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

[Skyscraperfan]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

"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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

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]

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]

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]

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]

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!