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

[Sporgon]

For what I do, I don’t see much point in upgrading short of a jump to Fujifilm 100S.

Although that camera body itself is nearly as handy as FF my concern with the system is that the inflexibility would result in less interesting images, unless one has the wherewithal to fully equip that system with the lenses, flash and computer power that you’d need to keep the same degree of flexibility that you probably have now. This, and the fact that no one else other than myself will be able to see any difference in the output is what’s stopped me from going down that route.

 

[neuroanatomist]

…the fact that no one else other than myself will be able to see any difference in the output is what’s stopped me from going down that route.

For my needs, 20-30 MP is plenty. I don’t feel the need for the 45-50 MP available on FF, much less for even more by switching formats.

With my R3 in hand, I need to decide whether to keep the R or the 1D X as a backup. I prefer shooting with the 1D X over the R by a wide margin, but I will probably keep the R as a backup because of the RF lenses.

 

[AlanF]

For my needs, 20-30 MP is plenty. I don’t feel the need for the 45-50 MP available on FF, much less for even more by switching formats.

With my R3 in hand, I need to decide whether to keep the R or the 1D X as a backup. I prefer shooting with the 1D X over the R by a wide margin, but I will probably keep the R as a backup because of the RF lenses.

You might want to consider getting rid of both for an R6 as back up. It really is rather good, and I tend to grab mine when I don't need 45 Mpx from the R5.

 

[Skyscraperfan]

If Canon really ends DLSRs, wouldn't that also mean that would offer mirrorless alternatives for the cheapest DLSRs that start around $300? For that price I might buy a mirrorless camera very soon as a second body just to become familiar with the pros and cons of a mirrorless body. However those cheap version would probably have many more cons than the expensive ones. The big advantage of mirrorless cameras is the IBIS, but I do not think cheap mirrorless cameras will have IBIS. They will probably also have a very bad EVF and a low batteryv life.

 

[bf]

He also doesn't say a thing about EOS-M, but Craig can't miss an opportunity to take a shot at M. Methinks the whole post is clickbait.

Agreed!
Also, I'd switch to Fuji X for a portable ILC if M line is gone not R mount.

 

[tron]

7D, 6D, 5D and 1D have all had "Mkii" versions, so nothing to stop Canon calling it "90D Mkii"...

Come to that, they could even go for "99D" if they wanted to.

Where there's a will, there's a way.

I'm not sure what features they'd add, or what improvements they'd make to the 90D, but I'm sure they could spice it up at minimal cost to ensure its continued popularity. I don't think they'd change the sensor, but maybe a higher magnification viewfinder, more AF points, or just a "limited edition" with different cosmetics.

They can add the features that 7DII has and 90D is missing. If they combine these they could very well make a 7DIII equivalent and I believe it will have great success among bird shooters. They can even keep the 90D sensor...

 

[entoman]

They can add the features that 7DII has and 90D is missing. If they combine these they could very well make a 7DIII equivalent and I believe it will have great success among bird shooters. They can even keep the 90D sensor...

What features do you have in mind?

 

[Sporgon]

If Canon really ends DLSRs, wouldn't that also mean that would offer mirrorless alternatives for the cheapest DLSRs that start around $300? For that price I might buy a mirrorless camera very soon as a second body just to become familiar with the pros and cons of a mirrorless body. However those cheap version would probably have many more cons than the expensive ones. The big advantage of mirrorless cameras is the IBIS, but I do not think cheap mirrorless cameras will have IBIS. They will probably also have a very bad EVF and a low batteryv life.

So now you realise that you’ve been looking through a transmissible LCD in your dslr mirrorless doesn’t sound so bad ? If ever you want to see what an unadulterated OVF looks like get a high quality late ‘70s SLR such as the Nikon FM/FE, Pentax ME/MX etc with a 1.4 lens. I warn you; you’ll be miffed.
Pentax have been putting IBIS in their DSLRs for the past decade by the way.
I still prefer DSLR to mirrorless but cannot deny the advantages of the latter.

 

[AlanF]

If Canon really ends DLSRs, wouldn't that also mean that would offer mirrorless alternatives for the cheapest DLSRs that start around $300? For that price I might buy a mirrorless camera very soon as a second body just to become familiar with the pros and cons of a mirrorless body. However those cheap version would probably have many more cons than the expensive ones. The big advantage of mirrorless cameras is the IBIS, but I do not think cheap mirrorless cameras will have IBIS. They will probably also have a very bad EVF and a low batteryv life.

IBIS is a nice feature but relatively minor as the big advantages of mirrorless are from on-sensor AF: a very large number of AF points so inherently far superior tracking and subject recognition; the ability to AF down to f/22 or narrower; no need for AFMA; and probably more reproducible AF. The IBIS is of minor significance to me as I shoot mainly with telephoto lenses where the main stabilization is IS and so IBIS might add just a stop.

 

[roby17269]

Well, you can accept the word of the Canon CEO that DSLRs will continue to be developed by his company…or you can choose not to accept it.

No one here obviously knows what Canon is really going to do with DSLRs.
But I would be wary of assuming "continuing to develop" means much, especially the release of new low- and mid-level DSLR models.

While it is certainly possible that we will see new Rebels, it is also possible that Canon is not willing to jeopardize whatever leftover sales of unsold inventory are in the hopper. I remember a number of similar announcements from different companies that ended up in nothing, e.g. Sony saying years ago that they would continue to develop their SLTs. We all know what has happened and it took them till 2021 to sort of admit that that line was dead.

Again, I have no insights to say which way Canon will go about this, nor I am saying that Canon will follow in Sony's footsteps... nor my life will be affected should a new Rebel actually be introduced. But IMHO, to me any new DSLR announcements will be a surprise, from any manufacturer (apart from Pentax)

 

[tron]

What features do you have in mind?

Custom button configuration like 5DIV, 5DsR, 7D2 where you can configure whole settings like shutter speed, exp comp, customer af modes, af patterns with the press of a button. (You can use a single point af with a low speed when shooting static birds and when you see a bird flying you press the button, the speed rises to say 1/2500 sec, af pattern changes to all points or zone af for instance. It has been very useful for me.

Also AF assist points (4 and 8) that exist in the other cameras, fps programmable up to 10, gps embedded (less urgent since there are alternatives for that) and maybe the higher drive of white AF lenses that I had seen rumored/mentioned some time in the past (the later will not be nothing like the 1 series capability but I had read that 7D2 had a similar capability - not sure 100% for this)

Anyway I consider the rest of the capabilities important for me.

All the above are features of 7D2. Maybe the 200000 shutter activations too (90D has 120000)

 

[entoman]

Custom button configuration like 5DIV, 5DsR, 7D2 where you can configure whole settings like shutter speed, exp comp, customer af modes, af patterns with the press of a button. (You can use a single point af with a low speed when shooting static birds and when you see a bird flying you press the button, the speed rises to say 1/2500 sec, af pattern changes to all points or zone af for instance. It has been very useful for me.

Also AF assist points (4 and 8) that exist in the other cameras, fps programmable up to 10, gps embedded (less urgent since there are alternatives for that) and maybe the higher drive of white AF lenses that I had seen rumored/mentioned some time in the past (the later will not be nothing like the 1 series capability but I had read that 7D2 had a similar capability - not sure 100% for this)

Anyway I consider the rest of the capabilities important for me.

All the above are features of 7D2. Maybe the 200000 shutter activations too (90D has 120000)

Well good luck, but I think Canon want to push users away from DSLRs, with the possible exception exception of Rebels, of which I think we'll see a couple of minor upgrades next year.

Much as I love DSLRs, the market is turning away from them, so I hope Canon and Nikon will turn their attention to making their EVFs as DSLR-like as possible.

By that, I mean very fast refresh rates, ZERO start-up lag, and an *option* to simulate the ambient lighting level, as an alternative to so-called "WYSIWYG".

... and reduced battery consumption (without the necessity for battery grips).

Cameras such as the R3 and Z9 are edging closer to that experience, but it will take a few years for it to filter down to the budget RF and Z models.

 

[tron]

Well good luck, but I think Canon want to push users away from DSLRs, with the possible exception exception of Rebels, of which I think we'll see a couple of minor upgrades next year.

Much as I love DSLRs, the market is turning away from them, so I hope Canon and Nikon will turn their attention to making their EVFs as DSLR-like as possible.

By that, I mean very fast refresh rates, ZERO start-up lag, and an *option* to simulate the ambient lighting level, as an alternative to so-called "WYSIWYG".

... and reduced battery consumption (without the necessity for battery grips).

Cameras such as the R3 and Z9 are edging closer to that experience, but it will take a few years for it to filter down to the budget RF and Z models.

I do not expect them I just answered your question. Regarding mirrorless, I agree with you about the mentioned shortcomings.

 

[Bishop80]

...Firstly, DSLRs have been developed about as far as they can go, so in order to produce more technologically "exciting" and feature-laden bodies, they had to go the mirrorless route.

I would disagree on this point. There's no way DSLRs have reached the peak of technology, especially for a flagship model. I could load up a full wish list of improvements for a mirrored body. For example, why not have BOTH an OVF and EVF using the same eyepiece? Mirror down, you get the OVF. Mirror up, and an LCD takes over (ie, flips into position, or the mirror is now positioned to reflect the EVF LDC into the viewfinder). There's also much improvement still to be made in mirrored autofocus features. Canon already introduced an expanded AF sensor array that can detect heads and faces. Do we really think that's the absolute limit of what is possible?

There are many reasons for mirrorless to take over, but reaching a development limit for dSLRs I think is not one of them.

 

[Skyscraperfan]

Okay, focus might be better on mirrorless, but I hardly ever have a problem to focus anything with my DSLR. It feels like someone telling me that mirrorless cameras can cook the best coffee, but I never drink coffee anyway.

I wonder where the medium format camera from Phase One for example will go. Will they also switch to mirrorless? As they offer a modular system anyway, I wonder if they will offer camera back that can be combined with bodies with or without a mirror.

By the way, weren't the complicated mirrior and shutter mechanisms, that were capable of 12 shots or even more per second, one of the main reasons for the high price of the 1D camera line for example? If a camera just contains chips and hardly any mechanical components, costing as much as a really expensive notebook is really a lot.

 

[Sporgon]

For example, why not have BOTH an OVF and EVF using the same eyepiece? Mirror down, you get the OVF. Mirror up, and an LCD takes over (ie, flips into position, or the mirror is now positioned to reflect the EVF LDC into the viewfinder).

This is something that I suggested around 2014 and on a number of occasions since: have an interchangeable prism head (like the Canon F-1, Nikon F, F2, F3 etc) that can be swapped out for an EVF. When the EVF is fitted the mirror locks up and away you go.
I guess there are a number of reasons why this hasn’t been done, one of which will undoubtably be the fact that Canon want to drive their customers towards the new mount, so there is probably little return to be gained from developing the concept and hanging onto the EF mount.

 

[entoman]

I would disagree on this point. There's no way DSLRs have reached the peak of technology, especially for a flagship model. I could load up a full wish list of improvements for a mirrored body. For example, why not have BOTH an OVF and EVF using the same eyepiece? Mirror down, you get the OVF. Mirror up, and an LCD takes over (ie, flips into position, or the mirror is now positioned to reflect the EVF LDC into the viewfinder). There's also much improvement still to be made in mirrored autofocus features. Canon already introduced an expanded AF sensor array that can detect heads and faces. Do we really think that's the absolute limit of what is possible?

There are many reasons for mirrorless to take over, but reaching a development limit for dSLRs I think is not one of them.

It's *possible*, but I think we have almost reached the point where it is *impracticable and uneconomic* to develop DSLRs further.

I've mooted the idea of a hybrid EVF/OVF here previously (and Canon has a patent or it), but I don't think demand would be high enough to warrant production, and it would cost more than either an EVF or OVF version alone.

Leaving aside better sensors, and the preference that many of us have for an optical finder, just about every other enhancement is easier and cheaper to implement in a MILC.

 

[AEWest]

I am curious as to which mount the current Canon DSLRs are that constitute the 40% of their sales. Is it 95% EF-S, 5% EF? Obviously the EF-S will have the majority due to price point, but what percentage?

I can't imagine Canon would come out with a new FF DSLR that would compete with any of their RF cameras.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I am curious as to which mount the current Canon DSLRs are that constitute the 40% of their sales. Is it 95% EF-S, 5% EF? Obviously the EF-S will have the majority due to price point, but what percentage?

Industry wide, crop cameras (APS-C and m4/3) comprised just under 90% of ILCs produced as of about two years ago. That ratio has been similar for several prior years as well. I haven’t seen a more recent estimate.

 

[unfocused]

Apologies in advance for the length of this post. Just pointing out a few things.

I’m not sure past sales figures are that relevant. The market has changed significantly over the past few years. Canon has significantly built out its R system and has put most of its research, development, and marketing dollars into full frame mirrorless. (As have their major competitors). Quoting sales figures for budget DSLRs is also not relevant when there is no competing mirrorless product.

Even if budget DSLRs represent the bulk of sales today, the trend lines are not moving in that direction.

Enthusiasts are driving the market today. While enthusiasts may constitute a small portion of the market by unit sales, they represent the foundation and future of the market from a revenue outlook.

Enthusiasts are the only segment that is not in decline. They have high discretionary income that is generally insulated from market fluctuations, which is why Canon, Nikon and Sony are all targeting enthusiasts.

While Mr. Mitarai stated that Canon will continue to develop and sell DSLRs, the end of the line for its flagship DSLR is not a vote of confidence in the future.

It is unlikely that Canon will be developing “L” series lenses for a non-existent camera. Does anyone believe that Canon will develop Big Whites and fast primes and zooms in the EF mount if they don’t have a flagship EF body to mount those lenses on?

I believe there is a slim chance that Canon may eventually release a “final” full frame DSLR that they can leave on the market for the next 10-20 years, just as they did with their final film SLR. It is also possible that Canon may update some popular EF lenses to reflect improved manufacturing efficiencies, but I doubt we will see new optical formulas or newly introduced lenses.

The M and the Rebel lines have an overlapping audience, but there are a couple of defining differences.

The M line is targeted to consumers who prioritize size.

The Rebel line is targeted to consumers who prioritize cost.

Combining the two into a single market is misleading.

In my view, the M line is difficult for Canon to transition to the R system, due to design limitations. Nor do I see much point in trying to do so. People who buy into the M line may pick up one, two or three lenses depending on the level of their interest and are likely, again, to prioritize size. But, an M user is not going to care about mounting a 100-500 zoom or a large, fast prime on the body.

Rebel users are price driven. If Canon decides to develop a range of R bodies that compete with Rebels for price these consumers will happily buy the R bodies. As others have pointed out, no Rebel buyer is going to care if the body is mirrorless or mirrored. In fact, most probably won’t know the difference and if the ads tell people mirrorless is better, they will buy it. (After all, it worked with enthusiasts, who delude themselves into believing they are more discerning)

There is nothing magical about the APS-C format for Rebels. Film rebels were full frame and no one ever thought they should be otherwise. APS-C was simply a cost-saving format at a time when sensors were a major cost of a digital camera body. If Canon decides to make a range of low-cost mirrorless R mount bodies (Rebels) they can just as easily be full frame as APS-C. 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.

There is a market for an APS-C enthusiast body, but I don’t know if the market is large enough to make such a body cost effective. Only time will tell. In favor of such a body would be that the market would be enthusiasts who are not price sensitive. An R90 and/or an R7 might be worth Canon’s investment. One upside is that the R mount, unlike the EF mount, does not require special lenses, although I think a single 15-85mm lens might be worthwhile. An argument against an APS-C R is that as resolution increases for full frame bodies, there is less and less incentive to purchase a specialist APS-C body. Couple that with low-cost telephoto lenses like the 600 f11/, 800 f/11 and new 100-400 and you begin to slice that potential market into ever smaller pieces.

Quoting one of the greatest philosophers of the 20th Century:

These are my principles and if you don’t like them, well I have others.