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
4,010
2,284
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:

For all except the penultimate paragraph I say, "Stop posting the facts. It leaves us with nothing to argue about."

Regarding the market for APS-C enthusiast bodies, though, I think it is precisely those enthusiasts who ARE the most price sensitive that want an APS-C RF body the most. Sure, we're not as price sensitive as the typical Rebel buyer, but we are more price sensitive than most of the enthusiasts who populate this forum as well as all others who buy 1D X series and R3 type bodies and great whites for personal use.

The big savings isn't necessarily on the body. The real savings is on the cost and weight of the lenses needed to get the same angles of view for field sports under lights (football and soccer at the less than professional or large college level) compared to a FF while preserving f/2.8 for the needed Tv.

As of about 2018 when the EOS R system was introduced:

7D Mark II + EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II = $1,699 + $2,099 = $3,798

7D Mark II + Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 G2 = $1,699 + $1,399 = $3,098

1D X Mark II + EF 300mm f/2.8 L IS II = $5,999 + $6,099 = $12,098 (plus you still need another body and 70-200mm for when the action gets closer at the end of the play)

1D X Mark II + Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 S = $5,999 + $3,599 = $9,598

Whether there are enough of us still around is the question only Canon gets to answer. As the demand for professionally done images of scholastic sports and similar things (school theatrical productions, band competitions, cheer competitions, etc.) continues to decline, there are fewer and fewer doing it as a side hustle or just trying to break even to support their photography habit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
4,010
2,284
I have it on good authority from Bryan Carnathan and Dustin Abbott that Noah was a Hasselblad user.

Heresy! All theologians know he was a Rolleiflex man while he was rolling on the river in the ark.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
4,010
2,284
It doesn't matter. None of the animal photographs can be published because they are all out of focus. His camera didn't have Animal Eye AF :(

Actually, it was because by the time the water receded and Noah could build a dark room his exposed film had suffered from exposure to heat too much. There were too many animals to make room for a d'Ark Room during the voyage.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
4,010
2,284
It might be a good time to remind you and everyone that "film cameras were all full frame" is not how it was. Many film formats were made to find a smaller alternative to 35mm film, the most popular being 126 and 110 film sizes. These were both big sellers, and most of the big camera makers made cameras that used 110 film, including Pentax, Minolta and Fujica. Of course, the APS-C size that we now associate with crop sensors, is based on the APS (advanced Photo System) film cameras that came out in the mid to late 1990s. Nikon, Canon and Minolta all made APS cameras, not just Kodak, who introduced the system in 1996. So, the desire to make smaller format cameras has been around for many decades, so it is not surprising that it is still a popular idea for many.
Yes, I should have been more specific. Most SLRs were “full frame.” There were a few exceptions but they were niche cameras with little to no consumer adoption.

But my main point still stands, there were no mass consumer SLRs other than 35mm “Full Frame.” There is no reason why the consumer entry level interchangeable lens cameras (Rebels) need to be a different sensor format if Canon can get the costs down to Rebel levels and in 2022, the sensor size is not the deciding factor it was 10-15 years ago.

Too many people on this forum just assume that Rebels have to be APS-C and that’s not true. Rebels have to be cheap, but they don’t have to be crop sensors.

The vast majority of 110 and 126 cameras were fixed lens instamatics. There were a few ILC cameras in those formats, but they were extremely rare compared to the ubiquity of 135 format ILCs.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
4,010
2,284
With the mirror and pentaprism/mirror of an optical viewfinder you are literally looking through the lens and can see distortion, vignetting, etc.

With an electronic viewfinder you are seeing images captured by the sensor that are processed as determined by the firmware. So for example, on a Canon R-series body with the RF 24-240, 14-35, or 16/2.8 you’ll never see the severe geometric distortion in the viewfinder (because the correction is enabled by default and cannot be turned off).

Sony and Fuji have been applying forced corrections for many years.

As well as Panasonic, Olympus, Samsung (before they got out of the ILC game), Nikon (V1 & J1), etc.
 

stevelee

FT-QL
CR Pro
Jul 6, 2017
2,271
974
Davidson, NC
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.
I hope I had presence of mind to remove the battery from my SLR, but probably not. It may be ruined. But that shouldn’t matter, since it is in a box underneath other stuff in the far reaches of a walk-in closet. I last used it to take some shots of Jupiter through my telescope back when I lived in a rural area 20 years ago. That telescope adaptor might even work on my DSLR. I intend to check some time before we pass nearer Jupiter and Saturn, I guess this summer. I was impressed with how good the shots were of the two planets back during the conjunction, showing four Jovian moons and Saturn’s rings. I had just figured that using my telescope here was pointless. I won’t get deep-space objects or the Milky Way, but planets ought to work well enough. And I can do a lot more with trial and error now that I don’t have to wait for film to be developed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

Midge

I'm New Here
Dec 1, 2021
14
8
Saw this one coming ages ago. Yet another camera company prepared to abandon its loyal DSLR following in favour of new technology that will make them money. Reminds me of when Olympus film cameras suddenly stopped being OM based and these funny little digital things appeared that didnt use the lenses I had accumulated over the years for my OM4Ti, whose value dropped to near zero almost immediately. So, a few thousands of pounds(even more in dollars)gone like that. I suspect my 6 month old 1DX Mk3 will drop like a stone through the same value hole, along with my EF fit lenses ( and this lot cost way more than the Olympus kit).
Call me cynical if you like, but this is most DEFINITELY a big fat hairy corporate rip off. Such a shame. I really like my Canon gear and feel cheated over the demise of the EF mount. Whats wrong with their technical people? They could quite easily have kept the same mount. The electronic box of tricks that is a mirrorless body looks like a DSLR so why change the mount? AAAhhh , I know !!!! Its a great way of earning mega-bucks by effectively forcing EF users with a great lens collection to either buy the RF adapters or trade in near worthless lenses on the used market for even more expensive RF mount equivalents!!!
Silly me!!! I didnt think corporations did that to consumers ( do they really?????)
 
  • Haha
Reactions: 1 users

privatebydesign

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
10,693
6,121
Saw this one coming ages ago. Yet another camera company prepared to abandon its loyal DSLR following in favour of new technology that will make them money. Reminds me of when Olympus film cameras suddenly stopped being OM based and these funny little digital things appeared that didnt use the lenses I had accumulated over the years for my OM4Ti, whose value dropped to near zero almost immediately. So, a few thousands of pounds(even more in dollars)gone like that. I suspect my 6 month old 1DX Mk3 will drop like a stone through the same value hole, along with my EF fit lenses ( and this lot cost way more than the Olympus kit).
Call me cynical if you like, but this is most DEFINITELY a big fat hairy corporate rip off. Such a shame. I really like my Canon gear and feel cheated over the demise of the EF mount. Whats wrong with their technical people? They could quite easily have kept the same mount. The electronic box of tricks that is a mirrorless body looks like a DSLR so why change the mount? AAAhhh , I know !!!! Its a great way of earning mega-bucks by effectively forcing EF users with a great lens collection to either buy the RF adapters or trade in near worthless lenses on the used market for even more expensive RF mount equivalents!!!
Silly me!!! I didnt think corporations did that to consumers ( do they really?????)
No a corporate rip off would have given us an RF mount that couldn’t take EF lenses. But the RF mount does take EF lenses perfectly and very cheaply. Some say their EF glass is better on R cameras because of better focus.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users

Midge

I'm New Here
Dec 1, 2021
14
8
Point taken but I still believe Canon missed the point by changing the mount. Unless there is a solid technical explanation that can assure me there was a valid need to do so!
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
26,909
6,185
Point taken but I still believe Canon missed the point by changing the mount. Unless there is a solid technical explanation that can assure me there was a valid need to do so!
The solid technical reason is the shorter flange focal distance. It's 20mm for RF, 44mm for EF. Granted, Canon could have kept the same flange distance but that would mean EOS R bodies that were substantially bulkier than they needed to be. In that case, instead of people complaining about greedy Canon using a new mount, people would be complaining about stodgy Canon not leveraging one of the advantages of new technology.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 users

slclick

EOS 3
Dec 17, 2013
4,647
3,051
The solid technical reason is the shorter flange focal distance. It's 20mm for RF, 44mm for EF. Granted, Canon could have kept the same flange distance but that would mean EOS R bodies that were substantially bulkier than they needed to be. In that case, instead of people complaining about greedy Canon using a new mount, people would be complaining about stodgy Canon not leveraging one of the advantages of new technology.
Didn't we all go over ths a few years ago? Why all the anger and rehashing of mounts for the umpteenth time? Move on people! (not you N)
 

Midge

I'm New Here
Dec 1, 2021
14
8
The RF mount adaptor- is it 24mm wide then? I am not familiar with them as I am still awaiting an APS-c RF mount camera to make an appearance (R7 maybe?). If that is the reason (and I believe you by the way) then all seems good for the future. I did read somewhere that users had reported the improved focus with EF lenses on RF mounts so will look somewhere on this forum for more information. Thank you for the insight!
 

Midge

I'm New Here
Dec 1, 2021
14
8
Didn't we all go over ths a few years ago? Why all the anger and rehashing of mounts for the umpteenth time? Move on people! (not you N)
Sorry - I am new to this forum and on a steep learning curve. Surely though you can appreciate my frustration?
 

AlanF

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
9,588
14,332
No a corporate rip off would have given us an RF mount that couldn’t take EF lenses. But the RF mount does take EF lenses perfectly and very cheaply. Some say their EF glass is better on R cameras because of better focus.
Are you implying Canon going from FD to EF was a corporate rip off?
 
  • Haha
Reactions: 1 users

privatebydesign

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
10,693
6,121
Are you implying Canon going from FD to EF was a corporate rip off?
Not really, the technical reasons to go to a much wider mount mouth made sense, however the trimming of a couple of mm in flange distance didn't make as much sense to me and that is what killed the possibility of adapters. I was heavily invested in FD at the time (I sold my FD 135 f2 a couple of days ago). The change certainly caused enough of a headache for Canon and their users that I don't think another incompatible mount change would ever be on the cards.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

AlanF

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
9,588
14,332
Over my head guys, I got into Canon with the EOS10D. Dont know the history behind this comment
In 1987, Canon introduced the EOS system with the EF mount, which superseded the previous FD mount. The distance between the film and the flange of the mount was increased in the EF system, which meant that you couldn't put a simple adapter on the EF mount to take the older FD lenses and have it focus at infinity - the FD lens would be too far away and it would need some correcting lenses in between to get the FD lens to focus further back. The RF sensor to flange distance is much less than the sensor to EF flange, which means you can easily fit an adapter on the RF to take an EF lens and for it to be placed at the correct distance away from the sensor to focus. So, in 1987, Canon rendered all of its existing lenses obsolete. This time around, all existing older EF lenses are forwards compatible.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users

takesome1

EOS 5D Mark IV
Aug 23, 2013
1,629
260
101
None your business Alaska
In 1967, Canon introduced the EOS system with the EF mount, which superseded the previous FD mount. The distance between the film and the flange of the mount was increased in the EF system, which meant that you couldn't put a simple adapter on the EF mount to take the older FD lenses and have it focus at infinity - the FD lens would be too far away and it would need some correcting lenses in between to get the FD lens to focus further back. The RF sensor to flange distance is much less than the sensor to EF flange, which means you can easily fit an adapter on the RF to take an EF lens and for it to be placed at the correct distance away from the sensor to focus. So, in 1967, Canon rendered all of its existing lenses obsolete. This time around, all existing older EF lenses are forwards compatible.

I know a local photographer who has had a studio for a long time.
He hates Canon for this switch, he shifted to Nikon when it happened.
And he still bashes Canon for it.
35 years ago people were migrating to Nikon. I guess some things never change.
 

slclick

EOS 3
Dec 17, 2013
4,647
3,051
In 1967, Canon introduced the EOS system with the EF mount, which superseded the previous FD mount. The distance between the film and the flange of the mount was increased in the EF system, which meant that you couldn't put a simple adapter on the EF mount to take the older FD lenses and have it focus at infinity - the FD lens would be too far away and it would need some correcting lenses in between to get the FD lens to focus further back. The RF sensor to flange distance is much less than the sensor to EF flange, which means you can easily fit an adapter on the RF to take an EF lens and for it to be placed at the correct distance away from the sensor to focus. So, in 1967, Canon rendered all of its existing lenses obsolete. This time around, all existing older EF lenses are forwards compatible.
1987
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users