sensor, but maybe a higher magnification viewfinder, more AF points, or just a "limited edition" with different cosmetics.


----------



## entoman (Dec 28, 2021)

Photo Bunny said:


> With the R3, R3, and R6 I can't see DLSR versions in those lines anytime soon. I expect the R1 will match or best the Z9 which fixes all the issues I had with EVF shooting. So really DSLR's fit in the low end but those customers also want compact mirrorless bodies with eye AF so where can a DSLR really fit in?


Yep, a camera with the best features of the Z9, R1 and a1 would fix most of the complaints about EVFs, but these high specification EVFs and associated electronics and viewfinder optics add a lot to the cost of a camera, and are only likely to appear on the most expensive models.

So there's plenty of room at the budget end of the market for new (or more likely, upgraded) APS-C DSLRs. Currently they're a lot cheaper to make than MILCs, partly because all the development, engineering and tooling costs are already covered.

I'm sure there will be cheap MILCs below the RP, but these will be poorly specified (probably e.g. only a low-res rear screen, no EVF).


----------



## PhotoGenerous (Dec 28, 2021)

entoman said:


> 7D, 6D, 5D and 1D have all had "Mkii" versions, so nothing to stop Canon calling it "90D Mkii"...
> 
> Come to that, they could even go for "99D" if they wanted to.
> 
> ...


Yeah, they could. The 77D does exist, so it's not like it hasn't been done before. 

However, with next year being the Year of the Camera Body, and the RP and R getting spiritual replacements for cheaper end full frame bodies and at least one APS-C RF body, my bet would be on more of a "R90" rather than a 99D as the replacement.


----------



## erader (Dec 28, 2021)

dlee13 said:


> This is good closure for the DSLR users expecting a 5DV or 6D3. It’s not surprising either, the focus has been Mirrorless for a while now and if they aren’t going to be making EF lenses either there’s no need for new bodies too.


my 5d4 replaced my 5d3 and cost $3500. pretty obvious that the 5dr is is 5d5


----------



## Jethro (Dec 28, 2021)

entoman said:


> ... I'm sure they could spice it up at minimal cost to ensure its continued popularity. I don't think they'd change the sensor, but maybe a higher magnification viewfinder, more AF points, or just a "limited edition" with different cosmetics.


Absolutely right. 

I think a lot will depend on what happens with the (rumoured) two low price R series bodies coming Real Soon Now (along with the rumoured APSC R body). Those will give us some deeper hints about what the future of Canon lower-$ ILCs looks like. But, the short term future is very likely to include minimally updated Rebels and M-series bodies (and lenses) - because they continue to sell like hotcakes.


----------



## MythPlayer (Dec 28, 2021)

Doug7131 said:


> This is the quote :
> “Canon’s SLR flagship model is known as the “EOS-1” series, the first of which appeared in 1989. The latest model EOS-1D X Mark III released in 2020 will be the last model in fact”.


what about EOS 850D (Rebel T8i)? It's following 1Dx3 release after months


----------



## ashmadux (Dec 28, 2021)

Aside from rebel cameras, which Canon should have killed off already and replaced it with the m line, there is no reason to bring out another dslr. For who? The market has shrunk, semi-professional bodies cost thousands of dollars, there is nowhere for a DSLR to fit for the most part. Also the 90d is still on the market and is basically the equivalent of a 70D anyway.

So what DSLR could possibly be introduced and why?

The dream of selling customers a rebel and hoping that they upgrade to the RF mount and buy sweet $2,000 lenses is some kind of wacko fantasy at this point.

The M line has been mirrorless for many years now, they have plenty of better tech to be introduced into it to create a bottom level that can flourish- while all of the pros get charged massive prices for their red rings.


----------



## AEWest (Dec 28, 2021)

entoman said:


> I've got an R5 and a 5DMkiv - I actually used my 5DMkiv today, and really enjoyed the experience.
> 
> DSLRs are a bit heavy, a bit noisy, the sensors are outdated, they don't have IBIS, and they can't track subjects very well, but the AF on the 5DMkiv is lightning fast, and the optical viewfinder is a joy to use - instantly available and with zero lag. If my R5 suddenly disappeared, I'd be just as happy with the DSLR. It's also more than capable of handling "difficult" subjects like BIF, macro etc. I find it rather sad that MILCs have all but ousted DSLRs from the marketplace.


Primarily due to video being much superior on MILCs. We live in a YouTube world and cameras must have competitve video specs, which DSLRs don't have. The last hold out for mirror slappers might be Pentax.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 28, 2021)

ashmadux said:


> The market has shrunk, semi-professional bodies cost thousands of dollars, there is nowhere for a DSLR to fit for the most part.


Sure. After all, >40% of the ILCs produced this year were DSLRs, so it really does sound like there’s nowhere for them to fit.

Got any other asinine pronouncements to make, or would you rather quit before you embarrass yourself further?


----------



## vjlex (Dec 28, 2021)

canonnews said:


> I had to jump in. The article is misleading. The original newspaper article clearly states that Canon will continue to DEVELOP and PRODUCE beginner and intermediate DSLR's .. that really the 1DX Mark III just the last DSLR flagship.


I can confirm this. The very last line of the original article clearly stated that demand for entry-level and mid-level models is stable in foreign markets, and that their development and production will continue for the time being.









「６０万円超」高級ミラーレス、大手３社が続々投入…想定超える予約も


【読売新聞】　デジタルカメラ市場でミラーレス一眼カメラの人気が高まっている。初心者向けの入門機として発売されたが、高機能化が進んだこともあり、幅広い層に浸透しつつある。大手３社はプロカメラマンらの使用も想定した高級機種を投入しており




www.yomiuri.co.jp




"入門機や中級機の一眼レフカメラは、海外で需要が底堅いことから、当面は開発や生産を継続する方針だ。"


----------



## slclick (Dec 28, 2021)

canonnews said:


> I had to jump in. The article is misleading. The original newspaper article clearly states that Canon will continue to DEVELOP and PRODUCE beginner and intermediate DSLR's .. that really the 1DX Mark III just the last DSLR flagship.


It was clear to me, as I read more than just the headline.


----------



## unfocused (Dec 28, 2021)

canonnews said:


> I had to jump in. The article is misleading. The original newspaper article clearly states that Canon will continue to DEVELOP and PRODUCE beginner and intermediate DSLR's .. that really the 1DX Mark III just the last DSLR flagship.


Thanks. I think this quote from your story sums it up. This is exactly what many of us on this forum have been saying for quite some time.


> If anything this article reaffirms that Canon's business model is basically if people are buying it, they will continue to make it. Whether that be the Rebel EF-S lineup, or the EOS-M lineup.


----------



## entoman (Dec 28, 2021)

PhotoGenerous said:


> Yeah, they could. The 77D does exist, so it's not like it hasn't been done before.
> 
> However, with next year being the Year of the Camera Body, and the RP and R getting spiritual replacements for cheaper end full frame bodies and at least one APS-C RF body, my bet would be on more of a "R90" rather than a 99D as the replacement.


I think both are equally likely to happen.

Canon undoubtedly have an APS-C camera in RF mount at some stage of development, and are just analysing demand before deciding whether to put it in production. I'd expect it to have a new sensor, maybe about 28-30MP, and to be styled very much like the R6. It would be the spiritual successor to the 7DMkii, but would have vastly superior AF, probably 30fps, and would be aimed at the birding and sports/action market. At least, that's what I think, and hope. The problems are that tooling up for production would be expensive, the sensor would probably not be used in other models, and if Canon's gamble didn't pay off, they'd lose money on it.

A "90D Mkii" or whatever it's called, is another matter. It would cost next to nothing to put it in production because almost all the development, tooling etc would be carried over from the 70D, 80D and 90D. Already paid for. A few minor changes, to spice it up just enough to ensure that it continued to sell. Instant profit with virtually no initial outlay.

Is there more demand for a "R7" or a "90D Mkii" ? I don't know. Is there in fact sufficient demand for either of them, let alone both? Again I don't know. Neither do Canon, it's a gamble. But Canon are Number One, so they can afford to take gambles. If Canon produced an "R7" and a "90D Mkii", my choice would be the R7, but a 90D Mkii would be much cheaper to produce and would probably help them to sell all the EF glass that they have stockpiled.


----------



## Bishop80 (Dec 28, 2021)

Noooooooooo! There must be some mistake! I am so angry. Can't you make just one more generation of 1D X? This news makes me so sad. Well, I guess there's nothing I can do about it.

^ Me going through all five stages of grief in a span of 30 seconds.

[a little more bargaining] .... ok, maybe an R1 with a rangefinder window so I can pretend?


----------



## Alan B (Dec 28, 2021)

Um "flagship" needs to be put in the title!

*The Canon Executive was talking about the EOS-1 series, NOT all DSLR's!*

Taken from the end of the interview


> Demand for beginner and intermediate SLR cameras is strong overseas, so we plan to continue development and production for the time being.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 28, 2021)

Pixel said:


> Stop being delusional. There will be NO more DSLR’s period. They’ll sell out the remaining EF inventory and be done with it.


Every time you say this you look even more foolish. However, I’d be delusional to think that even being contradicted by Canon’s CEO will stop you from further idiotic posts.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 28, 2021)

PhotoGenerous said:


> Canon can't make a 90D successor. The 100D is already the SL1. =P We ran out of numbers! No more DSLRs!


Remember the PowerShot S90? It was followed by the S95, then the S100. Wait, which S100? 

The 12 MP version from 2011?



Or the 2 MP version from 2000?



Don’t worry, Canon can figure this out if they continue development of the xxD line (which their CEO states they are).


----------



## entoman (Dec 28, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Got any other asinine pronouncements to make, or would you rather quit before you embarrass yourself further?


Hmmm... OK he probably deserved it. But could we stop lowering the tone by insulting other posters? Let's keep this a nice place to visit.


----------



## jam05 (Dec 28, 2021)

"A few years from now"


----------



## jam05 (Dec 28, 2021)

Didn't realize that the ever popular EOS M is a DSLR.


----------



## slclick (Dec 28, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Remember the PowerShot S90? It was followed by the S95, then the S100. Wait, which S100?
> 
> The 12 MP version from 2011?
> View attachment 201830
> ...


I have both!


----------



## becceric (Dec 28, 2021)

bergstrom said:


> Can someone get the ceo on the phone and confirm the specifics!


I seem to have lost his phone number. I’ll try his pager...


----------



## melbournite (Dec 28, 2021)

entoman said:


> I've got an R5 and a 5DMkiv - I actually used my 5DMkiv today, and really enjoyed the experience.
> 
> DSLRs are a bit heavy, a bit noisy, the sensors are outdated, they don't have IBIS, and they can't track subjects very well, but the AF on the 5DMkiv is lightning fast, and the optical viewfinder is a joy to use - instantly available and with zero lag. If my R5 suddenly disappeared, I'd be just as happy with the DSLR. It's also more than capable of handling "difficult" subjects like BIF, macro etc. I find it rather sad that MILCs have all but ousted DSLRs from the marketplace.


I too have an R5 and couple of 5D4's. I tend to use both on location but the 5D4's exclusively in the studio. I prefer having an optical view finder in the studio and for this reason alone, I see myself using them for as long as they keep making them. I also prefer less megapixels and the body size of the 5D4 as it feels much better in the hand with a decent weighted lens.


----------



## PhotoGenerous (Dec 28, 2021)

entoman said:


> I think both are equally likely to happen.
> 
> Canon undoubtedly have an APS-C camera in RF mount at some stage of development, and are just analysing demand before deciding whether to put it in production. I'd expect it to have a new sensor, maybe about 28-30MP, and to be styled very much like the R6. It would be the spiritual successor to the 7DMkii, but would have vastly superior AF, probably 30fps, and would be aimed at the birding and sports/action market. At least, that's what I think, and hope. The problems are that tooling up for production would be expensive, the sensor would probably not be used in other models, and if Canon's gamble didn't pay off, they'd lose money on it.
> 
> ...


I guess that's true. It could end up being the year of the camera body because this is one of the (expected) final years of mix mount releases. 

Though with all the chip shortages I wonder how they would allocate the quantities of which bodies to make if they're no longer going to delay releases and just deal. (I guess that's another reason why it could be the year of the camera body. Bodies have backed up and now they're all coming out.


----------



## flaviojzk (Dec 29, 2021)

Andy Westwood said:


> RIP DSLR’s it’s been fun shooting with them over the years, but time and tech moves on.
> 
> I can’t imagine many people being advised to buy new 6D II or 850D these days unless desperate storekeepers are needing to shift old stock, somehow selling them off to newbies.
> 
> I still think there is a market for a tiny compact interchangeable lens body I.E the M Series, M6 II M200, M50 II plus future upgrades. The RF mount is surely too big to accommodate that type of compact system! Or maybe not!


Not sure the exact dimensions but the Z mount is also big and Nikon could manage tiny kit lenses for the Z50 (16-55) and Z5 (24-50), as well as 2 pancakes (28 and 40). If they come up with Z30 / Z3 cameras in the future you could have really small combos. So I would think Canon could do a similar trick to replace the M mount?


----------



## PhotoGenerous (Dec 29, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Remember the PowerShot S90? It was followed by the S95, then the S100. Wait, which S100?
> 
> The 12 MP version from 2011?
> View attachment 201830
> ...


Did you not understand the "=P" ?

That's an emoji signaling that the statement isn't serious. It's meant to represent a face wit two eyes with a tongue sticking out of the mouth.


----------



## Cochese (Dec 29, 2021)

I don't think this is going to affect a single person who complains about this at any point in time. However, I'd rather they focus on the better tech than split their focus on old tech trying to make it compete with new tech. Especially since the autofocus systems now out compete the old ones.


----------



## dominic_siu (Dec 29, 2021)

Doug7131 said:


> Am I missing something? Nowhere does he say that the 1dxmk3 is the last DSLR - He says it's the last model in the EOS-1 lineup.











「６０万円超」高級ミラーレス、大手３社が続々投入…想定超える予約も


【読売新聞】　デジタルカメラ市場でミラーレス一眼カメラの人気が高まっている。初心者向けの入門機として発売されたが、高機能化が進んだこともあり、幅広い層に浸透しつつある。大手３社はプロカメラマンらの使用も想定した高級機種を投入しており




www.yomiuri.co.jp





this is the original Japanese Yomiuru Shimbun post, Canon CEO mentioned IDX3 is the final DSLR


----------



## dominic_siu (Dec 29, 2021)

canonnews said:


> I had to jump in. The article is misleading. The original newspaper article clearly states that Canon will continue to DEVELOP and PRODUCE beginner and intermediate DSLR's .. that really the 1DX Mark III just the last DSLR flagship.


Yes the article said that will continue developing entry and midrange DSLR but how long you haven’t been seeing new DSLR on the shelves?


----------



## gavinz (Dec 29, 2021)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


I don't see why they would keep making DSLR...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 29, 2021)

dominic_siu said:


> Yes the article said that will continue developing entry and midrange DSLR but how long you haven’t been seeing new DSLR on the shelves?


There’s this thing going on you may have heard of, called a global pandemic. If you base your conclusion on this year, then you’d believe Canon only develops cameras costing $6000.


----------



## Timo2020 (Dec 29, 2021)

entoman said:


> I've got an R5 and a 5DMkiv - I actually used my 5DMkiv today, and really enjoyed the experience.
> 
> DSLRs are a bit heavy, a bit noisy, the sensors are outdated, they don't have IBIS, and they can't track subjects very well, but the AF on the 5DMkiv is lightning fast, and the optical viewfinder is a joy to use - instantly available and with zero lag. If my R5 suddenly disappeared, I'd be just as happy with the DSLR. It's also more than capable of handling "difficult" subjects like BIF, macro etc. I find it rather sad that MILCs have all but ousted DSLRs from the marketplace.


Pointless to say, that the photographers of old school had much more knowledge about photography than those photographers, who are only able to shoot their pictures with a computer in their hand like the (fantastic) EOS R5. I experience this often, when I talk in workshops with young photographers, who only know digital photography and never used analog cameras like the original EOS 5 (No D and no R in the name). 

However, those digital photographers have other skills, like using Photoshop and such to make even from average photos breathtaking pictures. We should learn from each other.


----------



## Timo2020 (Dec 29, 2021)

I think, it is plain to see that the time of DSLRs is definitely over. I am sad about it, since I used those cameras from the late 80s, like the T60 and T90, EOS 5, and for years also the EOS 3. Great cameras and the latter two were already eye controlled. So the "new" technique in the EOS R3 is indeed something that we "old" photographers and Canon fans begged for decades to bring it back. Now, we have it and I am sure, it is a great feature.


----------



## John Wilde (Dec 29, 2021)

CanonRumors has been rumoring about the death of Canon M since 2018, and yet it still hasn't happened.

Get back to me when Canon releases an R at the same price point as the M50.


----------



## canonnews (Dec 29, 2021)

dominic_siu said:


> Yes the article said that will continue developing entry and midrange DSLR but how long you haven’t been seeing new DSLR on the shelves?


There's something called a pandemic and extreme supply shortages happening right now. I hope you don't use that as any kind of proof. but the last DSLR was 2019 I think.


----------



## Timo2020 (Dec 29, 2021)

gavinz said:


> I don't see why they would keep making DSLR...


The reason might be that more and more photographers and even beginners start to get involved into vintage photography with analog cameras and "old fashioned" films, like Kodak Portra 400.


----------



## unfocused (Dec 29, 2021)

becceric said:


> I seem to have lost his phone number. I’ll try his pager...


That pager better come with a time machine. While you are at it, why don't you fax him too?


----------



## John Wilde (Dec 29, 2021)

dominic_siu said:


> Yes the article said that will continue developing entry and midrange DSLR but how long you haven’t been seeing new DSLR on the shelves?


(CIPA) In Jan-Oct 1,842,524 new DSLRs were produced.


----------



## mclaren777 (Dec 29, 2021)

His use of the word "flagship" allows me to still hold out hope for a 5DV.


----------



## unfocused (Dec 29, 2021)

mclaren777 said:


> His use of the word "flagship" allows me to still hold out hope for a 5DV.


I admire your optimism. Seriously though, I think there is a slim chance that Canon may consolidate all its full frame DSLRs into a single body, May not be a 5D, but might be similar.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 29, 2021)

entoman said:


> Hmmm... OK he probably deserved it. But could we stop lowering the tone by insulting other posters? Let's keep this a nice place to visit.


I will continue to respond to ridiculous assertions with the ridicule they deserve. I will point out that such ridicule is typically directed at repeat idiocy. For example, @ashmadux is one of those for whom an f/5.6 lens is ok but an f/7.1 is trash and a joke. Canon was a dinosaur years ago, according to @ashmadux but apparently he’s still riding that dinosaur…and still bemoaning it.


----------



## Jethro (Dec 29, 2021)

unfocused said:


> I admire your optimism. Seriously though, I think there is a slim chance that Canon may consolidate all its full frame DSLRs into a single body, May not be a 5D, but might be similar.


I think very slim. There now officially won't be another 1D series, so unless Canon are getting significant -ve feedback on the R5, it's hard to see why they would go ahead with a 5DV. The (rumoured) high MP R5 would belatedly take over from the high MP 5Ds, and the 6D2 is likely to be superseded in the new year with the low $ R series bodies. The future of the APSC DSLRs is, in some ways, more interesting - especially if an R7 does appear in 2022.


----------



## Bahrd (Dec 29, 2021)

canonnews said:


> To be fair Craig is on a beach somewhere in Costa Rica


The CR guy in a CR country... What a commitment (by the way, there is yet another CR (Czech Republic) definitely worth visiting)!


----------



## SnowMiku (Dec 29, 2021)

Perhaps Canon will release a 7D Mark III DSLR after all  What kind of upgrades could they do to the 90D? I can only think of USB-C, a bigger viewfinder, the 7D II focus system (Probably unrealistic for the market) and the eye sensor that turns the LCD off that was in the lower model 700D, the 90D feels like going backwards without that eye sensor. Can anyone else think of other 90D upgrades?


----------



## AlanF (Dec 29, 2021)

SnowMiku said:


> Perhaps Canon will release a 7D Mark III DSLR after all  What kind of upgrades could they do to the 90D? I can only think of USB-C, a bigger viewfinder, the 7D II focus system (Probably unrealistic for the market) and the eye sensor that turns the LCD off that was in the lower model 700D, the 90D feels like going backwards without that eye sensor. Can anyone else think of other 90D upgrades?


Any 90D upgrade with a mirror will be going backwards for me. The Nikon D500 was what the 7DIII could have been, with superb AF and sensor, but I sold mine after getting the R5. I had a great time with it and would still be perfectly happy using it and the superb 500mm PF if I didn't have an R5. The R5 and R6 were a watershed with Canon where mirrorless pulled ahead and will continue to draw further ahead. The more focus points you have, the better the AF and subject recognition. Canon with some 5000 points already from its DPAF system is going to be increasing hard to beat for mirrorless.


----------



## GoldWing (Dec 29, 2021)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


It seems like a million people are waiting for the R1


----------



## sanj (Dec 29, 2021)

Some of us who do not live in denial could see this YEARS ago.


----------



## Martin K (Dec 29, 2021)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


I have just woken up and read all this news and thread. I have two conclusions.

One is that the next Canon professional camera, to replace the 1DX3, will be the R1 or somesuch, and there will be no more professional DSLRs. But there may well be be more lower-level DSLRs. (No big surprise there.)

The other is that Canon Rumors has become lazy and did not go back to the original source article.


----------



## vjlex (Dec 29, 2021)

Martin K said:


> I have just woken up and read all this news and thread. I have two conclusions.
> 
> One is that the next Canon professional camera, to replace the 1DX3, will be the R1 or somesuch, and there will be no more professional DSLRs. But there may well be be more lower-level DSLRs. (No big surprise there.)
> 
> The other is that Canon Rumors has become lazy and did not go back to the original source article.


To be fair, the original article was in Japanese. It's easy for these kind of things to get lost in translation.


----------



## bergstrom (Dec 29, 2021)

unfocused said:


> That pager better come with a time machine. While you are at it, why don't you fax him too?



Amateurs! I'll ring him myself


----------



## slclick (Dec 29, 2021)

Timo2020 said:


> The reason might be that more and more photographers and even beginners start to get involved into vintage photography with analog cameras and "old fashioned" films, like Kodak Portra 400.


Portra hasn't gone away for some.


----------



## scyrene (Dec 29, 2021)

sanj said:


> Some of us who do not live in denial could see this YEARS ago.


You saw them ending flagship DSLR development at the 1DxIII? Or was just 'DSLRs are dead' - in that case obviously it would be true eventually, but it's not much of a prediction


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 29, 2021)

sanj said:


> Some of us who do not live in denial could see this YEARS ago.


Like the guy in 2013 who predicted the death of the DSLR in 5 years? Or those more recently on here who stated Canon has stopped developing DSLRs?

The ones in denial are those suggesting Canon would do something other than continuing to make cameras that people want to buy. Not surprisingly, given that >40% of ILCs made this year are DSLRs, Canon’s CEO confirmed they are continuing to develop DSLR lines because demand remains strong.


----------



## dtaylor (Dec 29, 2021)

sanj said:


> Some of us who do not live in denial could see this YEARS ago.


People have been predicting the demise of flappy mirrors for a decade. I don't think anyone claimed it would never happen, but plenty of people pointed out that it would take much longer than predicted. Saying "DSLRs are dead!" over and over again until the decline finally starts years later does not make one a prophet.


----------



## entoman (Dec 29, 2021)

Quote from dpreview:

"As for smaller DSLR cameras, Mitarai doesn't specifically mention whether or not we can expect *new* DSLRs, but does say '*Demand for beginner and intermediate SLR cameras is strong overseas, so we plan to continue development and production for the time being.'* "


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 29, 2021)

entoman said:


> Quote from dpreview:
> 
> "As for smaller DSLR cameras, Mitarai doesn't specifically mention whether or not we can expect *new* DSLRs, but does say '*Demand for beginner and intermediate SLR cameras is strong overseas, so we plan to continue development and production for the time being.'* "


Do DSLRs currently in production require development? I suppose it could mean firmware updates, but those are rare for xxxD models. I think the implication is there will be new entry-level DSLRs. This just seems like DPR ‘spin’.


----------



## entoman (Dec 29, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Do DSLRs currently in production require development? I suppose it could mean firmware updates, but those are rare for xxxD models. I think the implication is there will be new entry-level DSLRs. This just seems like DPR ‘spin’.


It's apparently a direct quote from Mitarai, who is often ambiguous, but in this case seems to be stating quite firmly that "development and production" of beginner (Rebel) and intermediate (xxD) DSLRs will continue while demand still exists.

I agree that the implication is that new APS-C models (minor hardware upgrades) will appear, but I'm confident that we can wave goodbye to any ideas that there might be a successor to the 6DMkii.

Canon would I'm sure *prefer* that everyone dumped their DSLRs and that all new buyers went for RF mount models, but equally they'd be foolish to shut down lines that are still very profitable.


----------



## Toglife_Anthony (Dec 29, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Do DSLRs currently in production require development? I suppose it could mean firmware updates, but those are rare for xxxD models. I think the implication is there will be new entry-level DSLRs. This just seems like DPR ‘spin’.


Indeed. I think Canon will continue to push entry-level DSLR's until they have a robust RF lineup of affordable lenses that would pair with the market and price-point of a xxxD-equivalent mirrorless, or until they gain a willingness from the market to pay more (which isn't outside the realm of possibilities).


----------



## John Wilde (Dec 29, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Do DSLRs currently in production require development? I suppose it could mean firmware updates, but those are rare for xxxD models. I think the implication is there will be new entry-level DSLRs. This just seems like DPR ‘spin’.


They could just put a new designed-for-mirrorless sensor into a DSLR, and a new DIGIC. That's what they did with the 90D.


----------



## Skux (Dec 29, 2021)

Yeah, it's over guys. I can see them making the 90D/850D/4000D as long as they keep selling, but there will be no new cameras or lenses. Maybe a firmware update to fix some bugs but that's it.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 29, 2021)

Skux said:


> Yeah, it's over guys. I can see them making the 90D/850D/4000D as long as they keep selling, but there will be no new cameras or lenses. Maybe a firmware update to fix some bugs but that's it.


It’s wonderful that we have forum members who are so knowledgeable about Canon’s plans that they know Canon’s CEO is lying.

Although to be fair, it could be that some people don’t know what the word ‘development’ means in the context of product lines.


----------



## unfocused (Dec 29, 2021)

entoman said:


> It's apparently a direct quote from Mitarai...


It is a "direct quote" that has been translated from the original language, which means it's really not "direct." Not being critical, just saying that it is best to exercise some caution when trying to parse statements that have been translated.


----------



## unfocused (Dec 29, 2021)

One problem I see is that the feeder for EF lens development is full frame bodies. If we are at the end of the line for full frame DSLRs then we will inevitably be at the end of the line for EF lens development. A self-fulfilling spiral of death.

Sure, Canon could continue to develop EF-S lenses, but they showed little interest in EF-S lenses even during the height of the DSLR era. As long as Rebels are selling well, they might make some changes to EF-S lenses to reduce production costs and incorporate other efficiencies, but I don't see them developing new EF-S or EF lenses.

In my opinion the current level of sales for low-end DSLRs is not particularly illuminating and constantly falling back on those sales figures doesn't really prove anything. They are a snapshot in time, but can't predict the future.

Cell phone cameras will keep getting better and keep cutting into the Rebel market. The market will keep aging out and new young buyers won't be sufficient to replace the older ones. The younger buyers will focus on documenting their experiences through videos, selfies and food photos (all better suited to cell phones), rather than collecting a catalogue of the things and people that were more suitable for traditional cameras.

I don't envy any camera company, trying to stay in business by selling increasingly expensive products to a shrinking and aging market, with no good prospects to replace lost revenue by attracting new customers.


----------



## Pixel (Dec 29, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Every time you say this you look even more foolish. However, I’d be delusional to think that even being contradicted by Canon’s CEO will stop you from further idiotic posts.


There hasn’t been an EF lens released in three years and you’re convinced more DSLR’s are coming? LMAO


----------



## Mikehit (Dec 29, 2021)

Pixel said:


> There hasn’t been an EF lens released in three years and you’re convinced more DSLR’s are coming? LMAO


Given the market sector for the xxD/xxxD lines (or Rebels in America-speak) which is going to give more bang-for-the-buck - a new whizz-bang lens that improves on already exceptional quality or a camera that has gives one or more of the following: higher MP, higher DR, better AF or better general functionality? My guess is that it will not be the new lens.


----------



## unfocused (Dec 29, 2021)

Mikehit said:


> Given the market sector for the xxD/xxxD lines (or Rebels in America-speak) which is going to give more bang-for-the-buck - a new whizz-bang lens that improves on already exceptional quality or a camera that has gives one or more of the following: higher MP, higher DR, better AF or better general functionality? My guess is that it will not be the new lens.


I'm not sure that the main market for "the xxD/xxxD lines" even thinks about higher MP, higher DR, better AF or better general functionality. 

Now, if the Rebel could connect to popular social media sites for immediate uploading and sharing of photos with the same ease as smart phones, that might be a selling point.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 29, 2021)

Pixel said:


> There hasn’t been an EF lens released in three years and you’re convinced more DSLR’s are coming? LMAO


What part of, “Demand for beginner and intermediate SLR cameras is strong overseas, so we plan to continue *development* and production for the time being,” don’t you understand?

Given the CEO’s statement, I’m certain we’ll see a new DSLR or two next year. There are plenty of consumer and higher EF lenses in production, and a need for Canon to fill out the RF line, so it’s no surprise that we haven’t seen any new EF lenses, and we probably won’t see more. I expect an EF-M lens or two, if only an updated kit lens.


----------



## Jethro (Dec 29, 2021)

It's quite possible there could be updated Rebels or 90Ds in the next year, even if there is only a minimal improvement, if only so Canon can be seen to be releasing 'new' models. There is obviously still a market, which could well be only for the initial kit lenses that come with the body - but that market won't keep buying years-old models forever. unfocused's suggestion of better connectivity (a la smartphones) for entry level DSLRs is an interesting one, that could presumably be introduced at minimal cost or _development_.

I still think the future (>2 years) of lower $ ILC bodies is going to depend a lot on what happens with the lower cost R series bodies which are rumoured to appear in 2022 ...


----------



## scyrene (Dec 29, 2021)

entoman said:


> Canon would I'm sure *prefer* that everyone dumped their DSLRs and that all new buyers went for RF mount models,


I wonder about this, though it's a commonly stated opinion. They want to sell their products, and at this point maybe there's more profit in selling DSLRs because there's less recent development costs to recoup. Perhaps selling an RF body would lock a customer into the system longer though. I don't think it's cut and dried either way.


----------



## entoman (Dec 29, 2021)

scyrene said:


> I wonder about this, though it's a commonly stated opinion. They want to sell their products, and at this point maybe there's more profit in selling DSLRs because there's less recent development costs to recoup. Perhaps selling an RF body would lock a customer into the system longer though. I don't think it's cut and dried either way.


Yes, in the short term they would definitely like to continue selling large quantities of DSLR. But in the longer term they faced 2 issues:

Firstly, DSLRs have been developed about as far as they can go, so in order to produce more technologically "exciting" and feature-laden bodies, they had to go the mirrorless route. Secondly, they want people who already own Canon gear, to buy new lenses, rather than keep their old EF glass, so that required a new mount, and a new series of lenses that were clearly better in terms of image quality and specification than the EF lenses they replace.

I think the most admirable aspect of this transition, is that Canon ensured that their EF lenses were 100% compatible with the new camera bodies, allowing people to stagger the transition. To me this compatibility was vital, as it takes time to develop new lenses, and meanwhile I can continue using my favourite EF glass without compromise.


----------



## Pixel (Dec 29, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> What part of, “Demand for beginner and intermediate SLR cameras is strong overseas, so we plan to continue *development* and production for the time being,” don’t you understand?
> 
> Given the CEO’s statement, I’m certain we’ll see a new DSLR or two next year. There are plenty of consumer and higher EF lenses in production, and a need for Canon to fill out the RF line, so it’s no surprise that we haven’t seen any new EF lenses, and we probably won’t see more. I expect an EF-M lens or two, if only an updated kit lens.


I don't doubt production will continue for a while but "development" could mean a range of things and if there are any new DSLR's they won't be released in the USA.


----------



## sanj (Dec 30, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Like the guy in 2013 who predicted the death of the DSLR in 5 years? Or those more recently on here who stated Canon has stopped developing DSLRs?
> 
> The ones in denial are those suggesting Canon would do something other than continuing to make cameras that people want to buy. Not surprisingly, given that >40% of ILCs made this year are DSLRs, Canon’s CEO confirmed they are continuing to develop DSLR lines because demand remains strong.


Hahahaha.


----------



## sanj (Dec 30, 2021)

sanj said:


> Hahahaha.


Clairvoyant people can see the future sometimes long before other's can! Times change, technology changes. This was inevitable and is for the better. Let's just accept it, embrace it and not fight.


----------



## becceric (Dec 30, 2021)

unfocused said:


> That pager better come with a time machine. While you are at it, why don't you fax him too?


Every time I dial the fax number, I just get these weird tones...


----------



## RayValdez360 (Dec 30, 2021)

Pixel said:


> Stop being delusional. There will be NO more DSLR’s period. They’ll sell out the remaining EF inventory and be done with it.


is there any reason to stop making EF lenses any time soon. arent they popular with other camera systems and needed for every canon cinema camera except the c70.


----------



## becceric (Dec 30, 2021)

bergstrom said:


> Amateurs! I'll ring him myself


Wow! I used to have to convince people that was exactly what they needed!
I was much better selling cameras.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 30, 2021)

Pixel said:


> I don't doubt production will continue for a while but "development" could mean a range of things and if there are any new DSLR's they won't be released in the USA.


13% of the total ILCs shipped this year were DSLRs to the Americas. Globally, 41% of ILCs shipped are DSLRs but to the Americas it’s 46%. But you suggest Canon will ignore that market. To quote @sanj, “Hahahaha.”


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 30, 2021)

sanj said:


> Clairvoyant people can see the future sometimes long before other's can! Times change, technology changes. This was inevitable and is for the better. Let's just accept it, embrace it and not fight.


Well, you can accept the word of the Canon CEO that DSLRs will continue to be developed by his company…or you can choose not to accept it.

Our planet will die, when the Sun becomes a red giant. See, I’m clairvoyant like you.


----------



## sanj (Dec 30, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Well, you can accept the word of the Canon CEO that DSLRs will continue to be developed by his company…or you can choose not to accept it.
> 
> Our planet will die, when the Sun becomes a red giant. See, I’m clairvoyant like you.


You never fail to impress. 
But fighting for DSLR's is a losing battle. You will learn, be patient. Canon will soon provide mirrorless replacements for these DSLR's you talk about and the DSLR's will phase out faster than you think. Time will show. 
All this way before the planet dies.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 30, 2021)

sanj said:


> You never fail to impress.
> But fighting for DSLR's is a losing battle. You will learn, be patient. Canon will soon provide mirrorless replacements for these DSLR's you talk about and the DSLR's will phase out faster than you think. Time will show.
> All this way before the planet dies.


I’m not ‘fighting for DSLRs’. Are you fighting for mirrorless?

I’m just trying to live in a world where facts outweigh opinions. Did you miss the EOS M line? It’s been nearly a decade since Canon came out with mirrorless replacements for their entry-level DSLRs, and they were the last major manufacturer to do so (well, arguably Nikon never really did until recently), but still >40% of ILCs produced this year were DSLRs.

How about this: every year, you can predict that Canon will abandon DSLRs. Eventually, you’ll be right.

Given that overall ILC sales have been dropping for the past several years, MILCs may not be around much longer than DSLRs.


----------



## unfocused (Dec 30, 2021)

Honestly, the longer this conversation goes on, the more pointless it becomes. Does anybody really care? 

Or, more accurately, why should we care? Individually we cannot influence the market no matter how many posts we write expressing our opinion. Collectively, we might have some limited ability to influence the enthusiast market, since that's mainly who follows and participates in this forum, but the influence flows from the dollars we spend, not the posts we write.

This year, I voted with my wallet. I moved over completely to the R system and my wife migrated to the R as well. Aside from a couple of specialty lenses (100 Macro and Fisheye zoom), I've sold all my EF lenses and purchased basic kits of RF lenses for me and for my wife. It cost me a fortune, but I don't regret it for a minute. I loved DSLRs and will miss a few of their characteristics, but it wasn't enough to keep me from migrating to the R system.

I'm mildly interested in watching what Canon does with the Rebel and M systems, but it won't affect me personally. As I said before, I think citing data points as they exist today (for example, the number of Rebels being sold now) isn't particularly illuminating and proves nothing except they they are *currently* selling quite a few cheap Rebels. Will that be the case a year from now? I don't know or care. Five years from now? I'd bet not, but we will see.


----------



## AJ (Dec 30, 2021)

In most companies, sales drive decisions.
I don't have the numbers, but I bet the R3, R5, and R6 are currently selling well and the 1DX3 and 5D4 are not. That would explain the decision.
Aside from the M line, there are no MILC equivalents right now to APSC cameras like the T8i, 90D, and 7D2. When the mirrorless equivalents come out (10R? 7R?) you'll probably see a drop in sales of the aforementioned mirrorslappers, and this in turn will drive business decisions in a few years' time.
This is all pure speculation. But, hey, this is a rumours site.


----------



## chik0240 (Dec 30, 2021)

well one thing positive for me as a DSLR lover who enjoys the OVF much more than EVF, the phasing out of DSLRs either mean the 1DX III which is a huge upgrade to my 10 years old 5D3 will get really cheap to buy brand new and work it's way before my retirement. and it's less tempting to upgrade, yes the R5 and adapter works well and I doubt it would really cause noticeable decentering effects, but then with banned travel due to COVID and that the R5 basically provide me no new opportunities to get something done which I previously can't do I likely just spend the money elsewhere. From 40D to 5D3 my usable high ISO goes from 1000 to 6400 with similar pixel peeping quality, which makes handheld nighttime snapshots doable, and faster shutter astronomy photos works, but then although DR improved a lot, it don't really get that sort of day and night difference. and the AF just works fine for me even for sports photos, plus I don't ever record serious video these all makes me reluctant to spend big money


----------



## masterpix (Dec 30, 2021)

Well, the DSLR's have three main levels, the XXX, the XX and the X series, right now the R has only X series and no XX or XXX in the lineup, therefore I would guess that canon is working hard on RXX and RXXX cameras that will allow replacement of the entire DSLR's line. The R and RP may be the RXX but canon needs RXXX as well. The question is, the technology is already there, how can they "reduce" the features to make "less expensive" bodies.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Dec 30, 2021)

Only DSLRs are real cameras. The end of DSLRs is a real tragedy.


----------



## entoman (Dec 30, 2021)

masterpix said:


> Well, the DSLR's have three main levels, the XXX, the XX and the X series, right now the R has only X series and no XX or XXX in the lineup, therefore I would guess that canon is working hard on RXX and RXXX cameras that will allow replacement of the entire DSLR's line. The R and RP may be the RXX but canon needs RXXX as well. The question is, the technology is already there, how can they "reduce" the features to make "less expensive" bodies.


Yes, Canon needs to produce cheap cameras as well as exotica.

They can reduce the features by:

eliminating the EVF
using a low-resolution fixed LCD panel
no top plate LCD
lower build quality
plastic camera/lens mount
cheap F4-5.6 kit lenses
re-using the RP sensor
And they can minimise the price because such cameras would probably sell in large numbers to novices, especially if they market them in a variety of colours and cosmetic finishes, to appeal to trendies.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 30, 2021)

entoman said:


> Yes, Canon needs to produce cheap cameras as well as exotica.
> 
> They can reduce the features by:
> 
> ...


Sounds like the EOS M line, doesn’t it?


----------



## entoman (Dec 30, 2021)

Skyscraperfan said:


> Only DSLRs are real cameras. The end of DSLRs is a real tragedy.


The end of plate cameras was a tragedy?
The end of rangefinders was a tragedy?
The end of twin-lens reflexes was a tragedy?
The end of film SLRs was a tragedy?
... and now the end of DSLRs is a tragedy?

Would you like to still be travelling by horse and cart, living without electricity too?

I love DSLRs, and I still use my 5DMkiv as well as my R5.
RF series and other MILCs are still far from perfect, and DSLRs are still fun to use and produce great shots.
But living in the past is a mistake.
You'll end up getting a MILC even if you don't already have one, and when you do you'll appreciate that they can make photography easier and can make some fields of photography possible that were near-impossible previously.


----------



## entoman (Dec 30, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Sounds like the EOS M line, doesn’t it?


Yes it does!

Ultimately I think we'll see M migrating to RF mount. It will make the bodies a little bigger but not by enough to make any significant difference.

It's in Canon's interest to migrate to RF which allows faster data transfer between lens and body, and in combination with AI tech will enable faster and more advanced subject recognition, better tracking etc. This would be a killer selling point to novices who want a simple, cheap, light camera that does the thinking for them.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 30, 2021)

entoman said:


> Yes it does!
> 
> Ultimately I think we'll see M migrating to RF mount. It will make the bodies a little bigger but not by enough to make any significant difference.


The problem is that it will make all the lenses significantly larger. For example, the superzooms for the two mounts:


----------



## sanj (Dec 30, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> I’m not ‘fighting for DSLRs’. Are you fighting for mirrorless?
> 
> I’m just trying to live in a world where facts outweigh opinions. Did you miss the EOS M line? It’s been nearly a decade since Canon came out with mirrorless replacements for their entry-level DSLRs, and they were the last major manufacturer to do so (well, arguably Nikon never really did until recently), but still >40% of ILCs produced this year were DSLRs.
> 
> ...


YES. Yes, sir, I am fighting for mirrorless, I can smell the roses.


----------



## entoman (Dec 30, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> The problem is that it will make all the lenses significantly larger. For example, the superzooms for the two mounts:
> 
> View attachment 201854


Yes it would, but I think Canon's solution (hinted at in my post above) would be to have a smaller maximum aperture.
They've done that a lot recently (RF100-400mm, RF 600mm F11, RF 800mm F11).
Keeps the price down too, so another big selling point for future budget/novice RF models.
With MILCs there's no need for anyone to worry about the dim viewfinders that would result with small apertures on DSLRs.
Little need to worry about noise or slow shutter speeds either, with modern sensors and IBIS.
(I think IBIS will find its way into budget RF models, as competitors will likely have it)
Could be completely wrong of course, but that's how I see things developing.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 30, 2021)

sanj said:


> YES. Yes, sir, I am fighting for mirrorless, I can smell the roses.


I don’t get that. Why does anyone care if DSLRs continue to be developed or not? If you prefer mirrorless, buy mirrorless. Do you think everyone should make the same choices you do? For those that prefer DSLRs (and the data clearly show many do), why do you want their choices to be taken away? Makes no sense to me, seems quite selfish, IMO.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 30, 2021)

entoman said:


> Yes it would, but I think Canon's solution (hinted at in my post above) would be to have a smaller maximum aperture.
> They've done that a lot recently (RF100-400mm, RF 600mm F11, RF 800mm F11).
> Keeps the price down too, so another big selling point for future budget/novice RF models.


The EF-M lenses are a uniform 61mm in diameter. The slow RF standard zoom (24-105/4-7.1) is 76mm in diameter. Even if Canon manages to make slow zooms at the minimum RF diameter as found on the 16/2.8, they’ll still be 69mm and significantly beefier than the EF-M lineup. The RF mount diameter imposes that constraint, not really the optics.

Edit: Having said that, your logic can also apply to the EF-M lenses. When they were new, I expect Canon was reluctant to go narrower than f/6.3 because all the EF/EF-S lenses are at least f/5.6 and there were 3rd party f/6.3 lenses users knew worked on EOS bodies. Now there is an f/7.1 L lens and there are f/8 non-L lenses for RF. I wonder if we’ll see an EF-M 15-200 or 18-250 ending at f/7.1 or f/8, which would be feasible with the 61mm diameter constraint.


----------



## SteveC (Dec 30, 2021)

A lot of this discussion has (possibly) been attributable to people forgetting that we are in a particular segment of a much broader market. When someone says "Canon will never produce another DSLR again" it's _possible_ he's thinking of the enthusiast/pro segment and forgetting the entry level stuff. If that's what's going on inside his skull (and I can't really know) then I would tend to agree with him. I doubt Canon will ever produce another DSLR _in our segment._ No 1s, 5s or 7s. (On the other hand: Is a 90D in our segment?)

Will they continue to churn out Rebels? Almost certainly, and they'll even probably develop a new model or two. For how long? I don't know but if I had to guess (and it's worth exactly what you're paying for it), I'd say less than ten years, and there's a decent chance it will be less than five years. So, yes, in the _broader_ context, they will continue to make DSLRs.

But let's face it, most of us forget about Rebels when we're talking about things here. (Despite the fact that I have taken more pictures with my Rebel than with all my other gear combined, in the last two months; when talking here even I forget about them.) So when I read statements like "Canon's not going to produce another DSLR" I try to keep that in mind.

Could I be totally wrong about any or all of this? Absofragginglutely!!


----------



## entoman (Dec 30, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> The EF-M lenses are a uniform 61mm in diameter. The slow RF standard zoom (24-105/4-7.1) is 76mm in diameter. Even if Canon manages to make slow zooms at the minimum RF diameter as found on the 16/2.8, they’ll still be 69mm and significantly beefier than the EF-M lineup. The RF mount diameter imposes that constraint, not really the optics.
> 
> Edit: Having said that, your logic can also apply to the EF-M lenses. When they were new, I expect Canon was reluctant to go narrower than f/6.3 because all the EF/EF-S lenses are at least f/5.6 and there were 3rd party f/6.3 lenses users knew worked on EOS bodies. Now there is an f/7.1 L lens and there are f/8 non-L lenses for RF. I wonder if we’ll see an EF-M 15-200 or 18-250 ending at f/7.1 or f/8, which would be feasible with the 61mm diameter constraint.


Just thinking out loud here, so don't read too much into it. I don't know enough about lens design to be able to know what is possible regarding reducing lens diameters - I know the theory of course, but I'm not sure what new options might be brought to the table by the combination of wide mount and reduced distance between rear element and sensor. There are several very small and narrow-diameter lenses made by Laowa and others. They don't have AF or OIS of course, but adopting smaller motors, or possibly using a design in which the focusing elements are at the back of the lens (within the mount) could open up all sorts of possibilities.

Novices (the most likely purchasers of bottom of range budget MILCs) don't understand F numbers or their effect on images, so I think they'd favour compact small-aperture lenses. Even experienced photographers are beginning to find them acceptable, given the quality of modern sensors and processing.


----------



## entoman (Dec 30, 2021)

SteveC said:


> A lot of this discussion has (possibly) been attributable to people forgetting that we are in a particular segment of a much broader market. When someone says "Canon will never produce another DSLR again" it's _possible_ he's thinking of the enthusiast/pro segment and forgetting the entry level stuff. If that's what's going on inside his skull (and I can't really know) then I would tend to agree with him. I doubt Canon will ever produce another DSLR _in our segment._ No 1s, 5s or 7s. (On the other hand: Is a 90D in our segment?)
> 
> Will they continue to churn out Rebels? Almost certainly, and they'll even probably develop a new model or two. For how long? I don't know but if I had to guess (and it's worth exactly what you're paying for it), I'd say less than ten years, and there's a decent chance it will be less than five years. So, yes, in the _broader_ context, they will continue to make DSLRs.
> 
> ...


Fashion, trendiness, peer pressure or whatever we want to call it, will be the main factors that determine how long DSLRs remain viable in the marketplace. Plenty of people on forums see things only from their own standpoint, and most are predicting an early death to DSLRs. These attitudes filter through slowly to the general public via youtube reviews and salespersons, who need to have something new to say and something exciting and different to promote. So I'd guess that Rebels and Pentax DSLRs will still be in production in 5 years time, but by then MILCs will probably account for 90% of new sales.

DSLRs will become niche products, and if Pentax were able to improve their cosmetic design and market themselves convincingly, they could justify raising their prices and becoming the next Leica. Or maybe that's just wishful thinking....


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 30, 2021)

entoman said:


> Just thinking out loud here, so don't read too much into it. I don't know enough about lens design to be able to know what is possible regarding reducing lens diameters


The constraint is really just the physical diameter of the mount. Yes, there are alternative designs, but I really don’t see Canon going that route. Do you think they’d make a mass-market lens like this?




Many of the EF-S and EF-M lenses could have been made narrower quite easily given the internals, but they weren’t. Why?



entoman said:


> Fashion, trendiness, peer pressure or whatever we want to call it, will be the main factors


 
Because as you point out, appearances matter…and a lens like the above design, while technically possible, just looks funky.


----------



## entoman (Dec 30, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> The constraint is really just the physical diameter of the mount. Yes, there are alternative designs, but I really don’t see Canon going that route. Do you think they’d make a mass-market lens like this?
> 
> View attachment 201857
> 
> ...


I used Laowa to illustrate the *extremes* of design, in terms of narrowness, that can be achieved.
Canon produce odd-looking specialist lenses (TS-E, dual fish-eye etc) but lenses designed for the "popular" market would have to be less radical.

For the budget RF market, they could produce a stylish lens with a barrel of uniform diameter, no wider than the RF mount.
That should be easily achievable if the maximum aperture is restricted, as discussed.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 30, 2021)

entoman said:


> For the budget RF market, they could produce a stylish lens with a barrel of uniform diameter, no wider than the RF mount.
> That should be easily achievable if the maximum aperture is restricted, as discussed.


Agreed, they could (as I suggested above). I still think it will be too bulky compared to EF-M, but time will tell.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Dec 30, 2021)

entoman said:


> The end of plate cameras was a tragedy?
> The end of rangefinders was a tragedy?
> The end of twin-lens reflexes was a tragedy?
> The end of film SLRs was a tragedy?
> ...


Not having an optical viewfinder and therefore needing battery power just to see something in the viewfinder is a clear step back. Of course mirrorless cameras have a few advantages, but most of them are not really of any use for my photography. I do not really need an autofocus that can detect faces, eyes, animals or cars. 80% of my photos are of skyscrapers. It is very hard not to nail the focus on a skyscraper unless you are moving fast. 

Of course I will buy a mirrorless camera sooner or later, because DSLRs are not available anymore. However if manufacturers really wanted, they could bake most of the advantages of a mirrorless camera into a DSLR. If someone wants eye detect autofocus, he could still use live view. 

There are many areas where I prefer the old stuff. Smartphones are an example. I only use my smartphone like a mini tablet, but for making phone calls, I still use a conventional cellphone, because I do not have to recharge it every two days and it does not break if it falls. My cellphone is so rigid, that I one even lost it on a street and the a car drove over it. It still works. Try that with a smartpone! Not every new invention is progress. 

The old cameras of our grandparents still work. How many years will an R3 work? Not having a mirror in theory should be one less part that can break and if the camera does not even have a mechanical shutter, it should last even longer. My fear though is that all the electronics will shorten the lifetime of a camera even more. I just spent more than 600 Euros for replacing the mainboard of my DLSR. It just stopped working after 60,000 shots or so, although I treated the camera very well. Old cameras did not have a mainboard at all. Are those modern cameras only for professionals who generate enough income to buy new cameras all the time? How much more electronics does a mirrorless camera have compared to a DSLR?


----------



## Juangrande (Dec 30, 2021)

Photo Bunny said:


> With the R3, R3, and R6 I can't see DLSR versions in those lines anytime soon. I expect the R1 will match or best the Z9 which fixes all the issues I had with EVF shooting. So really DSLR's fit in the low end but those customers also want compact mirrorless bodies with eye AF so where can a DSLR really fit





Photo Bunny said:


> With the R3, R3, and R6 I can't see DLSR versions in those lines anytime soon. I expect the R1 will match or best the Z9 which fixes all the issues I had with EVF shooting. So really DSLR's fit in the low end but those customers also want compact mirrorless bodies with eye AF so where can a DSLR really fit in?


Is there much difference between the R3 and the R3? They seem the same to me.


----------



## entoman (Dec 30, 2021)

Skyscraperfan said:


> Not having an optical viewfinder and therefore needing battery power just to see something in the viewfinder is a clear step back. Of course mirrorless cameras have a few advantages, but most of them are not really of any use for my photography. I do not really need an autofocus that can detect faces, eyes, animals or cars. 80% of my photos are of skyscrapers. It is very hard not to nail the focus on a skyscraper unless you are moving fast.


OK so if you only photograph skyscrapers and other static subjects, then you don't need many of the advantages of mirrorless. I also fully understand your fondness for DSLRs as I feel similarly. I love optical viewfinders and long battery life as much as you do. But your original post stated "Only DSLRs are real cameras", which is as nonsensical as stating that "only cats are real animals" or "only blondes are real women". MILCs are *REAL* cameras just as much as DSLRs, and in many ways they are superior cameras.



Skyscraperfan said:


> If someone wants eye detect autofocus, he could still use live view.


You really think so? Try following a soccer match using live view on the rear screen of a DSLR. Or kids in action. Or birds in flight. All of these are child's play with the eye-AF of modern MILCs. I photograph birds in flight, insects in flight, cheetahs chasing gazelles, motorcycle sport. These subjects are all *possible* using the eye-level viewfinder of a DSLR, but are infinitely easier with a MILC. Faster, more accurate, full area coverage.



Skyscraperfan said:


> The old cameras of our grandparents still work. How many years will an R3 work? Not having a mirror in theory should be one less part that can break and if the camera does not even have a mechanical shutter, it should last even longer. My fear though is that all the electronics will shorten the lifetime of a camera even more.


I've had old audio systems, old TVs, old phones and other electronic devices last for 20 years. I've had mechanical Nikon SLRs fall apart after 2 years, and I've had the mechanical focus mechanisms of Sigma lenses jam solid on 3 different samples. I know plenty of people with 10 year old MILCs that work as well as the day they bought them. Mechanical systems tend to fail due to wear and tear, but electronics, if they fail, tend to be either dead-on-arrival, or fail at a very early stage. In terms of longevity an electronic solid state device is far less likely to break than a mechanical device.



Skyscraperfan said:


> I just spent more than 600 Euros for replacing the mainboard of my DLSR. It just stopped working after 60,000 shots or so, although I treated the camera very well.



That would seem to indicate that the board was fitted with inferior short lifespan components. The issue is the *quality* of the components, not whether they are part of a DSLR or MILC. I shot over 250,000 images with my 5DS, and I've shot almost 200,000 with my 5DMkiv. They are pro DSLRs. I've shot 60,000 images so far with my R5, and I fully expect it to last at least as long as the DSLRs - and if I was shooting with electronic shutter it would probably last 20 years.


----------



## DBounce (Dec 30, 2021)

I owned the 1DXMK2 for about 4 years. Great camera… probably better than my skills deserved. But in the end it was just too heavy and bulky to carry as frequently as I would have liked to. I currently own the Eos R3 and believe it’s a modern interpretation of the 1D series. It feels much smaller/lighter, without feeling like a toy.


----------



## unfocused (Dec 31, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Agreed, they could (as I suggested above). I still think it will be too bulky compared to EF-M, but time will tell.


It seems like this is a conversation conflating two very different products. I agree that it would be very difficult to product an R series body that competes with the M series for size, weight, etc. But, this is also a discussion about the future of the Rebel line of DSLRs. I don't see any reason why Canon could not produce R bodies that compete with Rebels for size and weight. I believe that the biggest challenge is price. Right now, Rebels are incredibly cheap. I don't know what Canon needs to do to reduce the price of R bodies to that of DSLRs.


----------



## sanj (Dec 31, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> I don’t get that. Why does anyone care if DSLRs continue to be developed or not? If you prefer mirrorless, buy mirrorless. Do you think everyone should make the same choices you do? For those that prefer DSLRs (and the data clearly show many do), why do you want their choices to be taken away? Makes no sense to me, seems quite selfish, IMO.


I do not want anything. I am saying technology evolves. Mirrorless is the future. DSLR are bye bye now, not in the distant future. This is how the world functions. As some point the cars will be electric too. You heard it here first.


----------



## sanj (Dec 31, 2021)

Skyscraperfan said:


> Only DSLRs are real cameras. The end of DSLRs is a real tragedy.


Bravo.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 31, 2021)

sanj said:


> I do not want anything. I am saying technology evolves. Mirrorless is the future. DSLR are bye bye now, not in the distant future. This is how the world functions. As some point the cars will be electric too. You heard it here first.


There are none so blind as those who will not see. The fact that 41% of ILCs made this year were DSLRs means they are anything but bye bye, except in the fantasy world in which you apparently choose to live. I hope it’s at least nice in there, but if you’d like to come back into the real world at some point, you’ll be welcome.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 31, 2021)

sanj said:


> I do not want anything. I am saying technology evolves. Mirrorless is the future. DSLR are bye bye now, not in the distant future. This is how the world functions. As some point the cars will be electric too. You heard it here first.


And yet FujiFilm sell a shitload of film cameras, go figure...

Personally I think it is obvious mirrorless is the future for the majority of the camera market, but I don’t see that as translating to mirrorless as being the best tool for all photographers all the time. Just as there is still a reasonable sized film niche (one that actually growing) I see every reason to expect a reflex camera niche.

I abhor the size, weight and cost of the RF primes, I get motion sick after staring through an EVF for hours let alone days, I like looking through OVF’s, I can get the very best DSLR and lenses for thousands cheaper than the mirrorless versions...


----------



## PhotoGenerous (Dec 31, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> There are none so blind as those who will not see. The fact that 41% of ILCs made this year were DSLRs means they are anything but bye bye, except in the fantasy world in which you apparently choose to live. I hope it’s at least nice in there, but if you’d like to come back into the real world at some point, you’ll be welcome.


Canon is about to release the R1, and there is an announcement that there will be no more follow up the 1DXIII. There will still be 1DXIII bodies sold next year, but the 1D line of camera is at the end the line. It's future is dead.

The R5 is being sold now. As are 5DIVs. There will be no 5DV. There is no future for the 5D line. (Or rather the R5 line has supplanted it and is the future.) The 5D line is dead.

The R6 is being sold now. As are 6DIIs. There will be no 6DIII. The 6D line is dead.

There will be an APS-C R-mount camera body sold next year. Whichever line of DSLR it is the spiritual successor to will likely not have another DSLR equivalent released. That line in its DSLR form will be dead.

For each camera body DSLR line that Canon is able to release an R-mount version for, that DSLR line will be killed off. When Canon finally releases R-mount equivalents of all their DSLR lines, the DSLR (from Canon) will be dead. That's not to say other companies won't make DSLRs. But each year Canon continues to transition away from the DSLR.

I don't think these are very bold, nor fantastical claims to make.

Also, I know how Tony Northrup can be viewed here and other places like Reddit, but his latest video talks about this article and what it means to be "dead."






Also here are the Twitter replies Tony Northrup is referencing in the beginning of this video.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1475916338690506755
Original Tweet: "Native Japanese speakers: Would you read this article (without using Google Translate) & tell me whether Canon is saying the 1DX III is the final DSLR or just the final 1-series DSLR?"

One of the replies: "Yes. They do say that in few years they will be ending R&D for DSLR and move to all mirrorless cameras. They also mention that 1DX III is the last flagship camera for DSLR."

Another reply: "2nd paragraph says that 1D X Mk3, which they released in 2020, is going to be the de facto final DSLR fragship model. The last paragraph reads that they continue producing low/mid-level DSLR models for another while since there is enough demand overseas."

The final reply regarding translating the article: "CEO said Canon will end R&D and production of DSLR in "few years" and on next paragraph; article states 1DX III will be de facto last model. (doesn't read like that was CEO statement but the Yomiuri Newspaper's understanding)"


----------



## Talys (Dec 31, 2021)

The way I see it, the real attraction in the Rebel line is that for a few hundred bucks, anyone can own a camera that feels substantial because it looks like something that a professional would use. It has the promise of much greater control, and anyways photographers are always saying, it's not the equipment... 

In my opinion, before mirrorless can compete with DSLRs for that appeal, someone needs to build an interchangeable lens mirrorless that looks and feels like a professional camera, but can be bought at Costco for a few hundred bucks, including a kit lens that has the promise of greatness. 

The truth is, with a little skill and a lot of experience, anyone really can take phenomenal photos with a Christmas-priced Rebel kit. The problem is, the vast majority of people who get such a beast won't take any better photos than they do with a Rebel, because no camera can replace composition, lighting, experience, patience, and all of the non gear stuff that has nothing to do with whether there is a mirror on the camera or not.

So do I think DSLRs will eventually die out? Mostly, yes. But I think there are at least years before there are cheap enough MILCs that can appeal to that important market segment


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 31, 2021)

PhotoGenerous said:


> For each camera body DSLR line that Canon is able to release an R-mount version for, that DSLR line will be killed off. When Canon finally releases R-mount equivalents of all their DSLR lines, the DSLR (from Canon) will be dead. That's not to say other companies won't make DSLRs. But each year Canon continues to transition away from the DSLR.


Canon’s CEO was quite clear – they will continue to develop and produce DSLRs as long as there is a market for them. Right now, that market is over 40% of all ILCs. If Canon can release cameras that people buy instead of DSLRs, and DSLR sales drop, then Canon DSLRs will be dead. Realistically, given the near-equal popularity of EOS M and DSLRs domestically for Canon, and Canon citing stronger foreign demand for DSLRs, replacement means ‘real cameras’ (MILCs with a Rebel/xxxD form factor) that sell for <$600 with a kit lens.

There’s no way Canon will just abandon 40% of the market.



PhotoGenerous said:


> Also, I know how Tony Northrup can be viewed here and other places like Reddit, but his latest video talks about this article and what it means to be "dead."


The fact that you’re citing TN pretty much torpedos anything else you have to say. I guess you like misinfotainment.

Incidentally, for the month of November the best-selling ILC in Japan was the Kiss X10 2-lens kit. That’s the domestic name of the 250D/Rebel SL3…a DSLR. So yeah, it makes sense to some people that Canon wants to kill off DSLRs ASAP...just like the earth being flat makes sense to some people.


----------



## Jethro (Dec 31, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> for the month of November the best-selling ILC in Japan was the Kiss X10 2-lens kit. That’s the domestic name of the 250D/Rebel SL3…a DSLR.


I think this is the key point - clearly a lot of people love the Rebel / Kiss bodies, especially sold in 1 or 2 lens kits. I speculate that a lot of those buyers are 'moving up' from point-and-shoot cameras or smartphones, and these kits represent great value and good image quality, as they have for many years. My first 'proper' camera was a one lens kit Rebel. I loved it to death.

People coming from a P&S or smartphone background are not (with all respect to them) going to understand the nuances between DSLRs and ML, let alone complex arguments around future short term and medium term capital investment by camera companies in R&D, in deciding which camera to buy. They see a well-known, well regarded brand, at a good price, and take the plunge. Good on them, and may at least some of them stick with their hobby and progress to the point where the distinctions beingn discussed here actually mean something to them, and (however marginally) to the images they take!

A happy new year to everyone on CR, by the way!


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Dec 31, 2021)

My first digital camera was a Canon Powershot S1 IS. It came out in 2004 and it was a mirrorless camera that even had an EVF, IS and video (640x480). Of course today's mirrorless cameras are much better, but mirrorless cameras are not something shiny new. DSLRs felt like a huge progress back then, because they gave you back the OVF. They combined the best of the analouge and the digital world. That's why going back to mirrorless cameras feels like a step back for me. New cameras should only have additional feature instead of getting rid of features that we loved for many years. 



I must admit that the the EVF of the R3 with the OVF simulation turned on is the best EVF I ever saw on a digital camera. Even the higher resolution EVF of the Sony A1 can't compete with that. Such an EVF can at least make you forget that you have an EVF in most situations. The sun will always look strange on such an EVF though. An OVF has an unlimited dynamic range without blown out highlights.


----------



## masterpix (Dec 31, 2021)

Skyscraperfan said:


> Only DSLRs are real cameras. The end of DSLRs is a real tragedy.


Well, there were a few evolution in photography, from a box with glass plates, to film, then from twin lenses reflex to single lens reflex with a flip mirror, then came the digital sensor, and with that, the removal of the mirror. Which of these evolution are (I didn't note the auto-focus, the automatic shutter/aparature setting, the "program" and so on..) "the end of real photography"?

Real photography is capture the light and the scene into a frame, the means you do it with is a technical matter, not the essence of the thing.

Happy new year.


----------



## entoman (Dec 31, 2021)

Skyscraperfan said:


> Not having an optical viewfinder and therefore needing battery power just to see something in the viewfinder is a clear step back.


You do realise that your DSLR also needs to have a battery inserted in order to operate the shutter, meter and AF system?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 31, 2021)

entoman said:


> You do realise that your DSLR also needs to have a battery inserted in order to operate the shutter, meter and AF system?


Moreover, modern DSLRs that have transmissive LCDs in the viewfinder (which is pretty much all of them for the past decade) require power for a normal view through the OVF. Pull the battery and the OVF gets rather dark.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Dec 31, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Moreover, modern DSLRs that have transmissive LCDs in the viewfinder (which is pretty much all of them for the past decade) require power for a normal view through the OVF. Pull the battery and the OVF gets rather dark.


My camera which came out in 2012, does not need any power for the viewfinder. Of course the red lines need power, but if I just want to look through the viewfinder and wait for something to happen, I do not need any power. With a long lens I can use the camera as a monocular. I just need to turn it on, if I want autofocus.. 

Imagine you are an animal photographer and wait for the animal to get into view. With a DLSR you can look through the viewfinder for hours, but a mirrorless camera will run out of battery very soon. 

It reminds me of modern phones. 30 years ago landline phones even worked during a power failure. The power it got from the grid was enough to power the phone. That is no longer the case with modern phones.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 31, 2021)

Skyscraperfan said:


> Imagine you are an animal photographer and wait for the animal to get into view. With a DLSR you can look through the viewfinder for hours, but a mirrorless camera will run out of battery very soon.


I don't have to imagine - I am an animal and a bird photographer, and I am used to staring for ages. I also carry a pair of lightweight binoculars for when I just want stare without shooting. I thought I would miss the ovf, but I don't one bit. And I find it much easier to keep a fast flying bird in the evf at 20 or 12fps than I did at 10 fps on my DSLR which was blacking out every time the mirror flapped.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 31, 2021)

Skyscraperfan said:


> My camera which came out in 2012, does not need any power for the viewfinder. Of course the red lines need power,


Yes, if you don’t have a transmissive LCD then no power is needed. On my 1D X, which also came out in 2012, power is needed for normal viewfinder brightness.


----------



## dwarven (Dec 31, 2021)

Doug7131 said:


> Am I missing something? Nowhere does he say that the 1dxmk3 is the last DSLR - He says it's the last model in the EOS-1 lineup.



You're missing the writing on the wall.


----------



## webphoto (Jan 1, 2022)

"Progress is impossible without change.” – *George Bernard Shaw*.
This moment is sad but expected. This is just like Steve Jobs killing the floppy disk.
Mirrorless is much better than DSRL, that is the way to go, without a doubt.


----------



## Czardoom (Jan 1, 2022)

The really amazing thing about DSLR vs Mirrorless, is that only forum geniuses consider DSLRs and Mirrorless cameras to be two totally different types of cameras (in my opinion, of course). I must be stupid, because for many years now I have considered them both to be just a slightly different type of camera. I have owned both, I think my first digital camera had an EVF in 2003 or so, before I bought my Canon Rebel ( the original digital rebel). I can't really remember if that first digital camera had an EVF or OVF because, unlike most forum geniuses, it didn't really matter and I hardly took notice. Like most people, (I assume) I look through the viewfinder to compose my photo and then I press the shutter. I rarely think much about the viewfinder, because I am thinking about the composition, silly me. Now, I know that over time, there have been some differences in the two types of cameras. In challenging lighting conditions, I do like that with the turn of a dial, I can use - and see - exposure compensation on an EVF. But in most cases, I don't need it, so I would have to say that the difference in having an EVF or OVF is just a slight one (for me, at least). There are, of course, other differences, such as battery life, but I would have to say that all the differences fall into the "slight difference" category as well. 

For those non-geniuses who will be walking into - or looking online at - a Best Buy, or Target, or Costco, or Amazon to see what Canon has available as an affordable camera option, my guess is that they will care not one iota - and will not notice any difference - if the camera they pick up and look through - or buy online and look through when it arrives - is a mirrorless or a DSLR. They will look through the viewfinder to compose their shot and they will push the shutter button. They will notice the size difference between an M50 and a DSLR rebel, and may make their choice based on a size preference, but not an the viewfinder in all likelihood. So, if Canon makes a mirrorless camera in the Rebel form factor for the same price as the latest DSLR Rebels, they no doubt will, because they (I'm sure) know that it will make no difference to that buying segment if the camera has an OVF or an EVF. And my guess is that the majority of those buying from Adorama and B&H - no matter which series - don't really care that much if it is an OVF or an EVF either. I think you need to be a forum genius to understand just how different this makes the camera. For the rest of us, we just look through the viewfinder (whichever type it is) compose the photo, and press the shutter.


----------



## dilbert (Jan 1, 2022)

Skyscraperfan said:


> Only DSLRs are real cameras. The end of DSLRs is a real tragedy.



No, only SLRs are real cameras. Digital photography is just guesswork, not photography.


----------



## dilbert (Jan 1, 2022)

entoman said:


> Ultimately I think we'll see M migrating to RF mount. It will make the bodies a little bigger but not by enough to make any significant difference.



It isn't just body size that makes M attractive, it's also the lens size and price (before M6-II)


----------



## dilbert (Jan 1, 2022)

Czardoom said:


> The really amazing thing about DSLR vs Mirrorless, is that only forum geniuses consider DSLRs and Mirrorless cameras to be two totally different types of cameras (in my opinion, of course).



All DSLRs have an OVF but not all mirrorless have an EVF. To understand the difference, get an EVF-less mirrorless camera and go outside to shoot with the sun behind you early in the afternoon on a sunny day.


----------



## dilbert (Jan 1, 2022)

Mikehit said:


> Given the market sector for the xxD/xxxD lines (or Rebels in America-speak) which is going to give more bang-for-the-buck - a new whizz-bang lens that improves on already exceptional quality or a camera that has gives one or more of the following: higher MP, higher DR, better AF or better general functionality? My guess is that it will not be the new lens.



There's analysis somewhere that shows most people do not buy extra lenses above what they get in their "kit" when they buy the camera (xxD/xxxD/xxxxD)


----------



## sanj (Jan 1, 2022)

Skyscraperfan said:


> My first digital camera was a Canon Powershot S1 IS. It came out in 2004 and it was a mirrorless camera that even had an EVF, IS and video (640x480). Of course today's mirrorless cameras are much better, but mirrorless cameras are not something shiny new. DSLRs felt like a huge progress back then, because they gave you back the OVF. They combined the best of the analouge and the digital world. That's why going back to mirrorless cameras feels like a step back for me. New cameras should only have additional feature instead of getting rid of features that we loved for many years.
> View attachment 201858
> 
> 
> I must admit that the the EVF of the R3 with the OVF simulation turned on is the best EVF I ever saw on a digital camera. Even the higher resolution EVF of the Sony A1 can't compete with that. Such an EVF can at least make you forget that you have an EVF in most situations. The sun will always look strange on such an EVF though. An OVF has an unlimited dynamic range without blown out highlights.


You and I are at a different spectrum on this. I believe mirrorless is a big step forward.


----------



## sanj (Jan 1, 2022)

Skyscraperfan said:


> Not having an optical viewfinder and therefore needing battery power just to see something in the viewfinder is a clear step back. Of course mirrorless cameras have a few advantages, but most of them are not really of any use for my photography. I do not really need an autofocus that can detect faces, eyes, animals or cars. 80% of my photos are of skyscrapers. It is very hard not to nail the focus on a skyscraper unless you are moving fast.
> 
> Of course I will buy a mirrorless camera sooner or later, because DSLRs are not available anymore. However if manufacturers really wanted, they could bake most of the advantages of a mirrorless camera into a DSLR. If someone wants eye detect autofocus, he could still use live view.
> 
> ...


You can't shoot without a battery, period! And so must have one. Again different spectrum. Autofocus that can detect the eye etc is 80% of my photography. Skycrapers? Zero.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Jan 1, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Yes, if you don’t have a transmissive LCD then no power is needed. On my 1D X, which also came out in 2012, power is needed for normal viewfinder brightness.


Mine also is a 1D X and I just tested it again: If I look through the viewfinder and then turn the camera off, the viewfinder does not get a darker at all.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 1, 2022)

Skyscraperfan said:


> Mine also is a 1D X and I just tested it again: If I look through the viewfinder and then turn the camera off, the viewfinder does not get a darker at all.


It’s drawing power even with the power switch off. Many devices do that. As I already stated, look through the VF then *remove the battery* and look again.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Jan 1, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> It’s drawing power even with the power switch off. Many devices do that. As I already stated, look through the VF then *remove the battery* and look again.


Wow, that is creepy. Why do they do that? I know glass coating like that from windows. They get milky without power. But why do that in a camera? That must be very unhealthy for the battery.


----------



## Sean C (Jan 1, 2022)

dilbert said:


> No, only SLRs are real cameras. Digital photography is just guesswork, not photography.


I'm dissapointed in this thread. It should have reached 'Only view cameras are real cameras. If it doesn't have bellows, it's a toy!' by now!


----------



## Sean C (Jan 1, 2022)

Bishop80 said:


> [a little more bargaining] .... ok, maybe an R1 with a rangefinder window so I can pretend?


I'd like rangefinder window positioning of the viewfinder so my nose isn't crushed against the camera! I'd give up viewfinder/lens alignment for that!


----------



## stevelee (Jan 1, 2022)

sanj said:


> You can't shoot without a battery, period! And so must have one. Again different spectrum. Autofocus that can detect the eye etc is 80% of my photography. Skycrapers? Zero.


My SLR in 1970 needed a battery to shoot or at least for the light meter to work. It didn’t do anything automatically.


----------



## stevelee (Jan 1, 2022)

sanj said:


> You never fail to impress.
> But fighting for DSLR's is a losing battle. You will learn, be patient. Canon will soon provide mirrorless replacements for these DSLR's you talk about and the DSLR's will phase out faster than you think. Time will show.
> All this way before the planet dies.


My DSLR should work just fine for the rest of my life, and I have enough lenses to cover any situation I can think of. If I had unlimited funds, I might buy a TS-E lens or two, but it just makes more sense to rent one when I take a rare notion. For what I do, I don’t see much point in upgrading short of a jump to Fujifilm 100S. By not traveling for almost two years, I have enough money lying unused in each of a couple checking accounts to buy it and a couple of lenses. But I really doubt I would become enough more interested in landscape photography for owning it to make sense. Also, I don’t know which two lenses I’d want. It would take months to get the camera probably, so it doesn’t work as an impulse purchase. Maybe things will change in the spring, both in availability and in my landscape interests. It looks like I will just keep accumulating extra funds rather than going places and doing things.


----------



## AJ (Jan 1, 2022)

Czardoom said:


> The really amazing thing about DSLR vs Mirrorless, is that only forum geniuses consider DSLRs and Mirrorless cameras to be two totally different types of cameras (in my opinion, of course). I must be stupid, because for many years now I have considered them both to be just a slightly different type of camera. I have owned both, I think my first digital camera had an EVF in 2003 or so, before I bought my Canon Rebel ( the original digital rebel). I can't really remember if that first digital camera had an EVF or OVF because, unlike most forum geniuses, it didn't really matter and I hardly took notice. Like most people, (I assume) I look through the viewfinder to compose my photo and then I press the shutter. I rarely think much about the viewfinder, because I am thinking about the composition, silly me. Now, I know that over time, there have been some differences in the two types of cameras. In challenging lighting conditions, I do like that with the turn of a dial, I can use - and see - exposure compensation on an EVF. But in most cases, I don't need it, so I would have to say that the difference in having an EVF or OVF is just a slight one (for me, at least). There are, of course, other differences, such as battery life, but I would have to say that all the differences fall into the "slight difference" category as well.
> 
> For those non-geniuses who will be walking into - or looking online at - a Best Buy, or Target, or Costco, or Amazon to see what Canon has available as an affordable camera option, my guess is that they will care not one iota - and will not notice any difference - if the camera they pick up and look through - or buy online and look through when it arrives - is a mirrorless or a DSLR. They will look through the viewfinder to compose their shot and they will push the shutter button. They will notice the size difference between an M50 and a DSLR rebel, and may make their choice based on a size preference, but not an the viewfinder in all likelihood. So, if Canon makes a mirrorless camera in the Rebel form factor for the same price as the latest DSLR Rebels, they no doubt will, because they (I'm sure) know that it will make no difference to that buying segment if the camera has an OVF or an EVF. And my guess is that the majority of those buying from Adorama and B&H - no matter which series - don't really care that much if it is an OVF or an EVF either. I think you need to be a forum genius to understand just how different this makes the camera. For the rest of us, we just look through the viewfinder (whichever type it is) compose the photo, and press the shutter.



I agree with this. To me the major distinction is between cellphones or point-n-shoot cameras, and MILC or DSLR.
With a point-n-shoot, you look at the back screen to compose, and then flip a little lever to zoom. Or, with a cell phone, you use a gesture on the screen. I find it hard to compose this way, especially in bright light. I usually have no idea of camera settings unless I check them beforehand.
With DSLR or MILC, on the other hand, you put your eye to a viewfinder to compose. The key camera settings that affect exposure are shown at the bottom of the viewfinder. You twist the zoom ring while never taking your eye off the viewfinder. You can change aperture, iso, exposure comp, etc, all without taking your eye off the viewfinder. This is way different than point-n-shoot, and there lies the major distinction. All of this holds true whether it's MILC or DSLR. The shooting method is the same.
I've always found the M line somewhat confusing: some cameras have viewfinders while others do not. To me, this places some models in the point-n-shoot camp and others with "real" cameras.
I recently started my move to mirrorless. I'm pretty happy with it so far: the viewfinder is big, and it's bright in dark conditions, AF is much better in some situations, and the RF line offers some unique lenses, and I can still use my old EF gear. The battery issue can be somewhat irksome (particularly with the RP which I have) but swapping batteries is not a big deal. The other issue is that EVFs can be somewhat contrasty with flat colours. I'm sure that as time goes on, EVFs will get better, batteries will get better, and cameras will use less power.
In the meanwhile, the photos my cameras produces are real, whether from MILC or DSLR. Photons are captured, and a scene is frozen in time. Any suggestion that MILC isn't a real camera is just silly IMO.


----------



## unfocused (Jan 1, 2022)

Sean C said:


> I'd like rangefinder window positioning of the viewfinder so my nose isn't crushed against the camera! I'd give up viewfinder/lens alignment for that!


Raises an interesting question that I'm not qualified to answer, but since mirrorless cameras are transmitting an electronic image, why does the viewfinder need to be centered?


----------



## unfocused (Jan 1, 2022)

Czardoom said:


> The really amazing thing about DSLR vs Mirrorless, is that only forum geniuses consider DSLRs and Mirrorless cameras to be two totally different types of cameras (in my opinion, of course)...


Absolutely correct. Hence my previous comment about this discussion conflating two different products: The M series and the Rebel series. I can understand customers preferring the size of the M series if their main interest is in having a compact camera. But as far as the Rebel series, size really isn't a factor between the R bodies and Rebels. 

I think the deciding factor is simply price. Right now, most Rebels are significantly cheaper than even an RP with lens. That's probably due to manufacturing efficiencies and volume. I don't think most buyers see any difference between a Canon mirrorless and a Canon DSLR. They look and perform the same to most people. If the prices eventually match then I would imagine Canon might phase out DSLRs if they want to. Whether or not they want to is a business decision that only they know the answer to.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 1, 2022)

unfocused said:


> Raises an interesting question that I'm not qualified to answer, but since mirrorless cameras are transmitting an electronic image, why does the viewfinder need to be centered?


There’s no technical reason it must be. However, there are both left- and right-eye shooters, and a centered VF is easy to use either way.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 1, 2022)

Czardoom said:


> The really amazing thing about DSLR vs Mirrorless, is that only forum geniuses consider DSLRs and Mirrorless cameras to be two totally different types of cameras (in my opinion, of course). I must be stupid, because for many years now I have considered them both to be just a slightly different type of camera. I have owned both, I think my first digital camera had an EVF in 2003 or so, before I bought my Canon Rebel ( the original digital rebel). I can't really remember if that first digital camera had an EVF or OVF because, unlike most forum geniuses, it didn't really matter and I hardly took notice. Like most people, (I assume) I look through the viewfinder to compose my photo and then I press the shutter. I rarely think much about the viewfinder, because I am thinking about the composition, silly me. Now, I know that over time, there have been some differences in the two types of cameras. In challenging lighting conditions, I do like that with the turn of a dial, I can use - and see - exposure compensation on an EVF. But in most cases, I don't need it, so I would have to say that the difference in having an EVF or OVF is just a slight one (for me, at least). There are, of course, other differences, such as battery life, but I would have to say that all the differences fall into the "slight difference" category as well.
> 
> For those non-geniuses who will be walking into - or looking online at - a Best Buy, or Target, or Costco, or Amazon to see what Canon has available as an affordable camera option, my guess is that they will care not one iota - and will not notice any difference - if the camera they pick up and look through - or buy online and look through when it arrives - is a mirrorless or a DSLR. They will look through the viewfinder to compose their shot and they will push the shutter button. They will notice the size difference between an M50 and a DSLR rebel, and may make their choice based on a size preference, but not an the viewfinder in all likelihood. So, if Canon makes a mirrorless camera in the Rebel form factor for the same price as the latest DSLR Rebels, they no doubt will, because they (I'm sure) know that it will make no difference to that buying segment if the camera has an OVF or an EVF. And my guess is that the majority of those buying from Adorama and B&H - no matter which series - don't really care that much if it is an OVF or an EVF either. I think you need to be a forum genius to understand just how different this makes the camera. For the rest of us, we just look through the viewfinder (whichever type it is) compose the photo, and press the shutter.


There are "lumpers" and "splitters". They spend their time fighting each other in all types of discussion and analysis, with the lumpers lumping things together as all being part of the same, and the splitters drawing fine distinctions - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lumpers_and_splitters Both have their place in progress and understanding.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 1, 2022)

Skyscraperfan said:


> Wow, that is creepy. Why do they do that? I know glass coating like that from windows. They get milky without power. But why do that in a camera? That must be very unhealthy for the battery.


Power is needed to keep the transmissive LCD fully clear.


----------



## Hector1970 (Jan 1, 2022)

I could understand if he meant that the IDX III is the last of the 1 series DSLRs. This would seem reasonable to me.
I'd be surprised if its the last new Canon DSLR.
He could have meant that but I'd wonder why.
Canon can make minor tweaks and keep pumping out new model DSLR's and sell them quite easily.
I too would be in the camp that DSLR and Mirrorless cameras are really quite similar technology and don't find mirrorless a major improvement.
I'm surprised how they've made DSLR's obsolete, in most cases the mirror was not a huge disadvantage and was quite robust in construction
It's hard to find image quality improvement over a 5D Mark IV on any new camera.
I own a 1DX Mark III and it is a great camera. For me its only let down by having a 20MP sensor.
For me it should have been a 30 MP sensor, it would have been well able to handle it.
It would have been a perfect DSLR with a 30MP sensor


----------



## SteveC (Jan 2, 2022)

Sean C said:


> I'd like rangefinder window positioning of the viewfinder so my nose isn't crushed against the camera! I'd give up viewfinder/lens alignment for that!


With mirrorless they could put the viewfinder on a meter-long arm or at the end of a cable in the next dang room, if they wanted to. And it would align just fine.


----------



## sanj (Jan 2, 2022)

stevelee said:


> My DSLR should work just fine for the rest of my life, and I have enough lenses to cover any situation I can think of. If I had unlimited funds, I might buy a TS-E lens or two, but it just makes more sense to rent one when I take a rare notion. For what I do, I don’t see much point in upgrading short of a jump to Fujifilm 100S. By not traveling for almost two years, I have enough money lying unused in each of a couple checking accounts to buy it and a couple of lenses. But I really doubt I would become enough more interested in landscape photography for owning it to make sense. Also, I don’t know which two lenses I’d want. It would take months to get the camera probably, so it doesn’t work as an impulse purchase. Maybe things will change in the spring, both in availability and in my landscape interests. It looks like I will just keep accumulating extra funds rather than going places and doing things.


Sure. Perfect. Agree.


----------



## sanj (Jan 2, 2022)

Czardoom said:


> The really amazing thing about DSLR vs Mirrorless, is that only forum geniuses consider DSLRs and Mirrorless cameras to be two totally different types of cameras (in my opinion, of course). I must be stupid, because for many years now I have considered them both to be just a slightly different type of camera. I have owned both, I think my first digital camera had an EVF in 2003 or so, before I bought my Canon Rebel ( the original digital rebel). I can't really remember if that first digital camera had an EVF or OVF because, unlike most forum geniuses, it didn't really matter and I hardly took notice. Like most people, (I assume) I look through the viewfinder to compose my photo and then I press the shutter. I rarely think much about the viewfinder, because I am thinking about the composition, silly me. Now, I know that over time, there have been some differences in the two types of cameras. In challenging lighting conditions, I do like that with the turn of a dial, I can use - and see - exposure compensation on an EVF. But in most cases, I don't need it, so I would have to say that the difference in having an EVF or OVF is just a slight one (for me, at least). There are, of course, other differences, such as battery life, but I would have to say that all the differences fall into the "slight difference" category as well.
> 
> For those non-geniuses who will be walking into - or looking online at - a Best Buy, or Target, or Costco, or Amazon to see what Canon has available as an affordable camera option, my guess is that they will care not one iota - and will not notice any difference - if the camera they pick up and look through - or buy online and look through when it arrives - is a mirrorless or a DSLR. They will look through the viewfinder to compose their shot and they will push the shutter button. They will notice the size difference between an M50 and a DSLR rebel, and may make their choice based on a size preference, but not an the viewfinder in all likelihood. So, if Canon makes a mirrorless camera in the Rebel form factor for the same price as the latest DSLR Rebels, they no doubt will, because they (I'm sure) know that it will make no difference to that buying segment if the camera has an OVF or an EVF. And my guess is that the majority of those buying from Adorama and B&H - no matter which series - don't really care that much if it is an OVF or an EVF either. I think you need to be a forum genius to understand just how different this makes the camera. For the rest of us, we just look through the viewfinder (whichever type it is) compose the photo, and press the shutter.


Except, the word 'mirrorless' has picked up and many now feel that they are 'better' and if they are buying one, they will ask for a mirrorless. Even if some do not, as soon as they buy, someone in the family or friend circle will ask "Is this mirrorless?" All this should be evident soon I believe.


----------



## SnowMiku (Jan 2, 2022)

The 90D has the transmissive LCD in the viewfinder which stays on even if the camera is switched off. I wish they could update the firmware to give us an option to turn this off when the camera is switched off, in my opinion this just causes unnecessary battery drain, is there a technical reason why they choose to leave the transmissive LCD switched on when the camera is switched off?

The 700D does not have the transmissive LCD so the viewfinder looks the same even with the battery removed.


----------



## mpmark (Jan 2, 2022)

Andy Westwood said:


> RIP DSLR’s it’s been fun shooting with them over the years, but time and tech moves on.
> 
> I can’t imagine many people being advised to buy new 6D II or 850D these days unless desperate storekeepers are needing to shift old stock, somehow selling them off to newbies.
> 
> I still think there is a market for a tiny compact interchangeable lens body I.E the M Series, M6 II M200, M50 II plus future upgrades. The RF mount is surely too big to accommodate that type of compact system! Or maybe not!


How would you even know if there is a market for m-line? You have the numbers like canon? They’d keep it if there was a ROI. Clearly there isn’t.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 2, 2022)

mpmark said:


> How would you even know if there is a market for m-line? You have the numbers like canon? They’d keep it if there was a ROI. Clearly there isn’t.


Well, it’s simple enough to look at BCN and see that in Japan, the Kiss M2 (M50 II) and Kiss M (M50) have consistently occupied 2-3 of the top 10 slots for best-selling ILCs for the past couple of years. Another 2-3 slots have been consistently held by Kiss X10 (SL3/250D) kits. The multiple slots are different colors and 1- and 2-lens kit versions. Basically, that means that domestically for Canon both the entry-level MILC and DSLR are consistent best sellers.

Pretty obvious there’s ample ROI for Canon from the M line. Unless you have the numbers that show otherwise? If so, by all means share them.


----------



## SteveC (Jan 2, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Well, it’s simple enough to look at BCN and see that in Japan, the Kiss M2 (M50 II) and Kiss M (M50) have consistently occupied 2-3 of the top 10 slots for best-selling ILCs for the past couple of years. Another 2-3 slots have been consistently held by Kiss X10 (SL3/250D) kits. The multiple slots are different colors and 1- and 2-lens kit versions. Basically, that means that domestically for Canon both the entry-level MILC and DSLR are consistent best sellers.
> 
> Pretty obvious there’s ample ROI for Canon from the M line. Unless you have the numbers that show otherwise? If so, by all means share them.



Nope, the M line is dead because some people here hate it. No evidence needed. QED.


----------



## GoldWing (Jan 2, 2022)

So where is the R1?


----------



## kaihp (Jan 2, 2022)

GoldWing said:


> So where is the R1?


In the development department in the deep bowels of Canon.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 2, 2022)

GoldWing said:


> So where is the R1?


I’m surprised! I thought for sure that given your prominence and the manifest importance of your opinions and business needs to Canon, certainly they’d have sent you a few different R1 prototypes to evaluate and select the one they should put into production.

I guess I was completely wrong, and you’re of no importance to Canon whatsoever. How sad.


----------



## Sporgon (Jan 2, 2022)

stevelee said:


> For what I do, I don’t see much point in upgrading short of a jump to Fujifilm 100S.


Although that camera body itself is nearly as handy as FF my concern with the system is that the inflexibility would result in less interesting images, unless one has the wherewithal to fully equip that system with the lenses, flash and computer power that you’d need to keep the same degree of flexibility that you probably have now. This, and the fact that no one else other than myself will be able to see any difference in the output is what’s stopped me from going down that route.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 2, 2022)

Sporgon said:


> …the fact that no one else other than myself will be able to see any difference in the output is what’s stopped me from going down that route.


For my needs, 20-30 MP is plenty. I don’t feel the need for the 45-50 MP available on FF, much less for even more by switching formats.

With my R3 in hand, I need to decide whether to keep the R or the 1D X as a backup. I prefer shooting with the 1D X over the R by a wide margin, but I will probably keep the R as a backup because of the RF lenses.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 2, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> For my needs, 20-30 MP is plenty. I don’t feel the need for the 45-50 MP available on FF, much less for even more by switching formats.
> 
> With my R3 in hand, I need to decide whether to keep the R or the 1D X as a backup. I prefer shooting with the 1D X over the R by a wide margin, but I will probably keep the R as a backup because of the RF lenses.


You might want to consider getting rid of both for an R6 as back up. It really is rather good, and I tend to grab mine when I don't need 45 Mpx from the R5.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Jan 2, 2022)

If Canon really ends DLSRs, wouldn't that also mean that would offer mirrorless alternatives for the cheapest DLSRs that start around $300? For that price I might buy a mirrorless camera very soon as a second body just to become familiar with the pros and cons of a mirrorless body. However those cheap version would probably have many more cons than the expensive ones. The big advantage of mirrorless cameras is the IBIS, but I do not think cheap mirrorless cameras will have IBIS. They will probably also have a very bad EVF and a low batteryv life.


----------



## bf (Jan 2, 2022)

Dragon said:


> He also doesn't say a thing about EOS-M, but Craig can't miss an opportunity to take a shot at M. Methinks the whole post is clickbait.


Agreed! 
Also, I'd switch to Fuji X for a portable ILC if M line is gone not R mount.


----------



## tron (Jan 2, 2022)

entoman said:


> 7D, 6D, 5D and 1D have all had "Mkii" versions, so nothing to stop Canon calling it "90D Mkii"...
> 
> Come to that, they could even go for "99D" if they wanted to.
> 
> ...


They can add the features that 7DII has and 90D is missing. If they combine these they could very well make a 7DIII equivalent and I believe it will have great success among bird shooters. They can even keep the 90D sensor...


----------



## entoman (Jan 2, 2022)

tron said:


> They can add the features that 7DII has and 90D is missing. If they combine these they could very well make a 7DIII equivalent and I believe it will have great success among bird shooters. They can even keep the 90D sensor...


What features do you have in mind?


----------



## Sporgon (Jan 2, 2022)

Skyscraperfan said:


> If Canon really ends DLSRs, wouldn't that also mean that would offer mirrorless alternatives for the cheapest DLSRs that start around $300? For that price I might buy a mirrorless camera very soon as a second body just to become familiar with the pros and cons of a mirrorless body. However those cheap version would probably have many more cons than the expensive ones. The big advantage of mirrorless cameras is the IBIS, but I do not think cheap mirrorless cameras will have IBIS. They will probably also have a very bad EVF and a low batteryv life.


So now you realise that you’ve been looking through a transmissible LCD in your dslr mirrorless doesn’t sound so bad ? If ever you want to see what an unadulterated OVF looks like get a high quality late ‘70s SLR such as the Nikon FM/FE, Pentax ME/MX etc with a 1.4 lens. I warn you; you’ll be miffed. 
Pentax have been putting IBIS in their DSLRs for the past decade by the way. 
I still prefer DSLR to mirrorless but cannot deny the advantages of the latter.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 2, 2022)

Skyscraperfan said:


> If Canon really ends DLSRs, wouldn't that also mean that would offer mirrorless alternatives for the cheapest DLSRs that start around $300? For that price I might buy a mirrorless camera very soon as a second body just to become familiar with the pros and cons of a mirrorless body. However those cheap version would probably have many more cons than the expensive ones. The big advantage of mirrorless cameras is the IBIS, but I do not think cheap mirrorless cameras will have IBIS. They will probably also have a very bad EVF and a low batteryv life.


IBIS is a nice feature but relatively minor as the big advantages of mirrorless are from on-sensor AF: a very large number of AF points so inherently far superior tracking and subject recognition; the ability to AF down to f/22 or narrower; no need for AFMA; and probably more reproducible AF. The IBIS is of minor significance to me as I shoot mainly with telephoto lenses where the main stabilization is IS and so IBIS might add just a stop.


----------



## roby17269 (Jan 2, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Well, you can accept the word of the Canon CEO that DSLRs will continue to be developed by his company…or you can choose not to accept it.


No one here obviously knows what Canon is really going to do with DSLRs.
But I would be wary of assuming "continuing to develop" means much, especially the release of new low- and mid-level DSLR models.

While it is certainly possible that we will see new Rebels, it is also possible that Canon is not willing to jeopardize whatever leftover sales of unsold inventory are in the hopper. I remember a number of similar announcements from different companies that ended up in nothing, e.g. Sony saying years ago that they would continue to develop their SLTs. We all know what has happened and it took them till 2021 to sort of admit that that line was dead.

Again, I have no insights to say which way Canon will go about this, nor I am saying that Canon will follow in Sony's footsteps... nor my life will be affected should a new Rebel actually be introduced. But IMHO, to me any new DSLR announcements will be a surprise, from any manufacturer (apart from Pentax)


----------



## tron (Jan 2, 2022)

entoman said:


> What features do you have in mind?


Custom button configuration like 5DIV, 5DsR, 7D2 where you can configure whole settings like shutter speed, exp comp, customer af modes, af patterns with the press of a button. (You can use a single point af with a low speed when shooting static birds and when you see a bird flying you press the button, the speed rises to say 1/2500 sec, af pattern changes to all points or zone af for instance. It has been very useful for me.

Also AF assist points (4 and 8) that exist in the other cameras, fps programmable up to 10, gps embedded (less urgent since there are alternatives for that) and maybe the higher drive of white AF lenses that I had seen rumored/mentioned some time in the past (the later will not be nothing like the 1 series capability but I had read that 7D2 had a similar capability - not sure 100% for this)

Anyway I consider the rest of the capabilities important for me.

All the above are features of 7D2. Maybe the 200000 shutter activations too (90D has 120000)


----------



## entoman (Jan 2, 2022)

tron said:


> Custom button configuration like 5DIV, 5DsR, 7D2 where you can configure whole settings like shutter speed, exp comp, customer af modes, af patterns with the press of a button. (You can use a single point af with a low speed when shooting static birds and when you see a bird flying you press the button, the speed rises to say 1/2500 sec, af pattern changes to all points or zone af for instance. It has been very useful for me.
> 
> Also AF assist points (4 and 8) that exist in the other cameras, fps programmable up to 10, gps embedded (less urgent since there are alternatives for that) and maybe the higher drive of white AF lenses that I had seen rumored/mentioned some time in the past (the later will not be nothing like the 1 series capability but I had read that 7D2 had a similar capability - not sure 100% for this)
> 
> ...


Well good luck, but I think Canon want to push users away from DSLRs, with the possible exception exception of Rebels, of which I think we'll see a couple of minor upgrades next year.

Much as I love DSLRs, the market is turning away from them, so I hope Canon and Nikon will turn their attention to making their EVFs as DSLR-like as possible.

By that, I mean very fast refresh rates, ZERO start-up lag, and an *option* to simulate the ambient lighting level, as an alternative to so-called "WYSIWYG".

... and reduced battery consumption (without the necessity for battery grips).

Cameras such as the R3 and Z9 are edging closer to that experience, but it will take a few years for it to filter down to the budget RF and Z models.


----------



## tron (Jan 2, 2022)

entoman said:


> Well good luck, but I think Canon want to push users away from DSLRs, with the possible exception exception of Rebels, of which I think we'll see a couple of minor upgrades next year.
> 
> Much as I love DSLRs, the market is turning away from them, so I hope Canon and Nikon will turn their attention to making their EVFs as DSLR-like as possible.
> 
> ...


I do not expect them I just answered your question. Regarding mirrorless, I agree with you about the mentioned shortcomings.


----------



## Bishop80 (Jan 2, 2022)

entoman said:


> ...Firstly, DSLRs have been developed about as far as they can go, so in order to produce more technologically "exciting" and feature-laden bodies, they had to go the mirrorless route.


I would disagree on this point. There's no way DSLRs have reached the peak of technology, especially for a flagship model. I could load up a full wish list of improvements for a mirrored body. For example, why not have BOTH an OVF and EVF using the same eyepiece? Mirror down, you get the OVF. Mirror up, and an LCD takes over (ie, flips into position, or the mirror is now positioned to reflect the EVF LDC into the viewfinder). There's also much improvement still to be made in mirrored autofocus features. Canon already introduced an expanded AF sensor array that can detect heads and faces. Do we really think that's the absolute limit of what is possible?

There are many reasons for mirrorless to take over, but reaching a development limit for dSLRs I think is not one of them.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Jan 2, 2022)

Okay, focus might be better on mirrorless, but I hardly ever have a problem to focus anything with my DSLR. It feels like someone telling me that mirrorless cameras can cook the best coffee, but I never drink coffee anyway. 

I wonder where the medium format camera from Phase One for example will go. Will they also switch to mirrorless? As they offer a modular system anyway, I wonder if they will offer camera back that can be combined with bodies with or without a mirror. 

By the way, weren't the complicated mirrior and shutter mechanisms, that were capable of 12 shots or even more per second, one of the main reasons for the high price of the 1D camera line for example? If a camera just contains chips and hardly any mechanical components, costing as much as a really expensive notebook is really a lot.


----------



## Sporgon (Jan 2, 2022)

Bishop80 said:


> For example, why not have BOTH an OVF and EVF using the same eyepiece? Mirror down, you get the OVF. Mirror up, and an LCD takes over (ie, flips into position, or the mirror is now positioned to reflect the EVF LDC into the viewfinder).


This is something that I suggested around 2014 and on a number of occasions since: have an interchangeable prism head (like the Canon F-1, Nikon F, F2, F3 etc) that can be swapped out for an EVF. When the EVF is fitted the mirror locks up and away you go. 
I guess there are a number of reasons why this hasn’t been done, one of which will undoubtably be the fact that Canon want to drive their customers towards the new mount, so there is probably little return to be gained from developing the concept and hanging onto the EF mount.


----------



## entoman (Jan 2, 2022)

Bishop80 said:


> I would disagree on this point. There's no way DSLRs have reached the peak of technology, especially for a flagship model. I could load up a full wish list of improvements for a mirrored body. For example, why not have BOTH an OVF and EVF using the same eyepiece? Mirror down, you get the OVF. Mirror up, and an LCD takes over (ie, flips into position, or the mirror is now positioned to reflect the EVF LDC into the viewfinder). There's also much improvement still to be made in mirrored autofocus features. Canon already introduced an expanded AF sensor array that can detect heads and faces. Do we really think that's the absolute limit of what is possible?
> 
> There are many reasons for mirrorless to take over, but reaching a development limit for dSLRs I think is not one of them.


It's *possible*, but I think we have almost reached the point where it is *impracticable and uneconomic* to develop DSLRs further.

I've mooted the idea of a hybrid EVF/OVF here previously (and Canon has a patent or it), but I don't think demand would be high enough to warrant production, and it would cost more than either an EVF or OVF version alone.

Leaving aside better sensors, and the preference that many of us have for an optical finder, just about every other enhancement is easier and cheaper to implement in a MILC.


----------



## AEWest (Jan 2, 2022)

I am curious as to which mount the current Canon DSLRs are that constitute the 40% of their sales. Is it 95% EF-S, 5% EF? Obviously the EF-S will have the majority due to price point, but what percentage?

I can't imagine Canon would come out with a new FF DSLR that would compete with any of their RF cameras.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 2, 2022)

AEWest said:


> I am curious as to which mount the current Canon DSLRs are that constitute the 40% of their sales. Is it 95% EF-S, 5% EF? Obviously the EF-S will have the majority due to price point, but what percentage?


Industry wide, crop cameras (APS-C and m4/3) comprised just under 90% of ILCs produced as of about two years ago. That ratio has been similar for several prior years as well. I haven’t seen a more recent estimate.


----------



## unfocused (Jan 2, 2022)

Apologies in advance for the length of this post. Just pointing out a few things.

I’m not sure past sales figures are that relevant. The market has changed significantly over the past few years. Canon has significantly built out its R system and has put most of its research, development, and marketing dollars into full frame mirrorless. (As have their major competitors). Quoting sales figures for budget DSLRs is also not relevant when there is no competing mirrorless product.

Even if budget DSLRs represent the bulk of sales today, the trend lines are not moving in that direction.

Enthusiasts are driving the market today. While enthusiasts may constitute a small portion of the market by unit sales, they represent the foundation and future of the market from a revenue outlook.

Enthusiasts are the only segment that is not in decline. They have high discretionary income that is generally insulated from market fluctuations, which is why Canon, Nikon and Sony are all targeting enthusiasts.

While Mr. Mitarai stated that Canon will continue to develop and sell DSLRs, the end of the line for its flagship DSLR is not a vote of confidence in the future.

It is unlikely that Canon will be developing “L” series lenses for a non-existent camera. Does anyone believe that Canon will develop Big Whites and fast primes and zooms in the EF mount if they don’t have a flagship EF body to mount those lenses on?

I believe there is a slim chance that Canon may eventually release a “final” full frame DSLR that they can leave on the market for the next 10-20 years, just as they did with their final film SLR. It is also possible that Canon may update some popular EF lenses to reflect improved manufacturing efficiencies, but I doubt we will see new optical formulas or newly introduced lenses.

The M and the Rebel lines have an overlapping audience, but there are a couple of defining differences.

The M line is targeted to consumers who prioritize size.

The Rebel line is targeted to consumers who prioritize cost.

Combining the two into a single market is misleading.

In my view, the M line is difficult for Canon to transition to the R system, due to design limitations. Nor do I see much point in trying to do so. People who buy into the M line may pick up one, two or three lenses depending on the level of their interest and are likely, again, to prioritize size. But, an M user is not going to care about mounting a 100-500 zoom or a large, fast prime on the body.

Rebel users are price driven. If Canon decides to develop a range of R bodies that compete with Rebels for price these consumers will happily buy the R bodies. As others have pointed out, no Rebel buyer is going to care if the body is mirrorless or mirrored. In fact, most probably won’t know the difference and if the ads tell people mirrorless is better, they will buy it. (After all, it worked with enthusiasts, who delude themselves into believing they are more discerning)

There is nothing magical about the APS-C format for Rebels. Film rebels were full frame and no one ever thought they should be otherwise. APS-C was simply a cost-saving format at a time when sensors were a major cost of a digital camera body. If Canon decides to make a range of low-cost mirrorless R mount bodies (Rebels) they can just as easily be full frame as APS-C. In fact, there are some good reasons for Canon to standardize the R system as full frame, just as film cameras were all full frame. Not the least of these reasons is to eliminate customer confusion over different formats.

There is a market for an APS-C enthusiast body, but I don’t know if the market is large enough to make such a body cost effective. Only time will tell. In favor of such a body would be that the market would be enthusiasts who are not price sensitive. An R90 and/or an R7 might be worth Canon’s investment. One upside is that the R mount, unlike the EF mount, does not require special lenses, although I think a single 15-85mm lens might be worthwhile. An argument against an APS-C R is that as resolution increases for full frame bodies, there is less and less incentive to purchase a specialist APS-C body. Couple that with low-cost telephoto lenses like the 600 f11/, 800 f/11 and new 100-400 and you begin to slice that potential market into ever smaller pieces.

Quoting one of the greatest philosophers of the 20th Century:



> These are my principles and if you don’t like them, well I have others.


----------



## stevelee (Jan 2, 2022)

Sporgon said:


> Although that camera body itself is nearly as handy as FF my concern with the system is that the inflexibility would result in less interesting images, unless one has the wherewithal to fully equip that system with the lenses, flash and computer power that you’d need to keep the same degree of flexibility that you probably have now. This, and the fact that no one else other than myself will be able to see any difference in the output is what’s stopped me from going down that route.


I would still have the flexibility I have now. I would continue to use my DSLR in most regular situations, and if I ever can get back to traveling, I will take my G5 X II instead. I would use the Fuji mainly for landscapes, using a tripod and taking my time. I wouldn’t need a full range of lenses for that nor flash units. I will replace my old iMac some time next year, but it still zips right along in Photoshop, even when the image I’m working on is something stitched to that level of megapixels. I have ample external storage where I keep my old Raw files. So no loss of flexibility, but a valid question of whether I would take that many more landscapes if I had the camera and a couple lenses. Or would I enjoy the aesthetics of knowing I could take those pictures if I wanted to. Silly as it sounds, that is worth something. Having great camera equipment just sitting around seems no worse than just having the money sitting around doing nothing.

But your final sentence is really the kicker. What would I do with the pictures? They’d look glorious on my 5K iMac screen. And then what? Would I be tempted to buy a printer that could accommodate paper much wider than the 13” of my current one? Where would I even hang the pictures, with my house already looking like an art gallery of my work?

Friday morning when I woke up I looked out into the woods behind the house and the morning mist looked really atmospheric. So I put on a robe and slippers, grabbed my DSLR, and went out on the deck. The mist was already clearing, and I never got anything like what I meant to. But I sort of liked a few of the shots, and so I ran them through ACR and Photoshop. Then I saved JPEGs of them, high quality, 1500 pixels wide. They had lost a lot of their appeal in the process. I still uploaded them to the winter picture thread here, and several people clicked on “Like.” Would the result have been any better if I had shot with the Fuji instead? I doubt it.

Yesterday I watched a YouTube video of a professional photographer comparing the Fuji with a camera he already had. He gushed about the Fuji on and on. Then he posted pictures from each for us to compare. Obviously, reduced and compressed by YouTube, there was no real difference. He said the same for posting on the web or Instagram. Even his clients can’t tell the difference in what he furnishes them. And most of those shots wind up on the web.

So is it worth my getting the camera, when “no one else other than myself will be able to see any difference in the output”? Good question. I take pictures for my own enjoyment, so it is possible that the answer might be yes, stupid as that sounds.


----------



## Dragon (Jan 3, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Industry wide, crop cameras (APS-C and m4/3) comprised just under 90% of ILCs produced as of about two years ago. That ratio has been similar for several prior years as well. I haven’t seen a more recent estimate.


That would suggest that the M series may get some love before too long.


----------



## GoldWing (Jan 3, 2022)

kaihp said:


> In the development department in the deep bowels of Canon.


You got that right.


----------



## Jethro (Jan 3, 2022)

unfocused said:


> There is nothing magical about the APS-C format for Rebels. Film rebels were full frame and no one ever thought they should be otherwise. APS-C was simply a cost-saving format at a time when sensors were a major cost of a digital camera body. If Canon decides to make a range of low-cost mirrorless R mount bodies (Rebels) they can just as easily be full frame as APS-C. In fact, there are some good reasons for Canon to standardize the R system as full frame, just as film cameras were all full frame. Not the least of these reasons is to eliminate customer confusion over different formats.


That's quite possible - size (and obviously cost) are likely to be the most important factors, and if low cost R mount cameras can be produced to similar dimensions (and $s) to the Rebels, I think that could be the future. How far in the future is the Q, but there are rumours of low-cost R series bodies in early 2022. There is still the Q of smaller profile R mount lenses, which I don't think can be as small as the M mount.


----------



## sanj (Jan 3, 2022)

unfocused said:


> Apologies in advance for the length of this post. Just pointing out a few things.
> 
> I’m not sure past sales figures are that relevant. The market has changed significantly over the past few years. Canon has significantly built out its R system and has put most of its research, development, and marketing dollars into full frame mirrorless. (As have their major competitors). Quoting sales figures for budget DSLRs is also not relevant when there is no competing mirrorless product.
> 
> ...


Rebel users are price driven. If Canon decides to develop a range of R bodies that compete with Rebels for price these consumers will happily buy the R bodies. As others have pointed out, no Rebel buyer is going to care if the body is mirrorless or mirrored. In fact, most probably won’t know the difference and if the ads tell people mirrorless is better, they will buy it. (After all, it worked with enthusiasts, who delude themselves into believing they are more discerning)

The above is PERFECTLY said.


----------



## dilbert (Jan 3, 2022)

Dragon said:


> He also doesn't say a thing about EOS-M, but Craig can't miss an opportunity to take a shot at M. Methinks the whole post is clickbait.



CR hasn't had a long running thread post in a while ... got to hurt the ad revenue ... this thread ought to help with that. I think for almost a month I've come to CR, looked at the front page and left again...


----------



## jeffa4444 (Jan 3, 2022)

The market has shrunk by over 50% its inevitable that Canon will ditch the DSLR eventually as they cost more to produce than mirrorless. The current cameras such as the R5 & R6 can be masked down to APS-C or Canon could release APS-C cameras in the R lineup and we could see a repeat of the EF / EF-S in the lens lineup for RF lenses. 
That would spell the end of DSLRs, EF glass, M series cameras and M series lenses with Canon likely phasing them all out. 
It is the likely commercial decision if they want to remain profitable in a much smaller market.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 3, 2022)

jeffa4444 said:


> The market has shrunk by over 50% its inevitable that Canon will ditch the DSLR eventually as they cost more to produce than mirrorless. The current cameras such as the R5 & R6 can be masked down to APS-C or Canon could release APS-C cameras in the R lineup and we could see a repeat of the EF / EF-S in the lens lineup for RF lenses.
> That would spell the end of DSLRs, EF glass, M series cameras and M series lenses with Canon likely phasing them all out.
> It is the likely commercial decision if they want to remain profitable in a much smaller market.


What is the difference in cost of production of an EVF and an OVF with associated mirror box and AF unit?


----------



## koenkooi (Jan 3, 2022)

AlanF said:


> What is the difference in cost of production of an EVF and an OVF with associated mirror box and AF unit?


And how expensive is the IBIS unit?


----------



## AlanF (Jan 3, 2022)

koenkooi said:


> And how expensive is the IBIS unit?


Don't ask me! I don't know the costs, which is why I asked. However, Nikon's cheap Z50 APS-C lacks both IBIS and sensor cleaning shake to reduce cost. (Though they claim it is to reduce weight and size.) It's still far more expensive than their DSLRs.


----------



## vangelismm (Jan 3, 2022)

The funny thing is that R7 aps-c is a market niche small than the current rebel and the eos M.


----------



## stevelee (Jan 3, 2022)

AlanF said:


> What is the difference in cost of production of an EVF and an OVF with associated mirror box and AF unit?


I think the usual argument is that, golly gee, mechanical doodads have to cost more to make than circuits and such. Never mind that something you have been making for 70 or so years might cost less to develop than new technology. People inside Canon with all of the data available likely have to make judgment calls to tease out all the factors to compare the two. But it is easier when you have no data at all and rely just on “common sense” and conventional wisdom.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 3, 2022)

stevelee said:


> I think the usual argument is that, golly gee, mechanical doodads have to cost more to make than circuits and such. Never mind that something you have been making for 70 or so years might cost less to develop than new technology. People inside Canon with all of the data available likely have to make judgment calls to tease out all the factors to compare the two. But it is easier when you have no data at all and rely just on “common sense” and conventional wisdom.


I know the hand waving arguments. But, that is not answering my question.


----------



## SteveC (Jan 3, 2022)

koenkooi said:


> And how expensive is the IBIS unit?


There's no reason IBIS had to wait for mirrorless, is there? If not, it's not properly considered an added cost of mirrorless, like the EVF actually is.


----------



## Sporgon (Jan 3, 2022)

SteveC said:


> There's no reason IBIS had to wait for mirrorless, is there?


No, Pentax have been putting it in their DSLRs since Noah used one to record the animals on his Ark. The downside in using it in a DSLR is that you do not get a stabilised viewfinder but your point is valid; it's not a mirrorless only addition.


----------



## AJ (Jan 3, 2022)

AlanF said:


> What is the difference in cost of production of an EVF and an OVF with associated mirror box and AF unit?


This is indeed the pertinent question. But I think only a Canon engineer or economist knows the exact answer, and I'm sure these numbers are closely guarded corporate secrets. I imagine the answer involves economies of scale, and surely the chip shortage doesn't favour the EVF side of the equation at the moment.


----------



## SkynetTX (Jan 4, 2022)

In my opinion stopping to develop DSLRs completely at any time from now is a bad idea. I don't really need the adventages of the currently available mirrorles cameras so I would not buy one even for the price of a Rebel. If prefer OVF over EVF, bit lower MP and larger pixel size over higher MP and smaller pixel size, longer battery life and so on. I don't need EVF, 50+ MP sensor, extremly fast AF with eye or face detection. Most of the time I shoot static or slow/non moving subject. But I would really like to see a 18MP FullFrame Rebel with more AF points and newer sensor. Even an APS-C Rebel with faster EF-S lenses like 18-55 f/2.8 would be good. Probably an EF-S 24-70 f/2.8 could be smaller and cheaper than the EF equivalent. And don't forget about the EF-S 60mm f/2.8 IS USM Macro just in case I can not use my tripod.


----------



## slclick (Jan 4, 2022)

vangelismm said:


> The funny thing is that R7 aps-c is a market niche small than the current rebel and the eos M.


So small, almost imperceivable. Vaporware will be like that.


----------



## dtaylor (Jan 4, 2022)

unfocused said:


> There is nothing magical about the APS-C format for Rebels. Film rebels were full frame and no one ever thought they should be otherwise. APS-C was simply a cost-saving format at a time when sensors were a major cost of a digital camera body. If Canon decides to make a range of low-cost mirrorless R mount bodies (Rebels) they can just as easily be full frame as APS-C. In fact, there are some good reasons for Canon to standardize the R system as full frame, just as film cameras were all full frame. Not the least of these reasons is to eliminate customer confusion over different formats.


They're still a big enough cost to justify APS-C "Rebel" RF bodies.


----------



## slclick (Jan 4, 2022)

Sporgon said:


> No, Pentax have been putting it in their DSLRs since Noah used one to record the animals on his Ark. The downside in using it in a DSLR is that you do not get a stabilised viewfinder but your point is valid; it's not a mirrorless only addition.


I have it on good authority from Bryan Carnathan and Dustin Abbott that Noah was a Hasselblad user.


----------



## dtaylor (Jan 4, 2022)

slclick said:


> I have it on good authority from Bryan Carnathan and Dustin Abbott that Noah was a Hasselblad user.


It doesn't matter. None of the animal photographs can be published because they are all out of focus. His camera didn't have Animal Eye AF


----------



## AJ (Jan 4, 2022)

SkynetTX said:


> I would really like to see a 18MP FullFrame Rebel with more AF points and newer sensor. Even an APS-C Rebel with faster EF-S lenses like 18-55 f/2.8 would be good. Probably an EF-S 24-70 f/2.8 could be smaller and cheaper than the EF equivalent. And don't forget about the EF-S 60mm f/2.8 IS USM Macro just in case I can not use my tripod.


The 6D2 might be a good option for you.

As for EF-S lenses - yes some are smaller and lighter than their FF brethren. The 17-55/2.8 though is a big clunker. I own one and while it does an okay job I've never been really impressed by it. Sharp, sorta; bitingly sharp, not really.

Don't forget that with mirrorless, optical elements can be placed closer to the sensor which can result in smaller and lighter lenses. For this reason I'd be keen on an RF-mount rebel with a few supporting lenses. What's more, mirrorless dumps all of the baggage associated with film. There is no more need to correct distortion, ca, and vignetting in the lens with optics. With RF, corrections done through software, whether in-camera or in post. Even recent EF lenses were still designed with film use in mind, but all of this changed with the switch to RF. Letting go of these requirements frees up other possibilities in lens design.

It is my belief that an APSC RF-mount camera (RRebel?) could be produced more cheaply than a FF RP-type of camera. Add to this an RF-C 15-85 mm lens that is f/8 at the long end and needs distortion corrections at the short end to avoid vignetting (a la RF 24-105/4-7.1) and you've got a package that's small, light, affordable, and capable of producing superb results in capable hands.


----------



## scrup (Jan 4, 2022)

With all these supply chain issues. I don't think there will be anymore new DSLR's from Canon. The EF-M will be left behind as well. They will continue to build existing models until people stop buying them. It is 100% RF from here on.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 4, 2022)

AJ said:


> Even recent EF lenses were still designed with film use in mind, but all of this changed with the switch to RF. Letting go of these requirements frees up other possibilities in lens design.


I doubt that. However, recent EF lenses were designed with the knowledge that users could directly observe the optical performance through the viewfinder, which is not possible with mirrorless cameras.


----------



## Czardoom (Jan 4, 2022)

unfocused said:


> ..... In fact, there are some good reasons for Canon to standardize the R system as full frame, just as film cameras were all full frame. Not the least of these reasons is to eliminate customer confusion over different formats.



It might be a good time to remind you and everyone that "film cameras were all full frame" is not how it was. Many film formats were made to find a smaller alternative to 35mm film, the most popular being 126 and 110 film sizes. These were both big sellers, and most of the big camera makers made cameras that used 110 film, including Pentax, Minolta and Fujica. Of course, the APS-C size that we now associate with crop sensors, is based on the APS (advanced Photo System) film cameras that came out in the mid to late 1990s. Nikon, Canon and Minolta all made APS cameras, not just Kodak, who introduced the system in 1996. So, the desire to make smaller format cameras has been around for many decades, so it is not surprising that it is still a popular idea for many.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 4, 2022)

Czardoom said:


> It might be a good time to remind you and everyone that "film cameras were all full frame" is not how it was. Many film formats were made to find a smaller alternative to 35mm film, the most popular being 126 and 110 film sizes. These were both big sellers, and most of the big camera makers made cameras that used 110 film, including Pentax, Minolta and Fujica. Of course, the APS-C size that we now associate with crop sensors, is based on the APS (advanced Photo System) film cameras that came out in the mid to late 1990s. Nikon, Canon and Minolta all made APS cameras, not just Kodak, who introduced the system in 1996. So, the desire to make smaller format cameras has been around for many decades, so it is not surprising that it is still a popular idea for many.


There was also a very large range of Canon Demi half frame cameras (24mmx18mm) with 72 frames on 135 film.


----------



## unfocused (Jan 5, 2022)

Czardoom said:


> It might be a good time to remind you and everyone that "film cameras were all full frame" is not how it was. Many film formats were made to find a smaller alternative to 35mm film, the most popular being 126 and 110 film sizes. These were both big sellers, and most of the big camera makers made cameras that used 110 film, including Pentax, Minolta and Fujica. Of course, the APS-C size that we now associate with crop sensors, is based on the APS (advanced Photo System) film cameras that came out in the mid to late 1990s. Nikon, Canon and Minolta all made APS cameras, not just Kodak, who introduced the system in 1996. So, the desire to make smaller format cameras has been around for many decades, so it is not surprising that it is still a popular idea for many.


Yes, I should have been more specific. Most SLRs were “full frame.” There were a few exceptions but they were niche cameras with little to no consumer adoption.

But my main point still stands, there were no mass consumer SLRs other than 35mm “Full Frame.” There is no reason why the consumer entry level interchangeable lens cameras (Rebels) need to be a different sensor format if Canon can get the costs down to Rebel levels and in 2022, the sensor size is not the deciding factor it was 10-15 years ago.

Too many people on this forum just assume that Rebels have to be APS-C and that’s not true. Rebels have to be cheap, but they don’t have to be crop sensors.


----------



## becceric (Jan 5, 2022)

Czardoom said:


> It might be a good time to remind you and everyone that "film cameras were all full frame" is not how it was. Many film formats were made to find a smaller alternative to 35mm film, the most popular being 126 and 110 film sizes. These were both big sellers, and most of the big camera makers made cameras that used 110 film, including Pentax, Minolta and Fujica. Of course, the APS-C size that we now associate with crop sensors, is based on the APS (advanced Photo System) film cameras that came out in the mid to late 1990s. Nikon, Canon and Minolta all made APS cameras, not just Kodak, who introduced the system in 1996. So, the desire to make smaller format cameras has been around for many decades, so it is not surprising that it is still a popular idea for many.


Don’t forget Kodak’s Disc film! Now that was a _coarse, _er.. course in grain...


----------



## slclick (Jan 5, 2022)

I love the smell of D-76 in the morning


----------



## sanj (Jan 5, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> I doubt that. However, recent EF lenses were designed with the knowledge that users could directly observe the optical performance through the viewfinder, which is not possible with mirrorless cameras.


Could you explain the bit about observing optical performance being possible through VF (Optical, I assume), which is not possible with mirrorless? Thx.


----------



## stevelee (Jan 5, 2022)

sanj said:


> Could you explain the bit about observing optical performance being possible through VF (Optical, I assume), which is not possible with mirrorless? Thx.


It would be possible with mirrorless if so designed. But the RF wide zooms that depend upon correcting something optically wider (such as processing distorted 13mm to an improved 14mm) would show up in the EV after processing in camera, I would expect.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 5, 2022)

sanj said:


> Could you explain the bit about observing optical performance being possible through VF (Optical, I assume), which is not possible with mirrorless? Thx.


With the mirror and pentaprism/mirror of an optical viewfinder you are literally looking through the lens and can see distortion, vignetting, etc.

With an electronic viewfinder you are seeing images captured by the sensor that are processed as determined by the firmware. So for example, on a Canon R-series body with the RF 24-240, 14-35, or 16/2.8 you’ll never see the severe geometric distortion in the viewfinder (because the correction is enabled by default and cannot be turned off).

Sony and Fuji have been applying forced corrections for many years.


----------



## stevelee (Jan 5, 2022)

I assume what I see on the screen and in the viewfinder of my G5X II is processed by lens corrections and is more or less what to expect of a JPEG out of camera, even though I am shooting Raw.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 5, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> With the mirror and pentaprism/mirror of an optical viewfinder you are literally looking through the lens and can see distortion, vignetting, etc.


Which is why I think the last generation of EF lenses could well be the best we ever get from an IQ perspective. The EF 11-24, the 16-35 f4 IS, the TS-E 24 and 17, actually the TS-E 50, 90 and 135 too.

Now Pandora is out of her box there is no going back. Does that make much difference when software correction is plenty ‘good enough’? Most times probably not, but I can‘t be the only one irked at the thought of paying more than ever for these lenses while they are optically inferior to their predecessors.


----------



## unfocused (Jan 5, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> …on a Canon R-series body with the RF 24-240, 14-35, or 16/2.8 you’ll never see the severe geometric distortion in the viewfinder (because the correction is enabled by default and cannot be turned off)…


Viewfinder yes…but what happens if you shoot raw and turn lens correction off in your photo processing software?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 5, 2022)

unfocused said:


> Viewfinder yes…but what happens if you shoot raw and turn lens correction off in your photo processing software?


Well, when I shoot RAW and apply a lens profile in DxO PhotoLab, what happens is my RF 14-35mm lens turns out to be a 13.5-35mm lens.


----------



## sanj (Jan 5, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> With the mirror and pentaprism/mirror of an optical viewfinder you are literally looking through the lens and can see distortion, vignetting, etc.
> 
> With an electronic viewfinder you are seeing images captured by the sensor that are processed as determined by the firmware. So for example, on a Canon R-series body with the RF 24-240, 14-35, or 16/2.8 you’ll never see the severe geometric distortion in the viewfinder (because the correction is enabled by default and cannot be turned off).
> 
> Sony and Fuji have been applying forced corrections for many years.


Thx


----------



## unfocused (Jan 5, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Well, when I shoot RAW and apply a lens profile in DxO PhotoLab, what happens is my RF 14-35mm lens turns out to be a 13.5-35mm lens.


No I’m asking what happens if you don’t apply a lens profile.


----------



## AJ (Jan 5, 2022)

unfocused said:


> Viewfinder yes…but what happens if you shoot raw and turn lens correction off in your photo processing software?


You get a mess. Applying corrections for these lenses is as essential as demosaicing for producing a photo..


----------



## sanj (Jan 5, 2022)

AJ said:


> You get a mess. Applying corrections for these lenses is as essential as demosaicing for producing a photo..


Depends on the lens. Some are really bad, some not so.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 5, 2022)

unfocused said:


> No I’m asking what happens if you don’t apply a lens profile.


Then you see the severe distortion and vignetting that come with the optical design of the lens. For example, with the RF 14-35.


----------



## unfocused (Jan 5, 2022)

AJ said:


> You get a mess. Applying corrections for these lenses is as essential as demosaicing for producing a photo..


Not a mess. As @neuroanatomist shows in his examples you just get the actual image from the lens alone. Adds another option for creativity. Sort of like getting two lenses in one.

Biggest downside is you can’t see the actual image in all its glory until you download the files. Then you get to choose which one you want.

Point is, instead of looking at the new lens designs as a weakness you can choose to see them as a strength. It all depends on one’s perspective.


----------



## slclick (Jan 5, 2022)

unfocused said:


> Point is, instead of looking at the new lens designs as a weakness you can choose to see them as a strength. It all depends on one’s perspective.


Glass half full isn't too popular around here or with humankind in general but maybe you'll start a trend...I'm in!


----------



## AJ (Jan 5, 2022)

unfocused said:


> Point is, instead of looking at the new lens designs as a weakness you can choose to see them as a strength. It all depends on one’s perspective.


Indeed. When these lenses first came out I looked at it as a weakness. I thought about it, changed my mind, bought a 24-240, loving it, about to buy a 16/2.8. 
14-35 is the first 14 mm lens with a flat front element. This is revolutionary, and I doubt it could have been accomplished without passing the corrections from optics to software.
Ditto for the 16/2.8. Here we have a 300 USD prime that is tiny and pocketable. I bet the lens would have been much larger and more expensive if it natively produced a perfectly rectilinear image.
I think the issue right now is that correction profiles can be slow to release. Because the corrections aren't optional, it's a bit like buying an EF lens with one lens element missing, with the promise that the missing element will be delivered to you at some unspecified time in the future. Hopefully, outfits like Adobe, DXO, Affinity etc. can make this more of a priority. Having to wait a full year after release for a correction profile is simply not acceptable. Yes you can process with DPP (I'm doing that myself right now) but that's not everyone's processing flow.


----------



## SteveC (Jan 5, 2022)

dtaylor said:


> It doesn't matter. None of the animal photographs can be published because they are all out of focus. His camera didn't have Animal Eye AF


Urban legend.

He shot raw, in file format CR-15 (as in minus 15; it was a long time ago). No software supports that format any more. That's why we can't use his animal photographs.


----------



## Bishop80 (Jan 5, 2022)

AJ said:


> Don't forget that with mirrorless, optical elements can be placed closer to the sensor which can result in smaller and lighter lenses.


Has this been the case so far with Canon's RF lenses? Are they on average smaller and lighter than their closest EF counterparts?


----------



## Bishop80 (Jan 5, 2022)

entoman said:


> It's *possible*, but I think we have almost reached the point where it is *impracticable and uneconomic* to develop DSLRs further.


I just don't know. Canon and companies often say _what _is changing in the product line, but not _why_. Of course, knowing the _why _leaves less room for our opinions (mine included  )


----------



## AlanF (Jan 5, 2022)

Bishop80 said:


> Has this been the case so far with Canon's RF lenses? Are they on average smaller and lighter than their closest EF counterparts?


The RF 100-400mm f/8 is much lighter than the EF 100-400mm f/5.6. The RF 600mm and 800mm f/11 far lighter than the EF 600mm f/4 and 800mm f/5.6. And, that's was possible not because of the different mount but because the R-series can autofocus down to f/22 or narrower whereas the DSLRs go to only f/8, and then only for the more expensive bodies.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 5, 2022)

AlanF said:


> The RF 100-400mm f/8 is much lighter than the EF 100-400mm f/5.6. The RF 600mm and 800mm f/11 far lighter than the EF 600mm f/4 and 800mm f/5.6. And, that's was possible not because of the different mount but because the R-series can autofocus down to f/22 or narrower whereas the DSLRs go to only f/8, and then only for the more expensive bodies.


Conversely the RF50 f1.2 and RF 85 f1.2 are bigger, heavier, and more expensive than their EF versions. The RF 24-70 f2.8 is also bigger, heavier, and more expensive than the latest EF version. The RF 14-35 f2.8 is heavier but the same size as the last EF 16-35 2.8 but much more expensive, and as we have seen has massive distortion that is always corrected in the EVF.

On balance I think RF has been a very mixed bag so far.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 5, 2022)

AlanF said:


> The RF 100-400mm f/8 is much lighter than the EF 100-400mm f/5.6. The RF 600mm and 800mm f/11 far lighter than the EF 600mm f/4 and 800mm f/5.6. And, that's was possible not because of the different mount but because the R-series can autofocus down to f/22 or narrower whereas the DSLRs go to only f/8, and then only for the more expensive bodies.


I’m not sure I’d consider those pairings ‘close counterparts’. The RF 100-500 is a little bit longer (7%) and a bit lighter (14%), the latter mainly due to the material used to construct the barrel.

Although on-sensor PDAF makes new lens designs possible, so far it doesn’t seem like the RF mount has made much of a difference.

In addition to the examples by @privatebydesign the RF 70-200 zooms are much shorter, but there’s no reason extending designs couldn’t have been made for EF. The RF 14-35/4 is not too different from the EF 16-35/4 in size and weight, but I think the extra 2mm on the wide end are less about the RF mount and more about the ability to force digital correction of the viewfinder with mirrorless meaning the lens can have a weaker optical design.


----------



## AJ (Jan 5, 2022)

The EF 24-105/4 mk2 weighs about 800g. The RF 24-105/4 weighs about 700 g.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 5, 2022)

AJ said:


> The EF 24-105/4 mk2 weighs about 800g. The RF 24-105/4 weighs about 700 g.


The EF MkI was 670g.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 5, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> I’m not sure I’d consider those pairings ‘close counterparts’. The RF 100-500 is a little bit longer (7%) and a bit lighter (14%), the latter mainly due to the material used to construct the barrel.
> 
> Although on-sensor PDAF makes new lens designs possible, so far it doesn’t seem like the RF mount has made much of a difference.
> 
> In addition to the examples by @privatebydesign the RF 70-200 zooms are much shorter, but there’s no reason extending designs couldn’t have been made for EF. The RF 14-35/4 is not too different from the EF 16-35/4 in size and weight, but I think the extra 2mm on the wide end are less about the RF mount and more about the ability to force digital correction of the viewfinder with mirrorless meaning the lens can have a weaker optical design.


You don't expect the RF telephotos to be lighter than the EF equivalent because of the shorter flange distance as this is pretty well irrelevant for telephotos, so I pointed out RF lenses could be lighter for a different reason - the different requirements for AF.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 5, 2022)

AlanF said:


> You don't expect the RF telephotos to be lighter than the EF equivalent because of the shorter flange distance as this is pretty well irrelevant for telephotos, so I pointed out RF lenses could be lighter for a different reason - the different requirements for AF.


The RF 50/1.2 is a beast. As PBD pointed out, the RF 24-70/2.8 is heavier than the EF II. The EF and RF 50/1.8 weight the same. The RF 15-35/2.8 is heavier than the EF 16-35/2.8 III. None of those are telephoto lenses.

I'd argue that you don't expect _any_ RF lenses to be lighter than their EF counterparts. For the ones that are, it seems that's mainly because the EF barrel is metal and the RF barrel is plastic.


----------



## AJ (Jan 5, 2022)

Okay, so this leads to the conclusion that getting elements closer to the sensor doesn't shave off weight. Maybe it leads to better resolution or possible future break-throughs in ultrawides, hinted at by crazy patents like 14-21/1.4
But I say that designing lenses that have physical vignetting and need distortion corrections does save on weight. Case in point the RF 16/2.8.
I'm hoping that the rumoured 24/1.8 IS macro will be small, light, and inexpensive, a la RF 16/2.8. If I want a big, heavy, and well-corrected lens I'd just get the Sigma.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 5, 2022)

The RF and EF 100 Macro's are another example. The RF is bigger, heavier and although it is only $100 more expensive at B&H at the moment that is only because when the RF version was released the EF version suddenly got a $400 price rise!


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 5, 2022)

AJ said:


> Okay, so this leads to the conclusion that getting elements closer to the sensor doesn't shave off weight. Maybe it leads to better resolution or possible future break-throughs in ultrawides, hinted at by crazy patents like 14-21/1.4
> But I say that designing lenses that have physical vignetting and need distortion corrections does save on weight. Case in point the RF 16/2.8.
> I'm hoping that the rumoured 24/1.8 IS macro will be small, light, and inexpensive, a la RF 16/2.8. If I want a big, heavy, and well-corrected lens I'd just get the Sigma.


Just to be clear, you can design small lenses with shitty compromised optics for DSLR's too, the problem was people wouldn't buy them because they could see the amount of corrections needed in post.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 5, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> The RF 50/1.2 is a beast. As PBD pointed out, the RF 24-70/2.8 is heavier than the EF II. The EF and RF 50/1.8 weight the same. The RF 15-35/2.8 is heavier than the EF 16-35/2.8 III. None of those are telephoto lenses.
> 
> I'd argue that you don't expect _any_ RF lenses to be lighter than their EF counterparts. For the ones that are, it seems that's mainly because the EF barrel is metal and the RF barrel is plastic.


Not even the extenders are lighter: RF 2x = 340g, EF 2x TCIII =325g (makers specs), RF 1.4x = 225g, EF 1.4xTCIII = 225g. And the, the RF 600mm f/4 weighs 72g more than the identical EF 600mm f/4 III (according to Bryan of TDP, who weighed them) because an adapter had to be glued on to it.


----------



## snapshot (Jan 5, 2022)

privatebydesign said:


> Just to be clear, you can design small lenses with shitty compromised optics for DSLR's too, the problem was people wouldn't buy them because they could see the amount of corrections needed in post.


not to mention that one might use an EF film camera where the correction matrix is much harder to apply...


----------



## Czardoom (Jan 5, 2022)

unfocused said:


> Yes, I should have been more specific. Most SLRs were “full frame.” There were a few exceptions but they were niche cameras with little to no consumer adoption.
> 
> But my main point still stands, there were no mass consumer SLRs other than 35mm “Full Frame.” There is no reason why the consumer entry level interchangeable lens cameras (Rebels) need to be a different sensor format if Canon can get the costs down to Rebel levels and in 2022, the sensor size is not the deciding factor it was 10-15 years ago.
> 
> Too many people on this forum just assume that Rebels have to be APS-C and that’s not true. Rebels have to be cheap, but they don’t have to be crop sensors.


Thanks for the clarification. I totally agree that there can definitely be FF Rebels. If Canon can get the cost down to the same level with a FF sensor as a crop sensor than there will be no reason not to have FF Rebels. The question today is will enough users want a crop camera for the "reach". For the past 15 or more years, that is something users may have gotten used to and may still want in the future. ( I am one of those users and just bought a Nikon Z50 for that very reason.) 

Just for information...Canon and Nikon both made SLRs for the APS film photo system. They are the only ones I found in my brief search. I owned the Canon and was very happy with it.


----------



## slclick (Jan 5, 2022)

snapshot said:


> not to mention that one might use an EF film camera where the correction matrix is much harder to apply...


Oh that was good. Depending on the latitude of the film of course.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 6, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> There’s this thing going on you may have heard of, called a global pandemic. If you base your conclusion on this year, then you’d believe Canon only develops cameras costing $6000.



Don't forget the Renesas chip foundry fire.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 6, 2022)

canonnews said:


> There's something called a pandemic and extreme supply shortages happening right now. I hope you don't use that as any kind of proof. but the last DSLR was 2019 I think.



The 1D X Mark III came out in early 2020 followed closely by the 850D/RebelT8i. So the idea that the 1D X Mark III is "THE last DLSR" has been false since the 850D came out a few weeks after the 1D X Mark III.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 6, 2022)

John Wilde said:


> (CIPA) In Jan-Oct 1,842,524 new DSLRs were produced.



Produced or shipped? There's a difference. Bodies and lenses are often stockpiled. Then production lines are converted to make other models. They might not get back to the first model for months or even years, depending on sales volumes.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 6, 2022)

entoman said:


> It's apparently a direct quote from Mitarai, who is often ambiguous, but in this case seems to be stating quite firmly that "development and production" of beginner (Rebel) and intermediate (xxD) DSLRs will continue while demand still exists.
> 
> I agree that the implication is that new APS-C models (minor hardware upgrades) will appear, but I'm confident that we can wave goodbye to any ideas that there might be a successor to the 6DMkii.
> 
> Canon would I'm sure *prefer* that everyone dumped their DSLRs and that all new buyers went for RF mount models, but equally they'd be foolish to shut down lines that are still very profitable.



Didn't they say the same thing about EF lens development a couple or three years ago. Something like, "If the market demands it we will continue to develop and produce new EF lenses?" 

How many new EF lenses have been released since that statement was released around the time the EOS R system was introduced in 2018? It's now 2022.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 6, 2022)

Michael Clark said:


> Produced or shipped? There's a difference. Bodies and lenses are often stockpiled. Then production lines are converted to make other models. They might not get back to the first model for months or even years, depending on sales volumes.


This is the second time you've used this argument today. In 2021 (Jan-Nov), the difference between production and shipments for camera bodies was 0.4%. In 2020, the difference was 0.9%. In 2019, it was 2.6% and in 2018 it was 0.8%. So the actual data suggest this stockpiling that you're claiming makes such a difference is basically insignificant.

Care to try another argument? I'd suggest going with one that is actually consistent with the readily available data instead of one that's so easy to refute.

It does make sense for Canon to sporadically produce (i.e., stockpile) niche products like 1-series bodies (and probably the R3), the >$6K supertele lenses, tilt-shift lenses, the RF 5.2mm dual fisheye, etc. But less esoteric products like consumer bodies/lenses, the L-series zooms, etc., are more likely produced in more frequent runs.


----------



## unfocused (Jan 6, 2022)

Czardoom said:


> ...The question today is will enough users want a crop camera for the "reach". For the past 15 or more years, that is something users may have gotten used to and may still want in the future. ( I am one of those users and just bought a Nikon Z50 for that very reason.)...


I think there are two different markets. The "typical" buyer for a Rebel probably doesn't even know the difference between APS-C and full frame. For those buyers, if Canon makes full frame mirrorless Rebels, they will buy them if the cost is low enough. 

But, you are correct, for a segment of the enthusiast market (90D and 7D shooters mostly) the 1.6 crop is a feature that they consciously choose. That segment wants an R body that contains a crop sensor and is willing to pay a premium for such a body. They questions that only Canon can answer include: how large is that market, how much are they willing to spend and what features will they expect in such a camera.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 6, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> This is the second time you've used this argument today. In 2021 (Jan-Nov), the difference between production and shipments for camera bodies was 0.4%. In 2020, the difference was 0.9%. In 2019, it was 2.6% and in 2018 it was 0.8%. So the actual data suggest this stockpiling that you're claiming makes such a difference is basically insignificant.
> 
> Care to try another argument? I'd suggest going with one that is actually consistent with the readily available data instead of one that's so easy to refute.
> 
> It does make sense for Canon to sporadically produce (i.e., stockpile) niche products like 1-series bodies (and probably the R3), the >$6K supertele lenses, tilt-shift lenses, the RF 5.2mm dual fisheye, etc. But less esoteric products like consumer bodies/lenses, the L-series zooms, etc., are more likely produced in more frequent runs.



It's logical fallacy to assume that because there's only a miniscule difference between production and shipments that the two groups are the same cameras. They could be replacing some of those DSLRs shipped out of the stockpile with M50 Mark IIs and R6 bodies, which seem to have caught up with current demand.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 6, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Canon’s CEO was quite clear – they will continue to develop and produce DSLRs as long as there is a market for them. Right now, that market is over 40% of all ILCs. If Canon can release cameras that people buy instead of DSLRs, and DSLR sales drop, then Canon DSLRs will be dead. Realistically, given the near-equal popularity of EOS M and DSLRs domestically for Canon, and Canon citing stronger foreign demand for DSLRs, replacement means ‘real cameras’ (MILCs with a Rebel/xxxD form factor) that sell for <$600 with a kit lens.
> 
> There’s no way Canon will just abandon 40% of the market.
> 
> ...



Canon execs said the same thing ("... we will continue to develop and sell EF lenses as long as the market demands it.") about EF lenses almost four years ago. 

How many new EF lenses have been released since that announcement? 

How many EF lenses have been discontinued with no replacement in sight during that same time period?

At some point you must realize they don't seem to think the market demands it, so they're not lying. They're trying to assure consumers that if they buy an EF lens now they won't be left high and dry in terms of support, which I expect will last the typical seven years or so after discontinuance. They're trying to sell the remaining EF inventory in the pipeline for most, but certainly not all, of the EF lens lineup without making any more or replacing those lenses. The only ones that seem to still be getting produced are the handful that Canon C-series video camera users need. With the new RF mount C-series camera the handwriting is on the wall in that segment as well. Will it be instantaneous? Of course not, but I'd be surprised if any new EF lenses with major redesigns appear even for that market. You might get a few like the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II → III revision, which was basically new lens coatings and a different color paint. 

You can argue all you want that once Canon fills out the RF lens lineup they will return to releasing truly new EF lens models, but in my opinion only a fool would believe that.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 6, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> The fact that you’re citing TN pretty much torpedos anything else you have to say. I guess you like misinfotainment.
> 
> Incidentally, for the month of November the best-selling ILC in Japan was the Kiss X10 2-lens kit. That’s the domestic name of the 250D/Rebel SL3…a DSLR. So yeah, it makes sense to some people that Canon wants to kill off DSLRs ASAP...just like the earth being flat makes sense to some people.



Northrup says whatever he thinks will get clicks and generate buzz for Northrup. We all know that.

But on rare occasions what gets the most buzz can actually be true.

Even a broken clock is correct twice a day. Even a blind squirrel occasionally finds a nut. Even TN says something that is not incorrect every now and then.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 6, 2022)

entoman said:


> You do realise that your DSLR also needs to have a battery inserted in order to operate the shutter, meter and AF system?





neuroanatomist said:


> Moreover, modern DSLRs that have transmissive LCDs in the viewfinder (which is pretty much all of them for the past decade) require power for a normal view through the OVF. Pull the battery and the OVF gets rather dark.





neuroanatomist said:


> It’s drawing power even with the power switch off. Many devices do that. As I already stated, look through the VF then *remove the battery* and look again.





Skyscraperfan said:


> Wow, that is creepy. Why do they do that? I know glass coating like that from windows. They get milky without power. But why do that in a camera? That must be very unhealthy for the battery.



Those transmissive screens are drawing about as much power as an LCD watch draws.

That pales in comparison to a fully powered up camera using an EVF.

Equating the two is like saying leaving my phone's charger plugged into the wall when I'm not charging my phone is just as wasteful as leaving my oven at 450°F when I'm not baking.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 6, 2022)

stevelee said:


> My SLR in 1970 needed a battery to shoot or at least for the light meter to work. It didn’t do anything automatically.



That battery lasted for more than two hours, though. Prior to self-winding/self-cocking bodies, mine tended to last for months if not years.

On the other hand, your "memory card" could only hold 24-36 images before you had to change it.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 6, 2022)

AlanF said:


> There are "lumpers" and "splitters". They spend their time fighting each other in all types of discussion and analysis, with the lumpers lumping things together as all being part of the same, and the splitters drawing fine distinctions - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lumpers_and_splitters Both have their place in progress and understanding.




Not to mention that some of us lumpers have split personalities!


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 6, 2022)

SnowMiku said:


> The 90D has the transmissive LCD in the viewfinder which stays on even if the camera is switched off. I wish they could update the firmware to give us an option to turn this off when the camera is switched off, in my opinion this just causes unnecessary battery drain, is there a technical reason why they choose to leave the transmissive LCD switched on when the camera is switched off?
> 
> The 700D does not have the transmissive LCD so the viewfinder looks the same even with the battery removed.



If you pull the battery out momentarily after turning it off and then put the battery all the way back in, does the transmissive screen power back up or always stay off with the 90D?


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 6, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> I’m surprised! I thought for sure that given your prominence and the manifest importance of your opinions and business needs to Canon, certainly they’d have sent you a few different R1 prototypes to evaluate and select the one they should put into production.
> 
> I guess I was completely wrong, and you’re of no importance to Canon whatsoever. How sad.



I guess they cut him off after he refused to buy 8,743 1D X Mark III bodies?


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 6, 2022)

entoman said:


> What features do you have in mind?


 
200,000 (or higher) shutter rating instead of going backwards to 120,000. Or using a fast enough sensor to do away with a mechanical shutter altogether.

Weather sealing equal to the 7D Mark II.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 6, 2022)

Sporgon said:


> So now you realise that you’ve been looking through a transmissible LCD in your dslr mirrorless doesn’t sound so bad ? If ever you want to see what an unadulterated OVF looks like get a high quality late ‘70s SLR such as the Nikon FM/FE, Pentax ME/MX etc with a 1.4 lens. I warn you; you’ll be miffed.
> Pentax have been putting IBIS in their DSLRs for the past decade by the way.
> I still prefer DSLR to mirrorless but cannot deny the advantages of the latter.



Transmissive screens don't drain batteries in 2-3 hours like EVFs do. It takes months.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 6, 2022)

AlanF said:


> IBIS is a nice feature but relatively minor as the big advantages of mirrorless are from on-sensor AF: a very large number of AF points so inherently far superior tracking and subject recognition; the ability to AF down to f/22 or narrower; no need for AFMA; and probably more reproducible AF. The IBIS is of minor significance to me as I shoot mainly with telephoto lenses where the main stabilization is IS and so IBIS might add just a stop.



It all depends upon what one is shooting. For someone doing wider angle street photography at night or on the dim light of dusk or dawn, IBIS is much more beneficial than IS.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 6, 2022)

tron said:


> I do not expect them I just answered your question. Regarding mirrorless, I agree with you about the mentioned shortcomings.



But, but, but...

If you write anything on this forum about something that you would find useful, it *HAS* to mean that you are convinced Canon *HAS* to make such a product or they are *D - O - O - M - E - D!!!*


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 6, 2022)

Skyscraperfan said:


> Okay, focus might be better on mirrorless, but I hardly ever have a problem to focus anything with my DSLR. It feels like someone telling me that mirrorless cameras can cook the best coffee, but I never drink coffee anyway.
> 
> I wonder where the medium format camera from Phase One for example will go. Will they also switch to mirrorless? As they offer a modular system anyway, I wonder if they will offer camera back that can be combined with bodies with or without a mirror.
> 
> By the way, weren't the complicated mirrior and shutter mechanisms, that were capable of 12 shots or even more per second, one of the main reasons for the high price of the 1D camera line for example? If a camera just contains chips and hardly any mechanical components, costing as much as a really expensive notebook is really a lot.



Face it. The reason Canon charges the amount they charge for 1-series cameras is not because of the cost of parts. It's because they can.

Last month every authorized Canon dealer in the U.S. was selling remaining 1D X Mark II bodies for $3,999.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 6, 2022)

unfocused said:


> Apologies in advance for the length of this post. Just pointing out a few things.
> 
> I’m not sure past sales figures are that relevant. The market has changed significantly over the past few years. Canon has significantly built out its R system and has put most of its research, development, and marketing dollars into full frame mirrorless. (As have their major competitors). Quoting sales figures for budget DSLRs is also not relevant when there is no competing mirrorless product.
> 
> ...



For all except the penultimate paragraph I say, *"Stop posting the facts. It leaves us with nothing to argue about."*

Regarding the market for APS-C enthusiast bodies, though, I think it is precisely those enthusiasts who *ARE* the most price sensitive that want an APS-C RF body the most. Sure, we're not as price sensitive as the typical Rebel buyer, but we are more price sensitive than most of the enthusiasts who populate this forum as well as all others who buy 1D X series and R3 type bodies and great whites for personal use.

The big savings isn't necessarily on the body. The real savings is on the cost and weight of the lenses needed to get the same angles of view for field sports under lights (football and soccer at the less than professional or large college level) compared to a FF while preserving f/2.8 for the needed Tv.

As of about 2018 when the EOS R system was introduced:

7D Mark II + EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II = $1,699 + $2,099 = $3,798

7D Mark II + Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 G2 = $1,699 + $1,399 = $3,098

1D X Mark II + EF 300mm f/2.8 L IS II = $5,999 + $6,099 = $12,098 (plus you still need another body and 70-200mm for when the action gets closer at the end of the play)

1D X Mark II + Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 S = $5,999 + $3,599 = $9,598

_Whether there are enough of us still around is the question only Canon gets to answer. _As the demand for professionally done images of scholastic sports and similar things (school theatrical productions, band competitions, cheer competitions, etc.) continues to decline, there are fewer and fewer doing it as a side hustle or just trying to break even to support their photography habit.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 6, 2022)

slclick said:


> I have it on good authority from Bryan Carnathan and Dustin Abbott that Noah was a Hasselblad user.



Heresy! All theologians know he was a Rolleiflex man while he was rolling on the river in the ark.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 6, 2022)

dtaylor said:


> It doesn't matter. None of the animal photographs can be published because they are all out of focus. His camera didn't have Animal Eye AF



Actually, it was because by the time the water receded and Noah could build a dark room his exposed film had suffered from exposure to heat too much. There were too many animals to make room for a d'Ark Room during the voyage.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 6, 2022)

Czardoom said:


> It might be a good time to remind you and everyone that "film cameras were all full frame" is not how it was. Many film formats were made to find a smaller alternative to 35mm film, the most popular being 126 and 110 film sizes. These were both big sellers, and most of the big camera makers made cameras that used 110 film, including Pentax, Minolta and Fujica. Of course, the APS-C size that we now associate with crop sensors, is based on the APS (advanced Photo System) film cameras that came out in the mid to late 1990s. Nikon, Canon and Minolta all made APS cameras, not just Kodak, who introduced the system in 1996. So, the desire to make smaller format cameras has been around for many decades, so it is not surprising that it is still a popular idea for many.





unfocused said:


> Yes, I should have been more specific. Most SLRs were “full frame.” There were a few exceptions but they were niche cameras with little to no consumer adoption.
> 
> But my main point still stands, there were no mass consumer SLRs other than 35mm “Full Frame.” There is no reason why the consumer entry level interchangeable lens cameras (Rebels) need to be a different sensor format if Canon can get the costs down to Rebel levels and in 2022, the sensor size is not the deciding factor it was 10-15 years ago.
> 
> Too many people on this forum just assume that Rebels have to be APS-C and that’s not true. Rebels have to be cheap, but they don’t have to be crop sensors.



The vast majority of 110 and 126 cameras were fixed lens instamatics. There were a few ILC cameras in those formats, but they were extremely rare compared to the ubiquity of 135 format ILCs.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 6, 2022)

slclick said:


> I love the smell of D-76 in the morning



The smell of fixer, on the other hand...

I don't miss that at all.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 6, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> With the mirror and pentaprism/mirror of an optical viewfinder you are literally looking through the lens and can see distortion, vignetting, etc.
> 
> With an electronic viewfinder you are seeing images captured by the sensor that are processed as determined by the firmware. So for example, on a Canon R-series body with the RF 24-240, 14-35, or 16/2.8 you’ll never see the severe geometric distortion in the viewfinder (because the correction is enabled by default and cannot be turned off).
> 
> Sony and Fuji have been applying forced corrections for many years.





sanj said:


> Thx



As well as Panasonic, Olympus, Samsung (before they got out of the ILC game), Nikon (V1 & J1), etc.


----------



## stevelee (Jan 6, 2022)

Michael Clark said:


> That battery lasted for more than two hours, though. Prior to self-winding/self-cocking bodies, mine tended to last for months if not years.
> 
> On the other hand, your "memory card" could only hold 24-36 images before you had to change it.


I hope I had presence of mind to remove the battery from my SLR, but probably not. It may be ruined. But that shouldn’t matter, since it is in a box underneath other stuff in the far reaches of a walk-in closet. I last used it to take some shots of Jupiter through my telescope back when I lived in a rural area 20 years ago. That telescope adaptor might even work on my DSLR. I intend to check some time before we pass nearer Jupiter and Saturn, I guess this summer. I was impressed with how good the shots were of the two planets back during the conjunction, showing four Jovian moons and Saturn’s rings. I had just figured that using my telescope here was pointless. I won’t get deep-space objects or the Milky Way, but planets ought to work well enough. And I can do a lot more with trial and error now that I don’t have to wait for film to be developed.


----------



## Midge (Jan 6, 2022)

Saw this one coming ages ago. Yet another camera company prepared to abandon its loyal DSLR following in favour of new technology that will make them money. Reminds me of when Olympus film cameras suddenly stopped being OM based and these funny little digital things appeared that didnt use the lenses I had accumulated over the years for my OM4Ti, whose value dropped to near zero almost immediately. So, a few thousands of pounds(even more in dollars)gone like that. I suspect my 6 month old 1DX Mk3 will drop like a stone through the same value hole, along with my EF fit lenses ( and this lot cost way more than the Olympus kit).
Call me cynical if you like, but this is most DEFINITELY a big fat hairy corporate rip off. Such a shame. I really like my Canon gear and feel cheated over the demise of the EF mount. Whats wrong with their technical people? They could quite easily have kept the same mount. The electronic box of tricks that is a mirrorless body looks like a DSLR so why change the mount? AAAhhh , I know !!!! Its a great way of earning mega-bucks by effectively forcing EF users with a great lens collection to either buy the RF adapters or trade in near worthless lenses on the used market for even more expensive RF mount equivalents!!! 
Silly me!!! I didnt think corporations did that to consumers ( do they really?????)


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 6, 2022)

Midge said:


> Saw this one coming ages ago. Yet another camera company prepared to abandon its loyal DSLR following in favour of new technology that will make them money. Reminds me of when Olympus film cameras suddenly stopped being OM based and these funny little digital things appeared that didnt use the lenses I had accumulated over the years for my OM4Ti, whose value dropped to near zero almost immediately. So, a few thousands of pounds(even more in dollars)gone like that. I suspect my 6 month old 1DX Mk3 will drop like a stone through the same value hole, along with my EF fit lenses ( and this lot cost way more than the Olympus kit).
> Call me cynical if you like, but this is most DEFINITELY a big fat hairy corporate rip off. Such a shame. I really like my Canon gear and feel cheated over the demise of the EF mount. Whats wrong with their technical people? They could quite easily have kept the same mount. The electronic box of tricks that is a mirrorless body looks like a DSLR so why change the mount? AAAhhh , I know !!!! Its a great way of earning mega-bucks by effectively forcing EF users with a great lens collection to either buy the RF adapters or trade in near worthless lenses on the used market for even more expensive RF mount equivalents!!!
> Silly me!!! I didnt think corporations did that to consumers ( do they really?????)


No a corporate rip off would have given us an RF mount that couldn’t take EF lenses. But the RF mount does take EF lenses perfectly and very cheaply. Some say their EF glass is better on R cameras because of better focus.


----------



## Midge (Jan 6, 2022)

Point taken but I still believe Canon missed the point by changing the mount. Unless there is a solid technical explanation that can assure me there was a valid need to do so!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 6, 2022)

Midge said:


> Point taken but I still believe Canon missed the point by changing the mount. Unless there is a solid technical explanation that can assure me there was a valid need to do so!


The solid technical reason is the shorter flange focal distance. It's 20mm for RF, 44mm for EF. Granted, Canon could have kept the same flange distance but that would mean EOS R bodies that were substantially bulkier than they needed to be. In that case, instead of people complaining about greedy Canon using a new mount, people would be complaining about stodgy Canon not leveraging one of the advantages of new technology.


----------



## slclick (Jan 6, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> The solid technical reason is the shorter flange focal distance. It's 20mm for RF, 44mm for EF. Granted, Canon could have kept the same flange distance but that would mean EOS R bodies that were substantially bulkier than they needed to be. In that case, instead of people complaining about greedy Canon using a new mount, people would be complaining about stodgy Canon not leveraging one of the advantages of new technology.


Didn't we all go over ths a few years ago? Why all the anger and rehashing of mounts for the umpteenth time? Move on people! (not you N)


----------



## Midge (Jan 6, 2022)

The RF mount adaptor- is it 24mm wide then? I am not familiar with them as I am still awaiting an APS-c RF mount camera to make an appearance (R7 maybe?). If that is the reason (and I believe you by the way) then all seems good for the future. I did read somewhere that users had reported the improved focus with EF lenses on RF mounts so will look somewhere on this forum for more information. Thank you for the insight!


----------



## Midge (Jan 6, 2022)

slclick said:


> Didn't we all go over ths a few years ago? Why all the anger and rehashing of mounts for the umpteenth time? Move on people! (not you N)


Sorry - I am new to this forum and on a steep learning curve. Surely though you can appreciate my frustration?


----------



## AlanF (Jan 6, 2022)

privatebydesign said:


> No a corporate rip off would have given us an RF mount that couldn’t take EF lenses. But the RF mount does take EF lenses perfectly and very cheaply. Some say their EF glass is better on R cameras because of better focus.


Are you implying Canon going from FD to EF was a corporate rip off?


----------



## Midge (Jan 6, 2022)

AlanF said:


> Are you implying Canon going from FD to EF was a corporate rip off?


Over my head guys, I got into Canon with the EOS10D. Dont know the history behind this comment


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 6, 2022)

AlanF said:


> Are you implying Canon going from FD to EF was a corporate rip off?


Not really, the technical reasons to go to a much wider mount mouth made sense, however the trimming of a couple of mm in flange distance didn't make as much sense to me and that is what killed the possibility of adapters. I was heavily invested in FD at the time (I sold my FD 135 f2 a couple of days ago). The change certainly caused enough of a headache for Canon and their users that I don't think another incompatible mount change would ever be on the cards.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 6, 2022)

Midge said:


> Over my head guys, I got into Canon with the EOS10D. Dont know the history behind this comment


In 1987, Canon introduced the EOS system with the EF mount, which superseded the previous FD mount. The distance between the film and the flange of the mount was increased in the EF system, which meant that you couldn't put a simple adapter on the EF mount to take the older FD lenses and have it focus at infinity - the FD lens would be too far away and it would need some correcting lenses in between to get the FD lens to focus further back. The RF sensor to flange distance is much less than the sensor to EF flange, which means you can easily fit an adapter on the RF to take an EF lens and for it to be placed at the correct distance away from the sensor to focus. So, in 1987, Canon rendered all of its existing lenses obsolete. This time around, all existing older EF lenses are forwards compatible.


----------



## takesome1 (Jan 6, 2022)

AlanF said:


> In 1967, Canon introduced the EOS system with the EF mount, which superseded the previous FD mount. The distance between the film and the flange of the mount was increased in the EF system, which meant that you couldn't put a simple adapter on the EF mount to take the older FD lenses and have it focus at infinity - the FD lens would be too far away and it would need some correcting lenses in between to get the FD lens to focus further back. The RF sensor to flange distance is much less than the sensor to EF flange, which means you can easily fit an adapter on the RF to take an EF lens and for it to be placed at the correct distance away from the sensor to focus. So, in 1967, Canon rendered all of its existing lenses obsolete. This time around, all existing older EF lenses are forwards compatible.



I know a local photographer who has had a studio for a long time.
He hates Canon for this switch, he shifted to Nikon when it happened.
And he still bashes Canon for it.
35 years ago people were migrating to Nikon. I guess some things never change.


----------



## slclick (Jan 6, 2022)

AlanF said:


> In 1967, Canon introduced the EOS system with the EF mount, which superseded the previous FD mount. The distance between the film and the flange of the mount was increased in the EF system, which meant that you couldn't put a simple adapter on the EF mount to take the older FD lenses and have it focus at infinity - the FD lens would be too far away and it would need some correcting lenses in between to get the FD lens to focus further back. The RF sensor to flange distance is much less than the sensor to EF flange, which means you can easily fit an adapter on the RF to take an EF lens and for it to be placed at the correct distance away from the sensor to focus. So, in 1967, Canon rendered all of its existing lenses obsolete. This time around, all existing older EF lenses are forwards compatible.


1987


----------



## Nemorino (Jan 6, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> The solid technical reason is the shorter flange focal distance. It's 20mm for RF, 44mm for EF.


Yes, but don't forget the new electronics. The new mount has been a good moment to get them up to date.


AlanF said:


> . So, in 1987, Canon rendered all of its existing lenses obsolete.


Untill the R mount was introduced. Now You can use those old lenses with an adapter again.


----------



## AJ (Jan 6, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> The solid technical reason is the shorter flange focal distance. It's 20mm for RF, 44mm for EF. Granted, Canon could have kept the same flange distance but that would mean EOS R bodies that were substantially bulkier than they needed to be. In that case, instead of people complaining about greedy Canon using a new mount, people would be complaining about stodgy Canon not leveraging one of the advantages of new technology.


So from all of this I conclude that with RF, we ended up with smaller and less bulky bodies but lenses that are about the same size and weight.


----------



## PhotoGenerous (Jan 6, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> The fact that you’re citing TN pretty much torpedos anything else you have to say. I guess you like misinfotainment.
> 
> Incidentally, for the month of November the best-selling ILC in Japan was the Kiss X10 2-lens kit. That’s the domestic name of the 250D/Rebel SL3…a DSLR. So yeah, it makes sense to some people that Canon wants to kill off DSLRs ASAP...just like the earth being flat makes sense to some people.



The whole point of the link was that he asked for Japanese speakers to help translate the article and I provided the actual replies from Japanese speaking people, some that didn't even seem to line up with his conclusion. 

But who wants more sources of information? It has the Tony Northrup name so "obviously" its incorrect and meaningless, even when it's not about in misinfotainment.

Let's blanket not even look at information just because it's Tony Northrup adjacent says the person who is always claiming a desire for more data and facts.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 6, 2022)

Nemorino said:


> Yes, but don't forget the new electronics. The new mount has been a good moment to get them up to date.
> 
> Untill the R mount was introduced. Now You can use those old lenses with an adapter again.


The FD lenses were being used on mirrorless years before the R mount on Sony E for example with Metabones, Fotodiox etc adapters.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 6, 2022)

AJ said:


> So from all of this I conclude that with RF, we ended up with smaller and less bulky bodies but lenses that are about the same size and weight.


Perhaps semantics, but while that's true from the reductionist viewpoint of considering only the mount, the fact is that the mount was used for mirrorless camera. The lack of a mirror is what makes the shorter flange distance possible (don't need room to flip up the mirror). But mirrorless allows on-sensor phase-detect AF while looking through the viewfinder, and that means AF can work at very narrow apertures. Thus, we have lenses like the 800/11 that simply weren't possible as AF lenses for a DSLR. There's no direct comparison, but an 800mm lens that doesn't weigh 10 pounds and cost >$12K is possible with the RF mount but not the EF mount. Also, the fact that the view 'through the lens' really isn't but rather is through an EVF means lenses like the RF 16/2.8 can be designed with weaker optics that require algorithmic corrections but are much smaller, lighter and cheaper than an optically corrected EF lens.

Having said that, it is correct that the benefits of the mount itself are minimal when comparing functionally equivalent lenses between EF and RF.


----------



## dcm (Jan 6, 2022)

AlanF said:


> The FD lenses were being used on mirrorless years before the R mount on Sony E for example with Metabones, Fotodiox etc adapters.


I even dabbled with FD lenses on EOS Ms via an adapter.


----------



## AJ (Jan 7, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> it is correct that the benefits of the mount itself are minimal when comparing functionally equivalent lenses between EF and RF.



Surely there must be some design benefits in the possibility of having elements closer to the sensor. Maybe this just hasn't been realized yet in the current lineup. Maybe the 14-21/1.4 and the like are still to come.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 7, 2022)

AJ said:


> Surely there must be some design benefits in the possibility of having elements closer to the sensor. Maybe this just hasn't been realized yet in the current lineup. Maybe the 14-21/1.4 and the like are still to come.


I'm not sure a 28-70mm f/2 would have been possible for EF.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 7, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> I'm not sure a 28-70mm f/2 would have been possible for EF.


Surely if you can have an EF 28 f1.8 and an EF 85 f1.2 an EF 28-70 f2 would have been possible with the mount.


----------



## SnowMiku (Jan 7, 2022)

Michael Clark said:


> If you pull the battery out momentarily after turning it off and then put the battery all the way back in, does the transmissive screen power back up or always stay off with the 90D?


I tested it out just then. When pulling the battery out after turning off the camera the transmissive screen will stay on until the battery is removed. When you insert the battery back in then close the battery door the transmissive screen will power on.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 7, 2022)

privatebydesign said:


> Surely if you can have an EF 28 f1.8 and an EF 85 f1.2 an EF 28-70 f2 would have been possible with the mount.


I’m not so sure. Prime lenses are far less complicated designs than constant aperture zoom lenses, particularly ones that span wide to telephoto ranges.


----------



## SnowMiku (Jan 7, 2022)

privatebydesign said:


> Not really, the technical reasons to go to a much wider mount mouth made sense, however the trimming of a couple of mm in flange distance didn't make as much sense to me and that is what killed the possibility of adapters. I was heavily invested in FD at the time (I sold my FD 135 f2 a couple of days ago). The change certainly caused enough of a headache for Canon and their users that I don't think another incompatible mount change would ever be on the cards.


Except for EF-M and RF


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 7, 2022)

SnowMiku said:


> Except for EF-M and RF


Well at this point there isn’t an EF-M lens that covers the image circle of any R cameras, so there’s that...


----------



## SnowMiku (Jan 7, 2022)

privatebydesign said:


> Well at this point there isn’t an EF-M lens that covers the image circle of any R cameras, so there’s that...


I was thinking more of an RF lens on an M body.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 7, 2022)

SnowMiku said:


> I was thinking more of an RF lens on an M body.


That is physically possible, but there isn’t an M camera with the brain to drive an RF lens so it seems pointless. No focus and no aperture kinda hampers lens functionality.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 7, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> I’m not so sure. Prime lenses are far less complicated designs than constant aperture zoom lenses, particularly ones that span wide to telephoto ranges.



Yes, and the big difference for a 28-70mm lens is that with a 20mm registration distance there's no need for a 28-70mm to be retrofocus at any point in the zoom range.

With a 44mm registration distance a 28-70mm lens must be retrofocus over most of it's focal length range before (potentially) reversing the directions some of the elements move as it continues to be zoomed to longer focal lengths. (e.g. the 18-55mm kit lenses, 28-135mm, 15-85mm, etc.)

The original EF 24-70mm f/2.8L was retrofocus throughout the entire zoom range. That's why it was fully extended at 24mm and fully retracted at 70mm. It's also why the critical adjustments for aligning lens elements were in the very front of the barrel that extended, and could get knocked out of whack very easily if bumped while the barrel was extended.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 7, 2022)

privatebydesign said:


> That is physically possible, but there isn’t an M camera with the brain to drive an RF lens so it seems pointless. No focus and no aperture kinda hampers lens functionality.



Not physically possible because the throat diameter of the RF mount is larger than the EF-M mount but the bayonet lugs of the RF mount extend more than 2mm behind the flange. The lugs would need to be inside the EF-M camera's flange ring.


----------



## Midge (Jan 7, 2022)

AlanF said:


> In 1987, Canon introduced the EOS system with the EF mount, which superseded the previous FD mount. The distance between the film and the flange of the mount was increased in the EF system, which meant that you couldn't put a simple adapter on the EF mount to take the older FD lenses and have it focus at infinity - the FD lens would be too far away and it would need some correcting lenses in between to get the FD lens to focus further back. The RF sensor to flange distance is much less than the sensor to EF flange, which means you can easily fit an adapter on the RF to take an EF lens and for it to be placed at the correct distance away from the sensor to focus. So, in 1987, Canon rendered all of its existing lenses obsolete. This time around, all existing older EF lenses are forwards compatible.


Thanks for the information. I read somewhere recently that there is now an adaptor that will take fd lenses on a mirrorless body. Is that true or is someone spreading misinformation?


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 7, 2022)

Midge said:


> Thanks for the information. I read somewhere recently that there is now an adaptor that will take fd lenses on a mirrorless body. Is that true or is someone spreading misinformation?





https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1460411-REG/fotodiox_fd_eosr_pro_canon_fd_to_canon.html



There are at least half a dozen different companies that make them.


----------



## Bishop80 (Jan 7, 2022)

The EOS R system is all about the mount - the problems it could solve, and provisions given for product growth. From the EOS R White Paper, these were identified as (note: virtually everything below is quoted/copied from their paper):

Problems:

Insufficient flexibilities in mount diameter and back focus distance to accommodate all of the increasingly diverse requirements in zoom and prime lenses
Large diameter rear lens elements that are much closer to the full frame image sensor - *enhancing overall optical performance* (in particular, tighter control over optical aberrations at image extremities)
Lenses having the same specifications for focal length and maximum aperture as current EF mount lenses - but having *significantly higher image quality* - within the same size and weight
*High optical performance*, large aperture (F1.2) prime lenses for full frame cameras
Zoom lenses of higher brightness with constant aperture over their focal ranges - while still modest in size and weight
Two key dimensions play a significant role in the quality of the final image projected on to the image sensor - they are the back focus distance and the diameter of the final lens element.

Limited speed of the electronic communication between lens and camera
Limited electronic channels between lens and camera to accommodate new operational aspirations
Constraints in sensor-based AF operational capabilities
Design considerations for their "ideal" lens-camera system:

Emerging popularity of the full frame image sensor
Anticipated progressive elevation of sensor resolution
Quest for higher exposure range
Increasing diversity and sophistication of end-users seeking extended operational functionalities
Balancing among these lens parameters:
Higher Optical Performance - to accommodate multiple future enhancements in camera performance
Enhanced Operational Specifications - such as focal length ranges, maximum aperture, and their controls
Meeting demands in Size and Weight Specifications - which can be critically important to certain forms of shooting

Since there are questions about the Rebel series going to EF vs RF mount, APS-C vs full frame, I expect that future cameras within Canon's existing product line that transition to the RF mount would do so it they fall within the above criteria. Maybe they _all _will... eventually.

Anyway, I posted the above since someone commented along the lines of haven't we hashed through this already? I think it's good to look back occasionally at what the stated goals were - at what was promised/intended, and then see if that has been delivered on. For example, the questions about optical performance and size/weight, etc. I highlighted "optical performance" in the lists above since that was also being questioned, whether they have delivered on that or not, or did they realize they could fudge on physical design and compensate with digital lens correction algorithms? Or maybe that's what they meant all along?

Actually, I have continued purchasing EF (and EF-M) lenses ever since RF was introduced, though I do have an R body


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 7, 2022)

Bishop80 said:


> Actually, I have continued purchasing EF (and EF-M) lenses ever since RF was introduced, though I do have an R body


I haven’t bought any EF or EF-M since the launch of the RF mount. That’s probably because I already had EF lenses ranging from the 11-24/4L to the 600/4L II and all 8 of the EF-M lenses.

I have bought 5 RF lenses plus the two extenders, and sold the EF lenses they replaced (not the EF extenders, though if the RF versions perform better with my EF 600/4 II then I may sell the EF TCs).


----------



## Bishop80 (Jan 7, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> I haven’t bought any EF or EF-M since the launch of the RF mount. That’s probably because I already had EF lenses ranging from the 11-24/4L to the 600/4L II and all 8 of the EF-M lenses.
> 
> I have bought 5 RF lenses plus the two extenders, and sold the EF lenses they replaced (not the EF extenders, though if the RF versions perform better with my EF 600/4 II then I may sell the EF TCs).


Don't get me wrong - I've been tempted to upgrade a few EF lenses to RF. For example, the 50mm f/1.2L is high on my list, as it's not really a good performer wide open. I likely will at some point. I'm just not yet "all in" with RF. Maybe the R1 will push me over the edge, as I'm primarily a 1D shooter. But I occasionally shoot film on a 1V, so I'll always have a handful of EF lenses around for that!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 7, 2022)

Bishop80 said:


> I'm just not yet "all in" with RF. Maybe the R1 will push me over the edge, as I'm primarily a 1D shooter.


As am I. I bought the R and RF 24-105/4L in early 2019. It wasn't until I preordered the R3 that I started swapping lenses. I will keep using several EF lenses with an adapter. For lenses like the 11-24/4L and TS-E 17L, an RF version would need to offer me something major to overcome the advantage of the ability to use the CPL and ND behind the lens instead of a massive front filter. There are rumors of AF TS lenses for the RF mount, but personally my shooting with the TS-E 17 and 24 II are architecture so I have no need for AF. The focus shift in the RF 100L Macro means I'll keep using the EF version – the 1.4x magnification of the RF is nice, but I have the MP-E 65 1-5x if I want more than 1:1.


----------



## DanP (Jan 10, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> I haven’t bought any EF or EF-M since the launch of the RF mount. That’s probably because I already had EF lenses ranging from the 11-24/4L to the 600/4L II and all 8 of the EF-M lenses.
> 
> I have bought 5 RF lenses plus the two extenders, and sold the EF lenses they replaced (not the EF extenders, though if the RF versions perform better with my EF 600/4 II then I may sell the EF TCs).


The RF extenders don’t fit in the adapter (at least not in the basic one - I tried).


----------



## koenkooi (Jan 10, 2022)

DanP said:


> The RF extenders don’t fit in the adapter (at least not in the basic one - I tried).


With some _persuasion_ it can be made to work: https://www.the-digital-picture.com/News/News-Post.aspx?News=35054


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 10, 2022)

DanP said:


> The RF extenders don’t fit in the adapter (at least not in the basic one - I tried).


Correct, nor does the drop-in adapter with the wider opening work. I got the Commlite adapter (3rd party one with the widest opening) and used a Dremel to shave it down (persuade it, as @koenkooi says).


----------



## AlanF (Jan 10, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Correct, nor does the drop-in adapter with the wider opening work. I got the Commlite adapter (3rd party one with the widest opening) and used a Dremel to shave it down (persuade it, as @koenkooi says).


Is there a chip in the adapter or is there just a network of wires between front and back?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 10, 2022)

AlanF said:


> Is there a chip in the adapter or is there just a network of wires between front and back?


There is a chip and a ribbon cable inside.


----------



## entoman (Jan 12, 2022)

Michael Clark said:


> 200,000 (or higher) shutter rating instead of going backwards to 120,000. Or using a fast enough sensor to do away with a mechanical shutter altogether.
> 
> Weather sealing equal to the 7D Mark II.


Shutter ratings are pretty meaningless in my view. My old 5DS clocked up about 250,000 actuations in the 5 years that I owned it, and my 5DMkv is catching up fast, yet both of these have a quoted "play safe" expectancy of 100,000.

Realistically I suspect that the average true life expectancy of almost any modern shutter will exceed 200,000. How many people take more than 20,000 shots a year? Not many, I'd guess. So a shutter will likely last at least 10 years, by which time the camera will almost certainly have been discarded in favour of a "better" model.

With MILCs the situation becomes much more complex - e.g. does an manufacturer's expectation of "150,000" actuations refer to mechanical shutter (open for viewing, then close, then open to begin exposure, then close to end exposure, then re-open for viewing), or to EFCS (open for viewing and start of exposure, close to end exposure, then reopen for viewing)?

Shutter life expectancy will also vary hugely from one user to another, depending on frame speeds chosen, degree of vibration that the camera is subjected to during transportation etc).

.... and with the advent of the Nikon Z9, I think we can expect most future cameras to completely dispense with mechanical and EFCS shutters, at which point the life expectancy of the shutter will basically equal the life expectancy of the sensor and processor (whichever dies first).


----------



## entoman (Jan 12, 2022)

Michael Clark said:


> Those transmissive screens are drawing about as much power as an LCD watch draws.


Correct, but most if not all modern DSLRs are rendered useless without a battery.

Remove it, and the meter will not function.
Ditto for the shutter, which is electronic in virtually all cameras these days.
Ditto for the AF system.
Ditto for the viewfinder, which will become so dark that it becomes unusable.

The OP is chasing rainbows at midnight, if he/she wants an entirely mechanical DSLR.
Possibly an early film SLR might meet their needs better?


----------



## entoman (Jan 12, 2022)

Michael Clark said:


> Didn't they say the same thing about EF lens development a couple or three years ago. Something like, "If the market demands it we will continue to develop and produce new EF lenses?"
> 
> How many new EF lenses have been released since that statement was released around the time the EOS R system was introduced in 2018? It's now 2022.


Yes, manufacturers are as full of BS as politicians. They say what they think people want to hear, in order to avoid losing loyal customers.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 12, 2022)

entoman said:


> Yes, manufacturers are as full of BS as politicians. They say what they think people want to hear, in order to avoid losing loyal customers.


No one could be as full of BS as BoJo.


----------



## unfocused (Jan 12, 2022)

AlanF said:


> No one could be as full of BS as BoJo.


You are obviously unaware of Mr. "They Stole the Election from Me."


----------



## AlanF (Jan 12, 2022)

unfocused said:


> You are obviously unaware of Mr. "They Stole the Election from Me."


Of course I am aware. You may be unaware of BoJo.


----------



## unfocused (Jan 12, 2022)

AlanF said:


> Of course I am aware. You may be unaware of BoJo.


Oh I am aware. Maybe a close second.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 12, 2022)

unfocused said:


> Oh I am aware. Maybe a close second.


I'm patriotic - it would be another rumble in the jungle.


----------



## bergstrom (Jan 17, 2022)

The OTHER canon rumor site has an article from Russian sources that more DSLR's are coming.


----------



## Czardoom (Jan 17, 2022)

bergstrom said:


> The OTHER canon rumor site has an article from Russian sources that more DSLR's are coming.


This thread has also made that pretty clear once people actually took the time to translate the entire quote.

The fact that the site admin has failed to change both the headline and the initial article is, quite frankly, a disgrace.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 29, 2022)

entoman said:


> Shutter ratings are pretty meaningless in my view. My old 5DS clocked up about 250,000 actuations in the 5 years that I owned it, and my 5DMkv is catching up fast, yet both of these have a quoted "play safe" expectancy of 100,000.
> 
> Realistically I suspect that the average true life expectancy of almost any modern shutter will exceed 200,000. How many people take more than 20,000 shots a year? Not many, I'd guess. So a shutter will likely last at least 10 years, by which time the camera will almost certainly have been discarded in favour of a "better" model.
> 
> ...



The shutter ratings from Canon for both the 5D Mark IV and the 5Ds/5Ds R are 150,000, and they tend to exceed that very well. For the 7D Mark II, it was 200,000. Most xD cameras that make it past about 50,000 will last significantly longer than rated, but they're still relative. The x0D series hasn't fared near as well, though. You're statistically about as likely to get 500,000 out of a 200,000 rated 7D Mark II as you are to get 150,000 out of a 100,000 rated 70D or 80D.

I average well over 50K per year with my 7D Mark II shooting mostly sports with my longest lens. My 5D Mark IV gets well less than half that annually shooting pretty much everything else plus providing a body for my 'wide' lens when shooting sports. So yes, where I need it the most, the 90D provides the least.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 29, 2022)

entoman said:


> Correct, but most if not all modern DSLRs are rendered useless without a battery.
> 
> Remove it, and the meter will not function.
> Ditto for the shutter, which is electronic in virtually all cameras these days.
> ...



The point is, it would take at least several months for the transmissive screen to drain a fully charged LP-E6. Watch batteries have much less total energy than an LP-E6 does, and they last 2-3 years in digital watches pulling about the same current (more if you use the watch's backlight or alarm very much). I get my 50D out about once every two years and test it. The smaller BP-511 batteries stored with it still have some charge left, and they're all over a decade old and haven't been used much since about 2012.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 29, 2022)

entoman said:


> Yes, manufacturers are as full of BS as politicians. They say what they think people want to hear, in order to avoid losing loyal customers.



Which was kind of my whole point responding to neuro's comment.


----------



## randym77 (Feb 7, 2022)

Petapixel had an article about Nikon a couple of days ago. It notes that even though all the growth in the current market is in mirrorless, Canon's DSLR market share is growing. Apparently because they're stealing it from Nikon. The author speculates that Canon might release a new DSLR for this reason. (A consumer type camera, I assume.)


----------



## Blue Zurich (Feb 7, 2022)

randym77 said:


> Petapixel had an article about Nikon a couple of days ago. It notes that even though all the growth in the current market is in mirrorless, Canon's DSLR market share is growing. Apparently because they're stealing it from Nikon. The author speculates that Canon might release a new DSLR for this reason. (A consumer type camera, I assume.)


Canon is going to be giving Japan many more KISSes I believe.


----------

