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

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
4,330
2,456
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.

The 1D X Mark III came out in early 2020 followed closely by the 850D/RebelT8i. So the idea that the 1D X Mark III is "THE last DLSR" has been false since the 850D came out a few weeks after the 1D X Mark III.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
4,330
2,456
(CIPA) In Jan-Oct 1,842,524 new DSLRs were produced.

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.
 
Upvote 0

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
4,330
2,456
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.

Didn't they say the same thing about EF lens development a couple or three years ago. Something like, "If the market demands it we will continue to develop and produce new EF lenses?"

How many new EF lenses have been released since that statement was released around the time the EOS R system was introduced in 2018? It's now 2022.
 
Upvote 0

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
27,914
7,992
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.
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0

unfocused

Photos/Photo Book Reviews: www.thecuriouseye.com
Jul 20, 2010
6,952
5,090
69
Springfield, IL
www.thecuriouseye.com
...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.)...
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.

But, you are correct, for a segment of the enthusiast market (90D and 7D shooters mostly) the 1.6 crop is a feature that they consciously choose. That segment wants an R body that contains a crop sensor and is willing to pay a premium for such a body. They questions that only Canon can answer include: how large is that market, how much are they willing to spend and what features will they expect in such a camera.
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: 3 users
Upvote 0

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
4,330
2,456
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.

It's logical fallacy to assume that because there's only a miniscule difference between production and shipments that the two groups are the same cameras. They could be replacing some of those DSLRs shipped out of the stockpile with M50 Mark IIs and R6 bodies, which seem to have caught up with current demand.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
4,330
2,456
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.

Canon execs said the same thing ("... we will continue to develop and sell EF lenses as long as the market demands it.") about EF lenses almost four years ago.

How many new EF lenses have been released since that announcement?

How many EF lenses have been discontinued with no replacement in sight during that same time period?

At some point you must realize they don't seem to think the market demands it, so they're not lying. They're trying to assure consumers that if they buy an EF lens now they won't be left high and dry in terms of support, which I expect will last the typical seven years or so after discontinuance. They're trying to sell the remaining EF inventory in the pipeline for most, but certainly not all, of the EF lens lineup without making any more or replacing those lenses. The only ones that seem to still be getting produced are the handful that Canon C-series video camera users need. With the new RF mount C-series camera the handwriting is on the wall in that segment as well. Will it be instantaneous? Of course not, but I'd be surprised if any new EF lenses with major redesigns appear even for that market. You might get a few like the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II → III revision, which was basically new lens coatings and a different color paint.

You can argue all you want that once Canon fills out the RF lens lineup they will return to releasing truly new EF lens models, but in my opinion only a fool would believe that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Upvote 0

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
4,330
2,456
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.

Northrup says whatever he thinks will get clicks and generate buzz for Northrup. We all know that.

But on rare occasions what gets the most buzz can actually be true.

Even a broken clock is correct twice a day. Even a blind squirrel occasionally finds a nut. Even TN says something that is not incorrect every now and then.
 
Upvote 0

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
4,330
2,456
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.

Those transmissive screens are drawing about as much power as an LCD watch draws.

That pales in comparison to a fully powered up camera using an EVF.

Equating the two is like saying leaving my phone's charger plugged into the wall when I'm not charging my phone is just as wasteful as leaving my oven at 450°F when I'm not baking.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
4,330
2,456
My SLR in 1970 needed a battery to shoot or at least for the light meter to work. It didn’t do anything automatically.

That battery lasted for more than two hours, though. Prior to self-winding/self-cocking bodies, mine tended to last for months if not years.

On the other hand, your "memory card" could only hold 24-36 images before you had to change it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
4,330
2,456
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.


Not to mention that some of us lumpers have split personalities!
 
Upvote 0

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
4,330
2,456
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.

If you pull the battery out momentarily after turning it off and then put the battery all the way back in, does the transmissive screen power back up or always stay off with the 90D?
 
Upvote 0

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
4,330
2,456
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.

I guess they cut him off after he refused to buy 8,743 1D X Mark III bodies?
 
Upvote 0

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
4,330
2,456
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.

Transmissive screens don't drain batteries in 2-3 hours like EVFs do. It takes months.
 
Upvote 0

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
4,330
2,456
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.

It all depends upon what one is shooting. For someone doing wider angle street photography at night or on the dim light of dusk or dawn, IBIS is much more beneficial than IS.
 
Upvote 0

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
4,330
2,456
I do not expect them I just answered your question. Regarding mirrorless, I agree with you about the mentioned shortcomings.

But, but, but...

If you write anything on this forum about something that you would find useful, it HAS to mean that you are convinced Canon HAS to make such a product or they are D - O - O - M - E - D!!!
 
Upvote 0

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
4,330
2,456
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.

Face it. The reason Canon charges the amount they charge for 1-series cameras is not because of the cost of parts. It's because they can.

Last month every authorized Canon dealer in the U.S. was selling remaining 1D X Mark II bodies for $3,999.
 
Upvote 0