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

[stevelee]

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.

I would still have the flexibility I have now. I would continue to use my DSLR in most regular situations, and if I ever can get back to traveling, I will take my G5 X II instead. I would use the Fuji mainly for landscapes, using a tripod and taking my time. I wouldn’t need a full range of lenses for that nor flash units. I will replace my old iMac some time next year, but it still zips right along in Photoshop, even when the image I’m working on is something stitched to that level of megapixels. I have ample external storage where I keep my old Raw files. So no loss of flexibility, but a valid question of whether I would take that many more landscapes if I had the camera and a couple lenses. Or would I enjoy the aesthetics of knowing I could take those pictures if I wanted to. Silly as it sounds, that is worth something. Having great camera equipment just sitting around seems no worse than just having the money sitting around doing nothing.

But your final sentence is really the kicker. What would I do with the pictures? They’d look glorious on my 5K iMac screen. And then what? Would I be tempted to buy a printer that could accommodate paper much wider than the 13” of my current one? Where would I even hang the pictures, with my house already looking like an art gallery of my work?

Friday morning when I woke up I looked out into the woods behind the house and the morning mist looked really atmospheric. So I put on a robe and slippers, grabbed my DSLR, and went out on the deck. The mist was already clearing, and I never got anything like what I meant to. But I sort of liked a few of the shots, and so I ran them through ACR and Photoshop. Then I saved JPEGs of them, high quality, 1500 pixels wide. They had lost a lot of their appeal in the process. I still uploaded them to the winter picture thread here, and several people clicked on “Like.” Would the result have been any better if I had shot with the Fuji instead? I doubt it.

Yesterday I watched a YouTube video of a professional photographer comparing the Fuji with a camera he already had. He gushed about the Fuji on and on. Then he posted pictures from each for us to compare. Obviously, reduced and compressed by YouTube, there was no real difference. He said the same for posting on the web or Instagram. Even his clients can’t tell the difference in what he furnishes them. And most of those shots wind up on the web.

So is it worth my getting the camera, when “no one else other than myself will be able to see any difference in the output”? Good question. I take pictures for my own enjoyment, so it is possible that the answer might be yes, stupid as that sounds.

 

[Dragon]

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.

That would suggest that the M series may get some love before too long.

 

[GoldWing]

In the development department in the deep bowels of Canon.

You got that right.

 

[Jethro]

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.

That's quite possible - size (and obviously cost) are likely to be the most important factors, and if low cost R mount cameras can be produced to similar dimensions (and $s) to the Rebels, I think that could be the future. How far in the future is the Q, but there are rumours of low-cost R series bodies in early 2022. There is still the Q of smaller profile R mount lenses, which I don't think can be as small as the M mount.

 

[sanj]

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:

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)

The above is PERFECTLY said.

 

[dilbert]

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.

CR hasn't had a long running thread post in a while ... got to hurt the ad revenue ... this thread ought to help with that. I think for almost a month I've come to CR, looked at the front page and left again...

 

[jeffa4444]

The market has shrunk by over 50% its inevitable that Canon will ditch the DSLR eventually as they cost more to produce than mirrorless. The current cameras such as the R5 & R6 can be masked down to APS-C or Canon could release APS-C cameras in the R lineup and we could see a repeat of the EF / EF-S in the lens lineup for RF lenses.
That would spell the end of DSLRs, EF glass, M series cameras and M series lenses with Canon likely phasing them all out.
It is the likely commercial decision if they want to remain profitable in a much smaller market.

 

[AlanF]

The market has shrunk by over 50% its inevitable that Canon will ditch the DSLR eventually as they cost more to produce than mirrorless. The current cameras such as the R5 & R6 can be masked down to APS-C or Canon could release APS-C cameras in the R lineup and we could see a repeat of the EF / EF-S in the lens lineup for RF lenses.
That would spell the end of DSLRs, EF glass, M series cameras and M series lenses with Canon likely phasing them all out.
It is the likely commercial decision if they want to remain profitable in a much smaller market.

What is the difference in cost of production of an EVF and an OVF with associated mirror box and AF unit?

 

[koenkooi]

What is the difference in cost of production of an EVF and an OVF with associated mirror box and AF unit?

And how expensive is the IBIS unit?

 

[AlanF]

And how expensive is the IBIS unit?

Don't ask me! I don't know the costs, which is why I asked. However, Nikon's cheap Z50 APS-C lacks both IBIS and sensor cleaning shake to reduce cost. (Though they claim it is to reduce weight and size.) It's still far more expensive than their DSLRs.

 

[vangelismm]

The funny thing is that R7 aps-c is a market niche small than the current rebel and the eos M.

 

[stevelee]

What is the difference in cost of production of an EVF and an OVF with associated mirror box and AF unit?

I think the usual argument is that, golly gee, mechanical doodads have to cost more to make than circuits and such. Never mind that something you have been making for 70 or so years might cost less to develop than new technology. People inside Canon with all of the data available likely have to make judgment calls to tease out all the factors to compare the two. But it is easier when you have no data at all and rely just on “common sense” and conventional wisdom.

 

[AlanF]

I think the usual argument is that, golly gee, mechanical doodads have to cost more to make than circuits and such. Never mind that something you have been making for 70 or so years might cost less to develop than new technology. People inside Canon with all of the data available likely have to make judgment calls to tease out all the factors to compare the two. But it is easier when you have no data at all and rely just on “common sense” and conventional wisdom.

I know the hand waving arguments. But, that is not answering my question.

 

[SteveC]

And how expensive is the IBIS unit?

There's no reason IBIS had to wait for mirrorless, is there? If not, it's not properly considered an added cost of mirrorless, like the EVF actually is.

 

[Sporgon]

There's no reason IBIS had to wait for mirrorless, is there?

No, Pentax have been putting it in their DSLRs since Noah used one to record the animals on his Ark. The downside in using it in a DSLR is that you do not get a stabilised viewfinder but your point is valid; it's not a mirrorless only addition.

 

[AJ]

What is the difference in cost of production of an EVF and an OVF with associated mirror box and AF unit?

This is indeed the pertinent question. But I think only a Canon engineer or economist knows the exact answer, and I'm sure these numbers are closely guarded corporate secrets. I imagine the answer involves economies of scale, and surely the chip shortage doesn't favour the EVF side of the equation at the moment.

 

[SkynetTX]

In my opinion stopping to develop DSLRs completely at any time from now is a bad idea. I don't really need the adventages of the currently available mirrorles cameras so I would not buy one even for the price of a Rebel. If prefer OVF over EVF, bit lower MP and larger pixel size over higher MP and smaller pixel size, longer battery life and so on. I don't need EVF, 50+ MP sensor, extremly fast AF with eye or face detection. Most of the time I shoot static or slow/non moving subject. But I would really like to see a 18MP FullFrame Rebel with more AF points and newer sensor. Even an APS-C Rebel with faster EF-S lenses like 18-55 f/2.8 would be good. Probably an EF-S 24-70 f/2.8 could be smaller and cheaper than the EF equivalent. And don't forget about the EF-S 60mm f/2.8 IS USM Macro just in case I can not use my tripod.

 

[slclick]

The funny thing is that R7 aps-c is a market niche small than the current rebel and the eos M.

So small, almost imperceivable. Vaporware will be like that.

 

[dtaylor]

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.

They're still a big enough cost to justify APS-C "Rebel" RF bodies.

 

[slclick]

No, Pentax have been putting it in their DSLRs since Noah used one to record the animals on his Ark. The downside in using it in a DSLR is that you do not get a stabilised viewfinder but your point is valid; it's not a mirrorless only addition.

I have it on good authority from Bryan Carnathan and Dustin Abbott that Noah was a Hasselblad user.