It reminds me of evolutionary biology of cases you have a massive increase in variation within a group of creatures as it struggles with difficult conditions and tries different permutations to attempt to adapt - often right before an extinction.
Right now we have 7 APS-C DSLR bodies , roughly in order of capability and price: 4000D, 2000D, 200D, 800D, 77D, 80D, 7D Mark II.
(Note I'm using the semi-sensible European numbers not the Rebel xTwtf type names used in America)
In the last four years we've seen two lines split into two new lines (the X000D line to the 2000D and 4000D and the X00D line into the 760D/77D line and the 750D/800D line). None of this made much sense.
It reminds me of evolutionary biology of cases you have a massive increase in variation within a group of creatures as it struggles with difficult conditions and tries different permutations to attempt to adapt - often right before an extinction.
Now that has played out we'll see I'm sure that there will be a 7D II replacement which may be lower priced to tempt 80D owners, there will be a 800D replacement possibly called the 88D and aimed at that market, and the 200D, 2000D, and 4000D will carry on unchanged until the heat death of the universe/Canon no longer make DSLRs, whichever comes first.
Also it better not be made into a eos-m camera, we need an eos-R camera or mirrorless body with ef-s lenses. There's no point in continuing to develop ef-M lenses it's a wasted resource and splits the userbase.
Electronic items are priced based on the count of parts, I've been in that business and its the way the pricing is done, unless there is a particularly expensive piece that distorts the pricing. Eventually, the actual price to produce is determined, but initially, its estimated based on historical costs and piece count. Recovery of R&D is also factored in, and thats high for a new technology.The cost of a prism (or mirror), a motor to flip it up out of the way, and some glass to show the image in the viewfinder is way less than the cost of the hardware needed to provide a high resolution small screen. The bodies of the smaller cameras need more expensive materials to keep them sturdy, and the cost of the material to actually make the shell of the body is fractions of a penny difference between a top of the line camera and a cheap one. I don't know why this rumor of how mirrorless is cheaper than DSLR's got started, but it's getting old. At some point that may be the case if high pixel count very small displays become a mainstream thing with augmented reality glasses but until that time they are niche.
I don't think that 80D users care about price, ..........
I'm afraid this makes no sense. People have been talking about an APS-C RF body, which may happen though I think that too doesn't make sense, but the idea they will bring out *yet another* line of lenses for it is beyond credulity imho. The M series has a primary purpose: small size for camera+lens giving pretty good IQ and features - and by all accounts it sells well, so dropping it would be bad business. RF is for top image quality and presumably functionality. The primary advantage of EF-S versus EF was that they could make the lenses smaller and cheaper in a limited focal length range because the former could extend further back into the body as the mirror on APS-C bodies was smaller. But that is no longer the case in RF (versus a putative RF-S line), because there is no mirror, and RF lenses are much closer to the sensor. While a modest size saving might be had (again in a limited range of cases) simply by projecting a smaller image circle (I guess?), I don't see that as compelling enough to launch a new line of lenses with limited cross compatibility, potentially confusing customers further.
Oh - on rereading, I see you mentioned an EF-S (I assume native?) MILC. That is absolutely not gonna happen either - though you can of course mount EF-S lenses on the R with an adaptor. While before the announcement of the R, I strongly believed a native EF MILC was a good option (and maybe they'd release one alongside a new mount), it seems from everything Canon are saying that such a premise is now dead and buried.
I think it’s likely that Canon is unsure of its near future roadmap because the technology and market is changing so quickly. Plans that have been in place are being scrapped for new strawman plans as the market is evolving. Canon will need to become faster at camera evolutions to keep up with competitors. These confusing and changing rumors are likely a result of some internal turmoil at Canon.
Sony just announced their new APS-C mirrorless a6400. Cost $900, 11 FPS while tracking. Animal eye AF. 4K video with no crop and no pixel binning. Tilt- flip screen.
Is this what the Canon camera of this rumor will compete with? Doubt if Canon will match this price.
With the ‘amazing MILC spec sheets’, don’t you wonder why consumers buy DSLRs? Yet they do...more frequently than they buy MILCs. So in all likelihood, the rumored Canon will not only ‘compete with’ the new Sony, it will outsell it.Sony just announced their new APS-C mirrorless a6400. Cost $900, 11 FPS while tracking. Animal eye AF. 4K video with no crop and no pixel binning. Tilt- flip screen.
Is this what the Canon camera of this rumor will compete with? Doubt if Canon will match this price.