I have a different perspective. I believe that in a contracting market the worst thing to do is abandon a substantial share of your customer base. If it were likely that 100% or even 90% of full frame DSLR users would migrate to the R line, it might make sense, but it's much more likely that Canon could lose those DSLR users either to Nikon or simply through lost sales opportunities as they keep their current DSLRs.I would say that in an expanding camera market, there would be room for both DSLR and mirrorless. However, in a rapidly shrinking market it makes little sense to continue to support two different FF lens lines - they need to consolidate to RF so they can amortize RF development costs over as many lens sales as possible.
This won't happen if they continue to pump out new EF mount bodies. So that is why I see the 1dx3 as Canon's DSLR swan song.
In 1987 Canon introduced EF mount in a much stronger camera market - no cellphone cameras to deal with. They pretty quickly phased out the old FD mount lenses.I have a different perspective. I believe that in a contracting market the worst thing to do is abandon a substantial share of your customer base. If it were likely that 100% or even 90% of full frame DSLR users would migrate to the R line, it might make sense, but it's much more likely that Canon could lose those DSLR users either to Nikon or simply through lost sales opportunities as they keep their current DSLRs.
You are assuming that the cost of maintaining both lens lines is substantial and that there would be some significant savings in abandoning the EF line. I disagree. For the EF line the development costs have already been recovered. The cost of enhancements to the EF line are likely to be fairly small or transferable to RF lenses -- such as improved coatings or design changes that improve manufacturing efficiencies. Even relatively significant improvements, such as the weight reductions in big whites, may not be that costly in terms of development and would certainly be transferable between the EF and RF lines.
I expect that Canon does a cost-benefit analysis of every lens they produce, regardless of mount, and determines whether or not it will be profitable on its own.
Yes I worry about the low light performance at greater than 40 MP (which for 8k video is the minimum size the sensor could be).Yeah that's a bit confusing, it's not that much lower than the 5Ds.....I'm wondering if the R5 is going to be closer to 40 when we finally see it. Not everyone can use or wants that many pixels...
I would expect so. I would love to have as many choices as possible - DSLR and mirrorless. I am trying to read the tea leaves as best as possible and believe that EF is being phased out and am planning accordingly.Not an issue for me, is it an issue for Canon?
Why? FD lenses could not be adapted to work seamlessly with the EF mount. Canon has four lens mounts today. EF lenses are the only lenses that work perfectly with all four mounts. So far, the only advantages that we have seen in the RF mount have been incremental improvements. Nothing nearly so sweeping as autofocus and IS. You've gone all in on RF. That's fine. But you shouldn't assume that your decision is universal to all Canon users or that Canon views the market in the same way you do....Having 2 different lens mount lines in the late 80s was clearly not an option back then, it would be even less an option now.
You're right about the supply chain and I thought about that as well while writing my comment. The Olympics being held in Japan, I'm sure that Canon was looking forward to that event for even more exposure. I understand that the official Sports camera and Canon's flagship camera body is the 1 Dx mark III. However, because of its size and announced specs, I think that the R5 will be very popular camera body for many pro photographers that will be there for photojournalism (all those "behind the scenes" captures). Anyway, I still think that even if there's limited lack of supplies and that the production can be done to introduce the R5 in July, I still think that the timing would be bad!I think it will depend more on supply chain issues, rather than the postponement of any major events. The 5 series has never been an action camera. Much more popular with event and wedding photographers, as well as all around users. The Canon executive in the interview seemed to indicate that the announcements would not be delayed, but that interview was probably done before the recent global meltdown of the past week or so. Yeah, I agree they may delay the announcement, but I don't think the Olympics will have anything to do with it.
Unless you shoot sports or wildlife, why would you prefer a 5dV over a R5 assuming they had the same features and an updated EVF on the R5? The only other drawback of the R5 over a 5dV would be if you are not willing to shoot EF lenses with an adaptor, purchase RF lenses, or battery life. I shoot wildlife and I am curious to see how the OVF of the R5 stand up in field shooting (assuming it has the same weather resistance as the 5dIV). From what I am seeing so far, I am willing to replace my EF 24-70 f2.8 L II and 100-400 II assuming the 100-500 is f5.6 @ 400mm.I just hope that they will make a 5D-V that will have similar features as well. Although it seems that the R system is taking over.
A "pause" can mean a lot of things in the corporate world. They may never hit "play" again if mirrorless / RF lens sales take off and start to erode the EOS/EF line. They will go to a "maintenance" strategy which would involve releasing just enough updates to keep the customers paying but not necessarily trying to ramp up the volumes. This is especially true in a declining industry and as technology enables mirrorless to deliver some of the "unique" things on the DSLR line. They have to make the decision based on what each $1 of investment returns in sales. Canon has provided a pretty painless migration path for EF to RF with adaptors that work pretty well based on what I have seen and read. Time will tell.What limitation? Mirrorless and DSLR are different formats. Each has it's strength and weaknesses. We have yet to see a mirrorless camera that can do everything a DSLR does, just as we have yet to see a DSLR that does everything a mirrorless does. Judging by other comments on this very thread, there remains lots of demand for a 5D V.
As far as the lens mount goes, Canon has repeatedly said the EF mount isn't going away. They have paused development of new lenses to concentrate on the RF mount, but a pause is just that, a pause. And, given the robust selection of EF lenses already available, there aren't a lot of holes in the lineup anyway.
Actually I haven't gone all in. I am still all EF. I am merely trying to see what the future holds and how best to respond to it.Why? FD lenses could not be adapted to work seamlessly with the EF mount. Canon has four lens mounts today. EF lenses are the only lenses that work perfectly with all four mounts. So far, the only advantages that we have seen in the RF mount have been incremental improvements. Nothing nearly so sweeping as autofocus and IS. You've gone all in on RF. That's fine. But you shouldn't assume that your decision is universal to all Canon users or that Canon views the market in the same way you do.
I hope it too...As mirrorless cameras continue to develop, do DSLRs have a future? Sports photographer Samo Vidic and Canon expert Mike Burnhill reveal where DSLRs still have the edge.www.canon-europe.com
This is directly from Canon, maybe this will stop the BS about abandoning DSLRs.
EF glass is superb as is, and to be true, if there was a good converter, I would continue to use my FD glass as well. It happens that I am still using my FD200mm Macto with a converter to EF (without any optics in it) on my 7D, Canon glass is superb in any mount. I hope Canon listen to you and do sell the 5Dv with a huge discount, then I might buy two...I myself couldn't imagine buying a new DSLR these days. And I like my Canon DSLR (for stills)!
If I bought a new DSLR I feel as though I would be buying the T90 (Canon's last non EOS SLR). By this I mean I would be buying into a dead mount and not getting the advantages of the new RF glass.
So if the 5d5 came out with virtually the exact same specs as the R5, it would have to be sold at a huge discount to reflect this major limitation.