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

[dtaylor]

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]

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]

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]

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]

..... 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]

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]

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]

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]

I love the smell of D-76 in the morning

 

[sanj]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

…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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.