Oh that was good. Depending on the latitude of the film of course.not to mention that one might use an EF film camera where the correction matrix is much harder to apply...
Upvote
0
Oh that was good. Depending on the latitude of the film of course.not to mention that one might use an EF film camera where the correction matrix is much harder to apply...
There’s this thing going on you may have heard of, called a global pandemic. If you base your conclusion on this year, then you’d believe Canon only develops cameras costing $6000.
There's something called a pandemic and extreme supply shortages happening right now. I hope you don't use that as any kind of proof. but the last DSLR was 2019 I think.
(CIPA) In Jan-Oct 1,842,524 new DSLRs were produced.
It's apparently a direct quote from Mitarai, who is often ambiguous, but in this case seems to be stating quite firmly that "development and production" of beginner (Rebel) and intermediate (xxD) DSLRs will continue while demand still exists.
I agree that the implication is that new APS-C models (minor hardware upgrades) will appear, but I'm confident that we can wave goodbye to any ideas that there might be a successor to the 6DMkii.
Canon would I'm sure *prefer* that everyone dumped their DSLRs and that all new buyers went for RF mount models, but equally they'd be foolish to shut down lines that are still very profitable.
This is the second time you've used this argument today. In 2021 (Jan-Nov), the difference between production and shipments for camera bodies was 0.4%. In 2020, the difference was 0.9%. In 2019, it was 2.6% and in 2018 it was 0.8%. So the actual data suggest this stockpiling that you're claiming makes such a difference is basically insignificant.Produced or shipped? There's a difference. Bodies and lenses are often stockpiled. Then production lines are converted to make other models. They might not get back to the first model for months or even years, depending on sales volumes.
I think there are two different markets. The "typical" buyer for a Rebel probably doesn't even know the difference between APS-C and full frame. For those buyers, if Canon makes full frame mirrorless Rebels, they will buy them if the cost is low enough....The question today is will enough users want a crop camera for the "reach". For the past 15 or more years, that is something users may have gotten used to and may still want in the future. ( I am one of those users and just bought a Nikon Z50 for that very reason.)...
This is the second time you've used this argument today. In 2021 (Jan-Nov), the difference between production and shipments for camera bodies was 0.4%. In 2020, the difference was 0.9%. In 2019, it was 2.6% and in 2018 it was 0.8%. So the actual data suggest this stockpiling that you're claiming makes such a difference is basically insignificant.
Care to try another argument? I'd suggest going with one that is actually consistent with the readily available data instead of one that's so easy to refute.
It does make sense for Canon to sporadically produce (i.e., stockpile) niche products like 1-series bodies (and probably the R3), the >$6K supertele lenses, tilt-shift lenses, the RF 5.2mm dual fisheye, etc. But less esoteric products like consumer bodies/lenses, the L-series zooms, etc., are more likely produced in more frequent runs.
Canon’s CEO was quite clear – they will continue to develop and produce DSLRs as long as there is a market for them. Right now, that market is over 40% of all ILCs. If Canon can release cameras that people buy instead of DSLRs, and DSLR sales drop, then Canon DSLRs will be dead. Realistically, given the near-equal popularity of EOS M and DSLRs domestically for Canon, and Canon citing stronger foreign demand for DSLRs, replacement means ‘real cameras’ (MILCs with a Rebel/xxxD form factor) that sell for <$600 with a kit lens.
There’s no way Canon will just abandon 40% of the market.
The fact that you’re citing TN pretty much torpedos anything else you have to say. I guess you like misinfotainment.
Incidentally, for the month of November the best-selling ILC in Japan was the Kiss X10 2-lens kit. That’s the domestic name of the 250D/Rebel SL3…a DSLR. So yeah, it makes sense to some people that Canon wants to kill off DSLRs ASAP...just like the earth being flat makes sense to some people.
The fact that you’re citing TN pretty much torpedos anything else you have to say. I guess you like misinfotainment.
Incidentally, for the month of November the best-selling ILC in Japan was the Kiss X10 2-lens kit. That’s the domestic name of the 250D/Rebel SL3…a DSLR. So yeah, it makes sense to some people that Canon wants to kill off DSLRs ASAP...just like the earth being flat makes sense to some people.
You do realise that your DSLR also needs to have a battery inserted in order to operate the shutter, meter and AF system?
Moreover, modern DSLRs that have transmissive LCDs in the viewfinder (which is pretty much all of them for the past decade) require power for a normal view through the OVF. Pull the battery and the OVF gets rather dark.
It’s drawing power even with the power switch off. Many devices do that. As I already stated, look through the VF then remove the battery and look again.
Wow, that is creepy. Why do they do that? I know glass coating like that from windows. They get milky without power. But why do that in a camera? That must be very unhealthy for the battery.
My SLR in 1970 needed a battery to shoot or at least for the light meter to work. It didn’t do anything automatically.
There are "lumpers" and "splitters". They spend their time fighting each other in all types of discussion and analysis, with the lumpers lumping things together as all being part of the same, and the splitters drawing fine distinctions - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lumpers_and_splitters Both have their place in progress and understanding.
The 90D has the transmissive LCD in the viewfinder which stays on even if the camera is switched off. I wish they could update the firmware to give us an option to turn this off when the camera is switched off, in my opinion this just causes unnecessary battery drain, is there a technical reason why they choose to leave the transmissive LCD switched on when the camera is switched off?
The 700D does not have the transmissive LCD so the viewfinder looks the same even with the battery removed.
I’m surprised! I thought for sure that given your prominence and the manifest importance of your opinions and business needs to Canon, certainly they’d have sent you a few different R1 prototypes to evaluate and select the one they should put into production.
I guess I was completely wrong, and you’re of no importance to Canon whatsoever. How sad.
What features do you have in mind?
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.
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.
I do not expect them I just answered your question. Regarding mirrorless, I agree with you about the mentioned shortcomings.
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.