The Next DSLR from Canon Will Be...

[TheDrift-]

The 5D's have traditionally come out in the summer, (maybe to get them in the shops in numbers for Christmas)

5D was Aug
5D2 was sept
5D3 broke the rule and was March(ish) I think, but it was timed to coincide with the 25th anniversary.

If we have not heard anything yet I think March is becoming more unlikely...perhaps they will move back to the summer?

For me personally sooner the better and I am hoping for a kit with the new 16 35mk3!!! As a stills only user I would also love to see a split in the line with a cheaper 5DX focusing on stills and a more expensive 5DC (for the movie users? Perhaps even 8k! there's some talk of 30mp sensor and I think 8k is 33.2mp????)...yes I know I'm a dreamer

 

[ecka]

Plot twist... no 5D MK IV until 2017...

But seriously, I only recently upgraded from my trusty 5D (Mark I) to the Mark III and have to say even for four year old camera it still feels like something brand new from this year - as in features and quality etc. I personally have no need for things like ***, WIFI... heck video is just an added bonus, rarely ever use it. yet i know a lot of people do, so having 4K in the IV would make it more 'future proof'.

Apart from the people who just like the latest and greatest, unless the MKIV really shows a vast improvement, can't see MANY people moving over straight away.
I mean the price I got the MKIII was fantastic compared to release price... yes yes, it was four years ago, but still.

What about those who want to upgrade from their 5D2, which they used for both stills and video? 1080p doesn't cut it anymore. Upgrading to 5D3 could be just a pointless waste of money, if 5D4K is coming tomorrow.

think you misread me...

I did say the MKIV needs to show VAST improvements, which would include 4K. Hence why I said 4K would make it more future proof.
Side note, remember majority of people don't have facilities to view 4K, 1080P is still not everywhere as well. - But that's another disccussion.

Well, honestly, even 5D3 should have had at least 1080@60p and now 4K is already too late. I mean, point & shoots and smartphones got 4K these days, so it's not a big deal anymore, like it was in 2014. Not having it in an expensive semi-pro camera is more of a disadvantage, than a bonus really. It's not the "future-proofness" we are talking about, we need it since two years ago. Canon is just lagging behind. They should start putting 4K in all of their $500+ cameras. The Sony a6300 got it. Do you think that the next EOS-M will have 4K? Or the 6D2? Even the 7D2 should have had 4K (and the touchscreen). Thank god there's MagicLantern .
You don't even need a 4K display to appreciate the quality of UHD videos. The sharpness, the details and contrast look amazing even on 1080 displays. There is no discussion.

 

[nhz]

For what it's worth, Canon tends to release around 2.5 new cameras per years.

They have met that goal with the 80D and 1DX II.

But, realistically, you would expect them to release more and faster. Canon is competing against smartphones, like it or not, since the introduction of the iPhone, sales of dedicated cameras have been tanking like crazy.

Canon is put into a position where they will be forced to release cameras faster.

I don't agree with that prediction: with a shrinking market for DSLRs (and maybe even for mirrorless, because of continuously improving smartphones) trying to keep up with the pace of the smartphone market isn't going to work. It would make more sense that instead of providing incremental upgrades every 1-2 years, companies like Canon will make cameras with VERY substantial upgrades, that last for a longer time and have a (much) higher price.

If you compare current DSLR prices with analog SLR's in the eighties or so and correct for inflation, the average DSLR (e.g. Canon Rebel and xxD series) is quite cheap and only the most expensive 'Pro' models sell for similar prices. We could go back to that price level again, I don't think it is a problem if only the serious photographers are buying.

Over the last 10 years, many people have purchased a DSLR just because they were affordable and promised to make them talented photographers; that didn't work for everyone ;-) Most of these buyers will go back to using smartphones and posting on Facebook. I think the camera companies also need to target photographers and not typical smartphone users with their more serious cameras like DSLRs, but opinions on this vary strongly. Personally I dread the day when the notorious Direct Print button on Canon DSLRs will be replaced with a Direct Facebook button and every time you switch on your camera you have to wait minutes for it to download the latest crazy apps before it will start working ;-(

 

[nhz]

I hear an awful lot of demand for 4K video and *** and touch screen and all sorts of fancy stuff that I have no interest in whatsoever as a stills photographer. I kinda resent paying the extra money for all of this stuff I will never use, plus it just adds crud to the buttons, dials and menus.

I realise this probably (ok definitely ) won't happen, but it would be awesome to see the 5Div as a pure stills camera with nothing added that isn't towards making a higher quality stills image.

Curious does any brand have such a beast?

With cameras sometimes Less is More, as in less features means much higher price.

I also regret that most cameras are a bit like Christmas trees, but it probably keeps the price down because all these extra features that you don't need means potential extra buyers = more sales volume, lower price.

Most features add VERY little to the real production cost of a camera, much of it is just some electronics, buttons and software. The only real cost is in development. Of course there is another cost for adding these features: missing shots because of all the stuff that gets in the way, but you only notice that after buying ;-)

As others have pointed out, there are a few cameras that go a little bit in the direction you want (e.g. Nikon Df) but nothing that really gets back to basics - probably because there would not be enough buyers.

 

[nhz]

Well, honestly, even 5D3 should have had at least 1080@60p and now 4K is already too late. I mean, point & shoots and smartphones got 4K these days, so it's not a big deal anymore, like it was in 2014. Not having it in an expensive semi-pro camera is more of a disadvantage, than a bonus really. It's not the "future-proofness" we are talking about, we need it since two years ago. Canon is just lagging behind. They should start putting 4K in all of their $500+ cameras. The Sony a6300 got it. Do you think that the next EOS-M will have 4K? Or the 6D2? Even the 7D2 should have had 4K (and the touchscreen). Thank god there's MagicLantern .
You don't even need a 4K display to appreciate the quality of UHD videos. The sharpness, the details and contrast look amazing even on 1080 displays. There is no discussion.

Why must every camera have video or even 4K? Most people have a smartphone, if they are really serious about video they hopefully buy a real video camera (with MUCH better ergonomics etc.). IMHO video on DSLRs is a kludge and always will be and I think that for only a small percentage of buyers it has real value (those who need better quality/flexibility than a smartphone can offer, but who don't have the money/requirements to buy a real video camera).

 

[ecka]

Well, honestly, even 5D3 should have had at least 1080@60p and now 4K is already too late. I mean, point & shoots and smartphones got 4K these days, so it's not a big deal anymore, like it was in 2014. Not having it in an expensive semi-pro camera is more of a disadvantage, than a bonus really. It's not the "future-proofness" we are talking about, we need it since two years ago. Canon is just lagging behind. They should start putting 4K in all of their $500+ cameras. The Sony a6300 got it. Do you think that the next EOS-M will have 4K? Or the 6D2? Even the 7D2 should have had 4K (and the touchscreen). Thank god there's MagicLantern .
You don't even need a 4K display to appreciate the quality of UHD videos. The sharpness, the details and contrast look amazing even on 1080 displays. There is no discussion.

Why must every camera have video or even 4K? Most people have a smartphone, if they are really serious about video they hopefully buy a real video camera (with MUCH better ergonomics etc.). IMHO video on DSLRs is a kludge and always will be and I think that for only a small percentage of buyers it has real value (those who need better quality/flexibility than a smartphone can offer, but who don't have the money/requirements to buy a real video camera).

I hear an awful lot of demand for 4K video and *** and touch screen and all sorts of fancy stuff that I have no interest in whatsoever as a stills photographer. I kinda resent paying the extra money for all of this stuff I will never use, plus it just adds crud to the buttons, dials and menus.

I realise this probably (ok definitely ) won't happen, but it would be awesome to see the 5Div as a pure stills camera with nothing added that isn't towards making a higher quality stills image.

Curious does any brand have such a beast?

With cameras sometimes Less is More, as in less features means much higher price.

I also regret that most cameras are a bit like Christmas trees, but it probably keeps the price down because all these extra features that you don't need means potential extra buyers = more sales volume, lower price.

Most features add VERY little to the real production cost of a camera, much of it is just some electronics, buttons and software. The only real cost is in development. Of course there is another cost for adding these features: missing shots because of all the stuff that gets in the way, but you only notice that after buying ;-)

As others have pointed out, there are a few cameras that go a little bit in the direction you want (e.g. Nikon Df) but nothing that really gets back to basics - probably because there would not be enough buyers.

I think you are contradicting yourself.
Canon doesn't make smartphones and I don't want to buy a $500 smartphone to shoot 4K, just because my $3000 DSLR can't do it.

 

[Maleko]

Plot twist... no 5D MK IV until 2017...

But seriously, I only recently upgraded from my trusty 5D (Mark I) to the Mark III and have to say even for four year old camera it still feels like something brand new from this year - as in features and quality etc. I personally have no need for things like ***, WIFI... heck video is just an added bonus, rarely ever use it. yet i know a lot of people do, so having 4K in the IV would make it more 'future proof'.

Apart from the people who just like the latest and greatest, unless the MKIV really shows a vast improvement, can't see MANY people moving over straight away.
I mean the price I got the MKIII was fantastic compared to release price... yes yes, it was four years ago, but still.

What about those who want to upgrade from their 5D2, which they used for both stills and video? 1080p doesn't cut it anymore. Upgrading to 5D3 could be just a pointless waste of money, if 5D4K is coming tomorrow.

think you misread me...

I did say the MKIV needs to show VAST improvements, which would include 4K. Hence why I said 4K would make it more future proof.
Side note, remember majority of people don't have facilities to view 4K, 1080P is still not everywhere as well. - But that's another disccussion.

Well, honestly, even 5D3 should have had at least 1080@60p and now 4K is already too late. I mean, point & shoots and smartphones got 4K these days, so it's not a big deal anymore, like it was in 2014. Not having it in an expensive semi-pro camera is more of a disadvantage, than a bonus really. It's not the "future-proofness" we are talking about, we need it since two years ago. Canon is just lagging behind. They should start putting 4K in all of their $500+ cameras. The Sony a6300 got it. Do you think that the next EOS-M will have 4K? Or the 6D2? Even the 7D2 should have had 4K (and the touchscreen). Thank god there's MagicLantern .
You don't even need a 4K display to appreciate the quality of UHD videos. The sharpness, the details and contrast look amazing even on 1080 displays. There is no discussion.

I think you need to look at other tech reports from years ago and see when the specs your talking about came to light.
There is a big discussion about that but clearly you think otherwise.
Everything should be coming with 4k if it isn't already as the more products that have 4k the more content we will see.
You say 1080 @ 60fps, again not everywhere has it and I really wish it was cause @60 looks damn fantastic.

People on tech forums forget about what consumers understand, we who are in the tech know want all these things but most the time consumers don't have a clue. The average person doesn't have a clue what 1080P @ 60fps means, or what it is.
For example, Youtube only started 60fps playback at the end of 2014 - yet not many videos actually take use of it.
We as the people who produce the content want it for sure, but that's because we understand it and see the benefit.
Heck, my wife can't see the difference between SD & HD unless I explain it and show it side by side.
Again though it comes down to what delivers the content, we want the products that deliver say 1080P @ 60fps so that we can deliver said content to people.
I do agree that the MK3 should have had 60fps 1080P, but back then it wasn't really a thing, but maybe thats down to bad choices on the Canon R&D department.

However, I do think canon are lagging behind with video, lagging and making bad decisions to keep ahead of the game. The new 1D COULD have come with 8K, that would have been a big surprise, as like you said, 4K is everywhere. But then some people will say they are monopolising their cinema cameras, not really though as those cameras handle video even better.
Anyway I could go on and on

But like I said originally, I didn't buy the MK3 for the video features, and I think people want too much from what was a picture only camera to a camera with added video features. If video is that much of an issue then buy a dedicated video camera.

 

[fentiger]

what i would like to see, is the confirmed specs of the 5D4 before the 1dx2 hits the shelves, at least to make a informed choice. sure the 1DX2 is a brilliant camera but i want a good accurate stills camera. however once you have used a 1D series you don't want to go back to a lesser model

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

what i would like to see, is the confirmed specs of the 5D4 before the 1dx2 hits the shelves, at least to make a informed choice. sure the 1DX2 is a brilliant camera but i want a good accurate stills camera. however once you have used a 1D series you don't want to go back to a lesser model

I suspect Canon will announce the 5D Mark iv, shortly after 1DX Mark II hits stores.

 

[ecka]

Plot twist... no 5D MK IV until 2017...

But seriously, I only recently upgraded from my trusty 5D (Mark I) to the Mark III and have to say even for four year old camera it still feels like something brand new from this year - as in features and quality etc. I personally have no need for things like ***, WIFI... heck video is just an added bonus, rarely ever use it. yet i know a lot of people do, so having 4K in the IV would make it more 'future proof'.

Apart from the people who just like the latest and greatest, unless the MKIV really shows a vast improvement, can't see MANY people moving over straight away.
I mean the price I got the MKIII was fantastic compared to release price... yes yes, it was four years ago, but still.

What about those who want to upgrade from their 5D2, which they used for both stills and video? 1080p doesn't cut it anymore. Upgrading to 5D3 could be just a pointless waste of money, if 5D4K is coming tomorrow.

think you misread me...

I did say the MKIV needs to show VAST improvements, which would include 4K. Hence why I said 4K would make it more future proof.
Side note, remember majority of people don't have facilities to view 4K, 1080P is still not everywhere as well. - But that's another disccussion.

Well, honestly, even 5D3 should have had at least 1080@60p and now 4K is already too late. I mean, point & shoots and smartphones got 4K these days, so it's not a big deal anymore, like it was in 2014. Not having it in an expensive semi-pro camera is more of a disadvantage, than a bonus really. It's not the "future-proofness" we are talking about, we need it since two years ago. Canon is just lagging behind. They should start putting 4K in all of their $500+ cameras. The Sony a6300 got it. Do you think that the next EOS-M will have 4K? Or the 6D2? Even the 7D2 should have had 4K (and the touchscreen). Thank god there's MagicLantern .
You don't even need a 4K display to appreciate the quality of UHD videos. The sharpness, the details and contrast look amazing even on 1080 displays. There is no discussion.

I think you need to look at other tech reports from years ago and see when the specs your talking about came to light.
There is a big discussion about that but clearly you think otherwise.
Everything should be coming with 4k if it isn't already as the more products that have 4k the more content we will see.
You say 1080 @ 60fps, again not everywhere has it and I really wish it was cause @60 looks damn fantastic.

People on tech forums forget about what consumers understand, we who are in the tech know want all these things but most the time consumers don't have a clue. The average person doesn't have a clue what 1080P @ 60fps means, or what it is.
For example, Youtube only started 60fps playback at the end of 2014 - yet not many videos actually take use of it.
We as the people who produce the content want it for sure, but that's because we understand it and see the benefit.
Heck, my wife can't see the difference between SD & HD unless I explain it and show it side by side.
Again though it comes down to what delivers the content, we want the products that deliver say 1080P @ 60fps so that we can deliver said content to people.
I do agree that the MK3 should have had 60fps 1080P, but back then it wasn't really a thing, but maybe thats down to bad choices on the Canon R&D department.

However, I do think canon are lagging behind with video, lagging and making bad decisions to keep ahead of the game. The new 1D COULD have come with 8K, that would have been a big surprise, as like you said, 4K is everywhere. But then some people will say they are monopolising their cinema cameras, not really though as those cameras handle video even better.
Anyway I could go on and on

But like I said originally, I didn't buy the MK3 for the video features, and I think people want too much from what was a picture only camera to a camera with added video features. If video is that much of an issue then buy a dedicated video camera.

Just look at Sony and Panasonic cameras from 2012, 1080@60p was everywhere ... except Canon
Average consumers may not care about 4K or 60p, but they are not the main customers to buy $500+ cameras. They are mostly smatphone users (and not even expensive ones). They can spend like $200-$300 on a new smartphone every year and like $300-$400 on a tablet. "DSLR? What's that? Mirror..what?" - they say .

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_4K_video_recording_devices

 

[ExodistPhotography]

The next DSLR from Canon will be the 5DsR Mark II

LOL yea with that 250MP sensor they been talking about.. :-D

There was another poster on this forum that posted a bunch of 80D specs that were almost 100% right who said that the 5Ds would be updated this year. So while we may laugh at the prospect, maybe the laugh will be on us?

They could do some crazy high MP camera, but the ISO performance would currently be terrible.
That said, its very likely they could continue with the 5Ds line and make a low MP, high ISO camera to compete with Sony's low light king. I dont see them doing a sports line up of the 5D though as it would compete with the 7D series, or 1Dx series. But a low light camera is very possible and would not surprise me the least.

 

[Quackator]

Does any Canon DSLR have IBIS?

No. And they don't have the overheating problem associated with that technology.

 

[snapper37]

I am waiting to move up to full frame from 7D. However, I am reluctant at the moment to buy a 6D if a new one (6d ii) is likely in the near future

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

I am waiting to move up to full frame from 7D. However, I am reluctant at the moment to buy a 6D if a new one (6d ii) is likely in the near future

It is quite probable that a 6D Mark ii is coming later this year. However, there is no guarantee that, and maybe come only in 2017.

It is expected great improvements in auto focus (which is simple in the current 6D), and modest improvements in high ISO (which is already good in the current 6D).

 

[Random Orbits]

I am waiting to move up to full frame from 7D. However, I am reluctant at the moment to buy a 6D if a new one (6d ii) is likely in the near future

Depends on your budget. The new one will more likely a bit more expensive than the current 6D street price.

 

[ptogel]

So I guess we just keep buying the 5D Mark III for the meantime...

 

[Adelino]

So this is a rumor that there are no rumors?

 

[comazzi]

I don´t know about Canon, but my next dslr will be a 80D :

 

[Tugela]

what i would like to see, is the confirmed specs of the 5D4 before the 1dx2 hits the shelves, at least to make a informed choice. sure the 1DX2 is a brilliant camera but i want a good accurate stills camera. however once you have used a 1D series you don't want to go back to a lesser model

The specs will be "more than what was before", and "less than what was hoped for".

That would put you in the general ball park. This is Canon we are talking about after all.

 

[DLD]

Canon's lineup until recently was starting to show it's age, and even upon release was still bettered in some ways by the competition. I hear some people claiming the only reason they stick with Canon is lens investment, lens quality or flash systems. Soon as the competition gets these things down, they may get the shooters (except the fan boys which will argue needed or wanting more dynamic range means you can't shot and are a poor excuse for a photographer, to the grave). Which is why I think Canon will be acting fast.

Anyhow the 1Dx Mark II seems pretty nice. The 80D was a pleasant surprise (to me at least). I believe we'll see the 5d and 6d sooner than later, a lot of pros are holding off for the updated 5d while the enthusiasts may be waiting for a price drop on the 5d mark iii or the new 6d....

People that can afford and need a 1d will not buy a 5d because it's cheaper (It doesn't have the same features). As will 5d users not purchase a 6d because it's less expensive or released too close to the time of the step up model, if the 5d meets their requirements they'll get that, if not they'll get a 1d. I think this cliché about "cannibalizing sales" is inaccurate, otherwise people would just go down the line and get the cheapest thing they could find... People buy cameras by the specs and what they need (if they are smart at least). If their wallet isn't fat enough they buy the next best thing, has little to do with anything else I believe. The tradition of spreading out releases is to remain active through the year and remind everybody of the brand, also resources allocated to development, new technologies and software implementations etc. can also play a role. Wouldn't it be weird if Canon released new products only every 2 years all in the same month, would there be a website called canon rumors? It would be inactive for long periods at least, I can tell you that much...

That's my 2 cents... Discuss if you must... But let's try and play nice.