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

[neuroanatomist]

Yes it would, but I think Canon's solution (hinted at in my post above) would be to have a smaller maximum aperture.
They've done that a lot recently (RF100-400mm, RF 600mm F11, RF 800mm F11).
Keeps the price down too, so another big selling point for future budget/novice RF models.

The EF-M lenses are a uniform 61mm in diameter. The slow RF standard zoom (24-105/4-7.1) is 76mm in diameter. Even if Canon manages to make slow zooms at the minimum RF diameter as found on the 16/2.8, they’ll still be 69mm and significantly beefier than the EF-M lineup. The RF mount diameter imposes that constraint, not really the optics.

Edit: Having said that, your logic can also apply to the EF-M lenses. When they were new, I expect Canon was reluctant to go narrower than f/6.3 because all the EF/EF-S lenses are at least f/5.6 and there were 3rd party f/6.3 lenses users knew worked on EOS bodies. Now there is an f/7.1 L lens and there are f/8 non-L lenses for RF. I wonder if we’ll see an EF-M 15-200 or 18-250 ending at f/7.1 or f/8, which would be feasible with the 61mm diameter constraint.

 

[SteveC]

A lot of this discussion has (possibly) been attributable to people forgetting that we are in a particular segment of a much broader market. When someone says "Canon will never produce another DSLR again" it's possible he's thinking of the enthusiast/pro segment and forgetting the entry level stuff. If that's what's going on inside his skull (and I can't really know) then I would tend to agree with him. I doubt Canon will ever produce another DSLR in our segment. No 1s, 5s or 7s. (On the other hand: Is a 90D in our segment?)

Will they continue to churn out Rebels? Almost certainly, and they'll even probably develop a new model or two. For how long? I don't know but if I had to guess (and it's worth exactly what you're paying for it), I'd say less than ten years, and there's a decent chance it will be less than five years. So, yes, in the broader context, they will continue to make DSLRs.

But let's face it, most of us forget about Rebels when we're talking about things here. (Despite the fact that I have taken more pictures with my Rebel than with all my other gear combined, in the last two months; when talking here even I forget about them.) So when I read statements like "Canon's not going to produce another DSLR" I try to keep that in mind.

Could I be totally wrong about any or all of this? Absofragginglutely!!

 

[entoman]

The EF-M lenses are a uniform 61mm in diameter. The slow RF standard zoom (24-105/4-7.1) is 76mm in diameter. Even if Canon manages to make slow zooms at the minimum RF diameter as found on the 16/2.8, they’ll still be 69mm and significantly beefier than the EF-M lineup. The RF mount diameter imposes that constraint, not really the optics.

Edit: Having said that, your logic can also apply to the EF-M lenses. When they were new, I expect Canon was reluctant to go narrower than f/6.3 because all the EF/EF-S lenses are at least f/5.6 and there were 3rd party f/6.3 lenses users knew worked on EOS bodies. Now there is an f/7.1 L lens and there are f/8 non-L lenses for RF. I wonder if we’ll see an EF-M 15-200 or 18-250 ending at f/7.1 or f/8, which would be feasible with the 61mm diameter constraint.

Just thinking out loud here, so don't read too much into it. I don't know enough about lens design to be able to know what is possible regarding reducing lens diameters - I know the theory of course, but I'm not sure what new options might be brought to the table by the combination of wide mount and reduced distance between rear element and sensor. There are several very small and narrow-diameter lenses made by Laowa and others. They don't have AF or OIS of course, but adopting smaller motors, or possibly using a design in which the focusing elements are at the back of the lens (within the mount) could open up all sorts of possibilities.

Novices (the most likely purchasers of bottom of range budget MILCs) don't understand F numbers or their effect on images, so I think they'd favour compact small-aperture lenses. Even experienced photographers are beginning to find them acceptable, given the quality of modern sensors and processing.

 

[entoman]

A lot of this discussion has (possibly) been attributable to people forgetting that we are in a particular segment of a much broader market. When someone says "Canon will never produce another DSLR again" it's possible he's thinking of the enthusiast/pro segment and forgetting the entry level stuff. If that's what's going on inside his skull (and I can't really know) then I would tend to agree with him. I doubt Canon will ever produce another DSLR in our segment. No 1s, 5s or 7s. (On the other hand: Is a 90D in our segment?)

Will they continue to churn out Rebels? Almost certainly, and they'll even probably develop a new model or two. For how long? I don't know but if I had to guess (and it's worth exactly what you're paying for it), I'd say less than ten years, and there's a decent chance it will be less than five years. So, yes, in the broader context, they will continue to make DSLRs.

But let's face it, most of us forget about Rebels when we're talking about things here. (Despite the fact that I have taken more pictures with my Rebel than with all my other gear combined, in the last two months; when talking here even I forget about them.) So when I read statements like "Canon's not going to produce another DSLR" I try to keep that in mind.

Could I be totally wrong about any or all of this? Absofragginglutely!!

Fashion, trendiness, peer pressure or whatever we want to call it, will be the main factors that determine how long DSLRs remain viable in the marketplace. Plenty of people on forums see things only from their own standpoint, and most are predicting an early death to DSLRs. These attitudes filter through slowly to the general public via youtube reviews and salespersons, who need to have something new to say and something exciting and different to promote. So I'd guess that Rebels and Pentax DSLRs will still be in production in 5 years time, but by then MILCs will probably account for 90% of new sales.

DSLRs will become niche products, and if Pentax were able to improve their cosmetic design and market themselves convincingly, they could justify raising their prices and becoming the next Leica. Or maybe that's just wishful thinking....

 

[neuroanatomist]

Just thinking out loud here, so don't read too much into it. I don't know enough about lens design to be able to know what is possible regarding reducing lens diameters

The constraint is really just the physical diameter of the mount. Yes, there are alternative designs, but I really don’t see Canon going that route. Do you think they’d make a mass-market lens like this?



Many of the EF-S and EF-M lenses could have been made narrower quite easily given the internals, but they weren’t. Why?

Fashion, trendiness, peer pressure or whatever we want to call it, will be the main factors

Because as you point out, appearances matter…and a lens like the above design, while technically possible, just looks funky.

 

[entoman]

The constraint is really just the physical diameter of the mount. Yes, there are alternative designs, but I really don’t see Canon going that route. Do you think they’d make a mass-market lens like this?

View attachment 201857

Many of the EF-S and EF-M lenses could have been made narrower quite easily given the internals, but they weren’t. Why?



Because as you point out, appearances matter…and a lens like the above design, while technically possible, just looks funky.

I used Laowa to illustrate the *extremes* of design, in terms of narrowness, that can be achieved.
Canon produce odd-looking specialist lenses (TS-E, dual fish-eye etc) but lenses designed for the "popular" market would have to be less radical.

For the budget RF market, they could produce a stylish lens with a barrel of uniform diameter, no wider than the RF mount.
That should be easily achievable if the maximum aperture is restricted, as discussed.

 

[neuroanatomist]

For the budget RF market, they could produce a stylish lens with a barrel of uniform diameter, no wider than the RF mount.
That should be easily achievable if the maximum aperture is restricted, as discussed.

Agreed, they could (as I suggested above). I still think it will be too bulky compared to EF-M, but time will tell.

 

[Skyscraperfan]

The end of plate cameras was a tragedy?
The end of rangefinders was a tragedy?
The end of twin-lens reflexes was a tragedy?
The end of film SLRs was a tragedy?
... and now the end of DSLRs is a tragedy?

Would you like to still be travelling by horse and cart, living without electricity too?

I love DSLRs, and I still use my 5DMkiv as well as my R5.
RF series and other MILCs are still far from perfect, and DSLRs are still fun to use and produce great shots.
But living in the past is a mistake.
You'll end up getting a MILC even if you don't already have one, and when you do you'll appreciate that they can make photography easier and can make some fields of photography possible that were near-impossible previously.

Not having an optical viewfinder and therefore needing battery power just to see something in the viewfinder is a clear step back. Of course mirrorless cameras have a few advantages, but most of them are not really of any use for my photography. I do not really need an autofocus that can detect faces, eyes, animals or cars. 80% of my photos are of skyscrapers. It is very hard not to nail the focus on a skyscraper unless you are moving fast.

Of course I will buy a mirrorless camera sooner or later, because DSLRs are not available anymore. However if manufacturers really wanted, they could bake most of the advantages of a mirrorless camera into a DSLR. If someone wants eye detect autofocus, he could still use live view.

There are many areas where I prefer the old stuff. Smartphones are an example. I only use my smartphone like a mini tablet, but for making phone calls, I still use a conventional cellphone, because I do not have to recharge it every two days and it does not break if it falls. My cellphone is so rigid, that I one even lost it on a street and the a car drove over it. It still works. Try that with a smartpone! Not every new invention is progress.

The old cameras of our grandparents still work. How many years will an R3 work? Not having a mirror in theory should be one less part that can break and if the camera does not even have a mechanical shutter, it should last even longer. My fear though is that all the electronics will shorten the lifetime of a camera even more. I just spent more than 600 Euros for replacing the mainboard of my DLSR. It just stopped working after 60,000 shots or so, although I treated the camera very well. Old cameras did not have a mainboard at all. Are those modern cameras only for professionals who generate enough income to buy new cameras all the time? How much more electronics does a mirrorless camera have compared to a DSLR?

 

[Juangrande]

With the R3, R3, and R6 I can't see DLSR versions in those lines anytime soon. I expect the R1 will match or best the Z9 which fixes all the issues I had with EVF shooting. So really DSLR's fit in the low end but those customers also want compact mirrorless bodies with eye AF so where can a DSLR really fit

With the R3, R3, and R6 I can't see DLSR versions in those lines anytime soon. I expect the R1 will match or best the Z9 which fixes all the issues I had with EVF shooting. So really DSLR's fit in the low end but those customers also want compact mirrorless bodies with eye AF so where can a DSLR really fit in?

Is there much difference between the R3 and the R3? They seem the same to me.

 

[entoman]

Not having an optical viewfinder and therefore needing battery power just to see something in the viewfinder is a clear step back. Of course mirrorless cameras have a few advantages, but most of them are not really of any use for my photography. I do not really need an autofocus that can detect faces, eyes, animals or cars. 80% of my photos are of skyscrapers. It is very hard not to nail the focus on a skyscraper unless you are moving fast.

OK so if you only photograph skyscrapers and other static subjects, then you don't need many of the advantages of mirrorless. I also fully understand your fondness for DSLRs as I feel similarly. I love optical viewfinders and long battery life as much as you do. But your original post stated "Only DSLRs are real cameras", which is as nonsensical as stating that "only cats are real animals" or "only blondes are real women". MILCs are *REAL* cameras just as much as DSLRs, and in many ways they are superior cameras.

If someone wants eye detect autofocus, he could still use live view.

You really think so? Try following a soccer match using live view on the rear screen of a DSLR. Or kids in action. Or birds in flight. All of these are child's play with the eye-AF of modern MILCs. I photograph birds in flight, insects in flight, cheetahs chasing gazelles, motorcycle sport. These subjects are all *possible* using the eye-level viewfinder of a DSLR, but are infinitely easier with a MILC. Faster, more accurate, full area coverage.

The old cameras of our grandparents still work. How many years will an R3 work? Not having a mirror in theory should be one less part that can break and if the camera does not even have a mechanical shutter, it should last even longer. My fear though is that all the electronics will shorten the lifetime of a camera even more.

I've had old audio systems, old TVs, old phones and other electronic devices last for 20 years. I've had mechanical Nikon SLRs fall apart after 2 years, and I've had the mechanical focus mechanisms of Sigma lenses jam solid on 3 different samples. I know plenty of people with 10 year old MILCs that work as well as the day they bought them. Mechanical systems tend to fail due to wear and tear, but electronics, if they fail, tend to be either dead-on-arrival, or fail at a very early stage. In terms of longevity an electronic solid state device is far less likely to break than a mechanical device.

I just spent more than 600 Euros for replacing the mainboard of my DLSR. It just stopped working after 60,000 shots or so, although I treated the camera very well.

That would seem to indicate that the board was fitted with inferior short lifespan components. The issue is the *quality* of the components, not whether they are part of a DSLR or MILC. I shot over 250,000 images with my 5DS, and I've shot almost 200,000 with my 5DMkiv. They are pro DSLRs. I've shot 60,000 images so far with my R5, and I fully expect it to last at least as long as the DSLRs - and if I was shooting with electronic shutter it would probably last 20 years.

 

[DBounce]

I owned the 1DXMK2 for about 4 years. Great camera… probably better than my skills deserved. But in the end it was just too heavy and bulky to carry as frequently as I would have liked to. I currently own the Eos R3 and believe it’s a modern interpretation of the 1D series. It feels much smaller/lighter, without feeling like a toy.

 

[unfocused]

Agreed, they could (as I suggested above). I still think it will be too bulky compared to EF-M, but time will tell.

It seems like this is a conversation conflating two very different products. I agree that it would be very difficult to product an R series body that competes with the M series for size, weight, etc. But, this is also a discussion about the future of the Rebel line of DSLRs. I don't see any reason why Canon could not produce R bodies that compete with Rebels for size and weight. I believe that the biggest challenge is price. Right now, Rebels are incredibly cheap. I don't know what Canon needs to do to reduce the price of R bodies to that of DSLRs.

 

[sanj]

I don’t get that. Why does anyone care if DSLRs continue to be developed or not? If you prefer mirrorless, buy mirrorless. Do you think everyone should make the same choices you do? For those that prefer DSLRs (and the data clearly show many do), why do you want their choices to be taken away? Makes no sense to me, seems quite selfish, IMO.

I do not want anything. I am saying technology evolves. Mirrorless is the future. DSLR are bye bye now, not in the distant future. This is how the world functions. As some point the cars will be electric too. You heard it here first.

 

[sanj]

Only DSLRs are real cameras. The end of DSLRs is a real tragedy.

Bravo.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I do not want anything. I am saying technology evolves. Mirrorless is the future. DSLR are bye bye now, not in the distant future. This is how the world functions. As some point the cars will be electric too. You heard it here first.

There are none so blind as those who will not see. The fact that 41% of ILCs made this year were DSLRs means they are anything but bye bye, except in the fantasy world in which you apparently choose to live. I hope it’s at least nice in there, but if you’d like to come back into the real world at some point, you’ll be welcome.

 

[privatebydesign]

I do not want anything. I am saying technology evolves. Mirrorless is the future. DSLR are bye bye now, not in the distant future. This is how the world functions. As some point the cars will be electric too. You heard it here first.

And yet FujiFilm sell a shitload of film cameras, go figure...

Personally I think it is obvious mirrorless is the future for the majority of the camera market, but I don’t see that as translating to mirrorless as being the best tool for all photographers all the time. Just as there is still a reasonable sized film niche (one that actually growing) I see every reason to expect a reflex camera niche.

I abhor the size, weight and cost of the RF primes, I get motion sick after staring through an EVF for hours let alone days, I like looking through OVF’s, I can get the very best DSLR and lenses for thousands cheaper than the mirrorless versions...

 

[PhotoGenerous]

There are none so blind as those who will not see. The fact that 41% of ILCs made this year were DSLRs means they are anything but bye bye, except in the fantasy world in which you apparently choose to live. I hope it’s at least nice in there, but if you’d like to come back into the real world at some point, you’ll be welcome.

Canon is about to release the R1, and there is an announcement that there will be no more follow up the 1DXIII. There will still be 1DXIII bodies sold next year, but the 1D line of camera is at the end the line. It's future is dead.

The R5 is being sold now. As are 5DIVs. There will be no 5DV. There is no future for the 5D line. (Or rather the R5 line has supplanted it and is the future.) The 5D line is dead.

The R6 is being sold now. As are 6DIIs. There will be no 6DIII. The 6D line is dead.

There will be an APS-C R-mount camera body sold next year. Whichever line of DSLR it is the spiritual successor to will likely not have another DSLR equivalent released. That line in its DSLR form will be dead.

For each camera body DSLR line that Canon is able to release an R-mount version for, that DSLR line will be killed off. When Canon finally releases R-mount equivalents of all their DSLR lines, the DSLR (from Canon) will be dead. That's not to say other companies won't make DSLRs. But each year Canon continues to transition away from the DSLR.

I don't think these are very bold, nor fantastical claims to make.

Also, I know how Tony Northrup can be viewed here and other places like Reddit, but his latest video talks about this article and what it means to be "dead."

Also here are the Twitter replies Tony Northrup is referencing in the beginning of this video.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1475916338690506755

Original Tweet: "Native Japanese speakers: Would you read this article (without using Google Translate) & tell me whether Canon is saying the 1DX III is the final DSLR or just the final 1-series DSLR?"

One of the replies: "Yes. They do say that in few years they will be ending R&D for DSLR and move to all mirrorless cameras. They also mention that 1DX III is the last flagship camera for DSLR."

Another reply: "2nd paragraph says that 1D X Mk3, which they released in 2020, is going to be the de facto final DSLR fragship model. The last paragraph reads that they continue producing low/mid-level DSLR models for another while since there is enough demand overseas."

The final reply regarding translating the article: "CEO said Canon will end R&D and production of DSLR in "few years" and on next paragraph; article states 1DX III will be de facto last model. (doesn't read like that was CEO statement but the Yomiuri Newspaper's understanding)"

 

[Talys]

The way I see it, the real attraction in the Rebel line is that for a few hundred bucks, anyone can own a camera that feels substantial because it looks like something that a professional would use. It has the promise of much greater control, and anyways photographers are always saying, it's not the equipment...

In my opinion, before mirrorless can compete with DSLRs for that appeal, someone needs to build an interchangeable lens mirrorless that looks and feels like a professional camera, but can be bought at Costco for a few hundred bucks, including a kit lens that has the promise of greatness.

The truth is, with a little skill and a lot of experience, anyone really can take phenomenal photos with a Christmas-priced Rebel kit. The problem is, the vast majority of people who get such a beast won't take any better photos than they do with a Rebel, because no camera can replace composition, lighting, experience, patience, and all of the non gear stuff that has nothing to do with whether there is a mirror on the camera or not.

So do I think DSLRs will eventually die out? Mostly, yes. But I think there are at least years before there are cheap enough MILCs that can appeal to that important market segment

 

[neuroanatomist]

For each camera body DSLR line that Canon is able to release an R-mount version for, that DSLR line will be killed off. When Canon finally releases R-mount equivalents of all their DSLR lines, the DSLR (from Canon) will be dead. That's not to say other companies won't make DSLRs. But each year Canon continues to transition away from the DSLR.

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.

Also, I know how Tony Northrup can be viewed here and other places like Reddit, but his latest video talks about this article and what it means to be "dead."

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.

 

[Jethro]

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.

I think this is the key point - clearly a lot of people love the Rebel / Kiss bodies, especially sold in 1 or 2 lens kits. I speculate that a lot of those buyers are 'moving up' from point-and-shoot cameras or smartphones, and these kits represent great value and good image quality, as they have for many years. My first 'proper' camera was a one lens kit Rebel. I loved it to death.

People coming from a P&S or smartphone background are not (with all respect to them) going to understand the nuances between DSLRs and ML, let alone complex arguments around future short term and medium term capital investment by camera companies in R&D, in deciding which camera to buy. They see a well-known, well regarded brand, at a good price, and take the plunge. Good on them, and may at least some of them stick with their hobby and progress to the point where the distinctions beingn discussed here actually mean something to them, and (however marginally) to the images they take!

A happy new year to everyone on CR, by the way!