1DX Mark IV

[Czardoom]

That's where I'm placing my bet. I imagine that upgrade path as linear, in part because that was my own path – APS-C DSLR with EF-S lens, then adding some EF lenses of longer focal lengths, then getting a FF DSLR for which I already had some lenses. In theory, that made my decision to purchase a FF body easier, but in reality I was looking to increase my image-making potential so I probably wold have ended up with a FF body regardless. It's the same reason I swapped my EF 85/1.8 (the second lens I bought for my T1i/500D, after the EF-S 17-55/2.8) for an 85/1.2L II.

Canon knows how many APS-C owners who buy their first FF DSLR buy the kit lens (e.g. 24-105/4L) with it. I'm guessing it's a high proportion. They also know how many people who move from APS-C to FF had EF (vs. EF-S) lenses. Those who bought a 2-lens APS-C kit (18-55 / 55-250) would have to replace their entire kit anyway, much like anyone moving from EOS M to EOS R.

It's also important to remember that for the time being, there are two 'camps' of people who may buy an R-series body – those currently using a DSLR kit, and those using an EOS M. Given the market data, it's fair to say that the former camp is much larger than the latter (because DSLRs are not too far behind MILCs in the current market, DSLRs were the majority of ILCs until a few years ago, and there's a big historical installed user base of DLSR). For those folks, Canon has provided an easy upgrade path in that all their lenses, EF and EF-S, will mount on an R-series body with a simple adapter.

I also agree with your point that Canon is pushing toward a third 'camp' – making a FF MILC a viable entry level option. They've got the (relatively) inexpensive lenses, and if they bring out that rumored <$800 FF R-series body, they'll be in the game. Consider that an $800 EOS R with the RF 24-105 non-L would be $1200, and the EOS M6 II with 15-45mm lens and EVF retails for $1100.

 

[Czardoom]

That's where I'm placing my bet. I imagine that upgrade path as linear, in part because that was my own path – APS-C DSLR with EF-S lens, then adding some EF lenses of longer focal lengths, then getting a FF DSLR for which I already had some lenses. In theory, that made my decision to purchase a FF body easier, but in reality I was looking to increase my image-making potential so I probably wold have ended up with a FF body regardless. It's the same reason I swapped my EF 85/1.8 (the second lens I bought for my T1i/500D, after the EF-S 17-55/2.8) for an 85/1.2L II.

Canon knows how many APS-C owners who buy their first FF DSLR buy the kit lens (e.g. 24-105/4L) with it. I'm guessing it's a high proportion. They also know how many people who move from APS-C to FF had EF (vs. EF-S) lenses. Those who bought a 2-lens APS-C kit (18-55 / 55-250) would have to replace their entire kit anyway, much like anyone moving from EOS M to EOS R.

It's also important to remember that for the time being, there are two 'camps' of people who may buy an R-series body – those currently using a DSLR kit, and those using an EOS M. Given the market data, it's fair to say that the former camp is much larger than the latter (because DSLRs are not too far behind MILCs in the current market, DSLRs were the majority of ILCs until a few years ago, and there's a big historical installed user base of DLSR). For those folks, Canon has provided an easy upgrade path in that all their lenses, EF and EF-S, will mount on an R-series body with a simple adapter.

I also agree with your point that Canon is pushing toward a third 'camp' – making a FF MILC a viable entry level option. They've got the (relatively) inexpensive lenses, and if they bring out that rumored <$800 FF R-series body, they'll be in the game. Consider that an $800 EOS R with the RF 24-105 non-L would be $1200, and the EOS M6 II with 15-45mm lens and EVF retails for $1100.

If I had to guess - and I am guessing - I would think that a $1200 FF entry level kit or even a M6 entry level kit for $1100 is way to expensive for the vast majority of entry level purchasers. Pretty much every time I checked the Amazon sales number for the past year, various $400-$600 Rebels in various kit forms are the number one seller or dominate the top 10. I don't see that changing in these tough economic times - or possibly any time. I think the question is, will Canon just keep producing these inexpensive DSLRs, or will they transition to a similarly priced mirrorless - either M or RF mount.

 

[unfocused]

...does the next generation of potential Rebel users want a camera that looks and feels like a current Rebel. Will they be looking online or going to Best Buy or some other store, and when looking at the M50 say, "No, that's too small,...While I don't think that there is a large percentage of Rebel upgrade pathers, there will be some. And I'm betting Canon will want those upgraders to buy their new RF lenses.

If I had to guess - and I am guessing - I would think that a $1200 FF entry level kit or even a M6 entry level kit for $1100 is way too expensive for the vast majority of entry level purchasers. Pretty much every time I checked the Amazon sales number for the past year, various $400-$600 Rebels in various kit forms are the number one seller or dominate the top 10. I don't see that changing in these tough economic times - or possibly any time. I think the question is, will Canon just keep producing these inexpensive DSLRs, or will they transition to a similarly priced mirrorless - either M or RF mount.

Good points, but we don't know what Canon's research shows. With the current quality of iPhones and similar products it's possible that the traditional upgrade pattern has been upended. Young photographers may go straight from phones to those $1,000 kits because by the time they outgrow the iPhone they are already pretty accomplished photographers and might be looking at specific needs, such as telephoto lenses or video capabilities.

I think a mistake we make is thinking that all entry level buyers are the same and that entry level buyers follow the same patterns that we did when we started buying digital cameras. There are probably multiple pathways. Those who buy a single camera and single lens and use it until it breaks, gets lost or becomes outdated, probably represent the majority of buyers and if the Rebels were not available to them, they'd be buying M series and never even think about using the lens on an R Body.

 

[randym77]

I was one of those who started with a Rebel. I remember the advice back then was not to spend too much on a camera, since you'd likely be upgrading regularly. Spend on the glass, since you'll keep that for years.

I am still using the white lens I bought to go with my Rebel xTI, 14 years ago.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I was one of those who started with a Rebel. I remember the advice back then was not to spend too much on a camera, since you'd likely be upgrading regularly. Spend on the glass, since you'll keep that for years.

I am still using the white lens I bought to go with my Rebel xTI, 14 years ago.

That’s good advice, which I gently followed as well. My first DSLR was a T1i/500D, and I skipped the 18-55 kit lens in favor of the 17-55/2.8. The first L series lens that I bought was the EF 100/2.8L Macro IS. That was in 2009, and I still have it (with no plans to swap it for the RF version).

 

[tron]

I followed this way of thinking back in the analog era.

I bought midrange bodies and L lenses. But back then the "sensor" was the same (I preferred the fuji "sensor")

 

[AlanF]

I was one of those who started with a Rebel. I remember the advice back then was not to spend too much on a camera, since you'd likely be upgrading regularly. Spend on the glass, since you'll keep that for years.

I am still using the white lens I bought to go with my Rebel xTI, 14 years ago.

Glass used to retain its value to the extent that a decade or more ago in times of inflation you could sell L lenses for more than you paid for them. Nowadays, some owners of big whites have made serious losses. It's a mistake to spend too much on anything.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Glass used to retain its value to the extent that a decade or more ago in times of inflation you could sell L lenses for more than you paid for them. Nowadays, some owners of big whites have made serious losses. It's a mistake to spend too much on anything.

True. Up until ~2012, I was in th black as far as net cost of lens sales. I usually lost no more than $50-100 selling lenses bought new, and generally sold lenses bought used for more than I paid for them, or at worst the same I had paid. The EF L-series lenses I've sold as I transition to RF have all been at a loss. However, I'd had those lenses for at least 6 years and in most cases 9-11 years so I'm not at all bothered by the loss – I buy lenses to use them, not as an investment.

 

[AlanF]

True. Up until ~2012, I was in th black as far as net cost of lens sales. I usually lost no more than $50-100 selling lenses bought new, and generally sold lenses bought used for more than I paid for them, or at worst the same I had paid. The EF L-series lenses I've sold as I transition to RF have all been at a loss. However, I'd had those lenses for at least 6 years and in most cases 9-11 years so I'm not at all bothered by the loss – I buy lenses to use them, not as an investment.

Unless you are pro making a profit out of your use of gear, none of them are an investment! I don't resent any of my accumulated losses because I have had great enjoyment from the gear.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

The cost to develop a 1D MK IV would be very high. Then, advertising, distribution and setting up spare parts and tooling for repair centers around the world. It does not make financial sense. I expect to see entry level cameras switching over in the next 2 years. The cost to develop and release them is high, but so many are sold that its not a big cost on a per camera basis. For the most part, they make minor tweaks and slap on a new label. Every few years, they come out with a new sensor.

 

[JohnC]

I followed this way of thinking back in the analog era.

I bought midrange bodies and L lenses. But back then the "sensor" was the same (I preferred the fuji "sensor")

I liked the Velvia model myself for most things.

 

[tron]

I liked the Velvia model myself for most things.

Velvia for 50 ASA, Fujichrome 100 and Fujicolor 100 (or up to 400).

 

[bernie_king]

Hard to call something 'dead' that accounts for 41% of ILCs manufactured this year. You may next claim the DSLR is 'dying' but given the MILC/DSLR distribution of ILCs has been changing by about 1% per year for the past several years, that's like saying a healthy 43 year-old is dying.

It's dead from a development standpoint. How many DSLR's have been announced in the past year? How many EF lenses? How many EF lenses were discontinued without replacement? Actually since the 1DX Mark III? I'd imagine the 1DX III was in the pipeline when mirrorless started taking off, but I can't imagine another being released. I'm sure they still have old stock to sell, but that's it. The replacement for every existing model will be mirrorless.

 

[neuroanatomist]

It's dead from a development standpoint. How many DSLR's have been announced in the past year? How many EF lenses? How many EF lenses were discontinued without replacement? Actually since the 1DX Mark III? I'd imagine the 1DX III was in the pipeline when mirrorless started taking off, but I can't imagine another being released. I'm sure they still have old stock to sell, but that's it. The replacement for every existing model will be mirrorless.

Canon has announced only one ILC this year, the R3, and that’s for a niche market. Last year, they launched three MILCs and two DSLRs. In 2019, they launched three MILCs and two DSLRs. In 2018…three MILCs and two DSLRs (and I’m counting the R and the Ra separately). On average over the past several years, Canon’s launches have paralleled the market share — ~3:2 MILC : DSLR.

It’s a pandemic and already-finite R&D resources are further constrained. Launching just one ILC this year is atypical. If you want to interpret the release of no DSLRs in 2021 as meaning Canon will never release another one, you must also conclude that Canon will never launch another camera costing less than $5000. Good luck with that.

The 1D X III was launched a year ago. I suspect there will be more production runs, there’s no 1-series MILC yet and even with the R1 not all pros will switch straight off.

I agree there won’t be a 1D X IV or a 5D V, and most likely no 95D. But I’m pretty sure there will be more xxxD/xxxxD DSLRs released, and more M-series bodies as well. As I stated, >40% of ILCs manufactured this year were DSLRs. do you honestly believe Canon will just abandon that segment? It seems very unlikely. There will need to be occasional refreshes to those low end lines to keep the market current, and I expect we will see those refreshes in the coming year or two, as pandemic constraints ease and resources can be shifted away from the need to rapidly expand the R-series and RF lineups.

The existing EF-S and EF-M lineups are quite good, though I bet we’ll see some minor updates there (consider how many versions of the EF-S 18-55 there have been, with some updates being mainly cosmetic and intended simply to reduce production costs).

Logic supports the conclusion that DSLRs will remain a significant segment of the ILC market, and Canon will continue to support that segment with their development efforts. Of course, not everyone understands logic.

Remember this?



Don’t be that guy, egg on the face is not a good look for anyone.

 

[bernie_king]

Canon has announced only one ILC this year, the R3, and that’s for a niche market. Last year, they launched three MILCs and two DSLRs. In 2019, they launched three MILCs and two DSLRs. In 2018…three MILCs and two DSLRs (and I’m counting the R and the Ra separately). On average over the past several years, Canon’s launches have paralleled the market share — ~3:2 MILC : DSLR.

It’s a pandemic and already-finite R&D resources are further constrained. Launching just one ILC this year is atypical. If you want to interpret the release of no DSLRs in 2021 as meaning Canon will never release another one, you must also conclude that Canon will never launch another camera costing less than $5000. Good luck with that.

The 1D X III was launched a year ago. I suspect there will be more production runs, there’s no 1-series MILC yet and even with the R1 not all pros will switch straight off.

I agree there won’t be a 1D X IV or a 5D V, and most likely no 95D. But I’m pretty sure there will be more xxxD/xxxxD DSLRs released, and more M-series bodies as well. As I stated, >40% of ILCs manufactured this year were DSLRs. do you honestly believe Canon will just abandon that segment? It seems very unlikely. There will need to be occasional refreshes to those low end lines to keep the market current, and I expect we will see those refreshes in the coming year or two, as pandemic constraints ease and resources can be shifted away from the need to rapidly expand the R-series and RF lineups.

The existing EF-S and EF-M lineups are quite good, though I bet we’ll see some minor updates there (consider how many versions of the EF-S 18-55 there have been, with some updates being mainly cosmetic and intended simply to reduce production costs).

Logic supports the conclusion that DSLRs will remain a significant segment of the ILC market, and Canon will continue to support that segment with their development efforts. Of course, not everyone understands logic.

Remember this?

View attachment 201248

Don’t be that guy, egg on the face is not a good look for anyone.

Actually, logic supports that Canon will not support three mounts. There's only so much money for development and they will devote it to the market direction. DSLRs make up 40% of the ILC market because that's what's available at the low end of the market, not because those people want them. I expect some low cost rebel-type MILC cameras in 2022 that will replace the current Rebel/Kiss lines along with more lower level glass. Making new EF or EF-S glass makes no sense. I guess we'll see.

 

[JohnC]

I would agree that there will most likely be another M mount released, but aren't M's mirrorless? I know my M6II is but perhaps there are some models that are not. While there is a large percentage of the market that is still DSLR, I have to wonder if that is really driven by new development and sales, or by low cost inventory being released into the market as the market shift occurs. Granted, it could be either one, but with the R, RS, R6, R5, R3 releases, and the existence of the M line.... it would seem that Canon is shifting their focus. In my opinion that is a huge investment in a relatively short period of time. I have to wonder if the 90D and the 1DXIII releases weren't just gap fillers to keep the sales rolling in a potential lull as the shift occurs.

Who knows, I suppose we will all see the picture clearly enough in a couple of years.

I think the more interesting question is, with the rumored ground-breaking specs of the R1 being discussed, if a certain nationally acclaimed multi-million dollar capital spending sports photography agency will single-handedly break the 400k preorder record that Nikon supposedly achieved by pre-ordering the R1.

 

[docsmith]

Thinking about it, many things about the M series still make it a gateway to the R. As has been noted, as people advance, they usually update their lenses.

But the ergonomics, menu system, feel of the files, etc. those all transition from the M to the R.
I started with Canon picking up, holding and playing with the menus of several different camera systems in 2003 at a Kits cameras. To this day, I pick up a Canon and it feels intuitive. I pick up other brands and it just doesn’t feel right. How many people are like that?

 

[koenkooi]

Thinking about it, many things about the M series still make it a gateway to the R. As has been noted, as people advance, they usually update their lenses.

But the ergonomics, menu system, feel of the files, etc. those all transition from the M to the R.
I started with Canon picking up, holding and playing with the menus of several different camera systems in 2003 at a Kits cameras. To this day, I pick up a Canon and it feels intuitive. I pick up other brands and it just doesn’t feel right. How many people are like that?

I take it one step further by having pretty much the same options in "My Menu" for every camera I use

 

[PauloF]

I would like to thank everyone who took the time to share their impressions and expectations. I see a common path regarding the future of the DSLR that even if we still can use a 1DXIII for the next 5, 10, or 15 years, it seems it will be it. If DSLR has a dead-end in the "near" future, we should also expect more lenses to be discontinued and fewer firmware updates. And that is a major problem, sadly so.

 

[LogicExtremist]

I would agree that there will most likely be another M mount released, but aren't M's mirrorless? I know my M6II is but perhaps there are some models that are not. While there is a large percentage of the market that is still DSLR, I have to wonder if that is really driven by new development and sales, or by low cost inventory being released into the market as the market shift occurs. Granted, it could be either one, but with the R, RS, R6, R5, R3 releases, and the existence of the M line.... it would seem that Canon is shifting their focus. In my opinion that is a huge investment in a relatively short period of time. I have to wonder if the 90D and the 1DXIII releases weren't just gap fillers to keep the sales rolling in a potential lull as the shift occurs.

Who knows, I suppose we will all see the picture clearly enough in a couple of years.

I think the more interesting question is, with the rumored ground-breaking specs of the R1 being discussed, if a certain nationally acclaimed multi-million dollar capital spending sports photography agency will single-handedly break the 400k preorder record that Nikon supposedly achieved by pre-ordering the R1.

Aren't these very different markets? Why would they let any go if they were profitable?

• The Rebel series ASPC DSLR cameras are junior versions of the full-frame DSLR cameras, and provide a lot of the controls that the big full-frame DSLRs and MILCs have. They're an affordable way to learn to use that style of camera, and to shoot manual controls.
  
  
• The M-mount MILCs (and lenses) are much more compact, often with far less controls or an emphasis on emulating a full-frame DSLR or MILC. They're really popular with people coming from phones, who do lots of video for social media, and some photography as well, and don't necessarily want all the buttons for manual control. The M50 and M50 II are amongst the most popular vlogging cameras for this reason.
  
  
• The 80D/90D series ASPC DSLRs are midrange, pro-amateur cameras for those who want a crop sensor for specialised use such as wildlife (which is the market for the pro-level 7D series), or want a more generalist camera that can do almost everything and provides an affordable entry into manual photography with almost all the fancy controls on the full-frames.
  
  
• The RF series - RP, R, R6, R5, R3 are full-frame MIRCs that range from entry level to pro but don't really overlap with the previous categories and serve quite different markets.

If Canon is planning on getting rid of anything, it appears that it's the use of mid to high end crop cameras (80D, 90D, 7D, 7D II) with with full-frame lenses for extra reach, as was the practise with wildlife photographers. This is the third category I listed above.

They're putting out quite a few cheap RF telephoto lenses (RF 600 and 800 f/11, Rf 100-400 f/8), but for an entry-level system, the small battery in the RP isn't ideal for moving big lenses quickly, an with Servo AF enabled (continuous autofocus), Canon claims EOS R's max burst speed is 5.0 fps, and EOS RP's max burst speed is 4.0 fps.