Will Canon ditch mirror or not?

Discussion in 'Canon EOS' started by ruslan, Oct 3, 2018.

  1. Do you think Canon will switch to R system quickly and completely? They started well, they are making top notch 1.2 2200 USD lenses and have technology to move forward. Does it make sense to invest into SLR in 2019?
     
  2. I'll admit the switch to EOS was done fairly quickly over just a few years, but I really don't see Canon abandoning their well-established system just yet. Furthermore, the new cameras from Nikon and Canon are "not all built yet"

    See the excellent, anti-fanboy discussion by Roger Cicala at LensRentals.com (Roger’s Rants: My Canon/Nikon Mirrorless Camera Unfanboy Opinion)

    Someday there will be no more mirrors, but not yet, not yet.

    Rule number two is that in any evolution. the old form remains just as good as it ever was.

    Rule number three is that no camera purchases are ever really "investments" (except for some very few special issues for collectors). Camera and photo purchases are expenses.
     
  3. It was certainly 100% focus on the mirrorless R-model during this years Photokina. All ambassadors that were speaking at the event did talk about how they tested the Canon EOS R before the official release. The fact that Canon develops L-series lenses for the mirrorless models also points to that they take that market segment very serious. If not the most serious.

    I would think though, needed or not, that the dual card slot needs to be implemented before the market takes the pro-model to heart. Possibly there's also the battery issue.

    Does it make sense to invest in DSLR in 2019? I cannot really answer that. I cannot see the risk since there is still a good number of great lenses for DSLRs. The lenses are the key for me.
     
    Last edited: Oct 3, 2018
  4. A thread in the Nikon forum has just veered a similar way. Canon didn't really have another dSLR to launch (Nikon did, but it was the D3500, which isn't going to excite the high-end crowd) - and Canon had to big up the Eos R, because otherwise Nikon would have had all the press with the Z6/7.

    I'm expecting both companies (and Panasonic) to give quite high priority to their full-frame mirrorless systems - it reduces production costs, and might get new customers into a market that's got quite a lot of people sitting on existing, very good hardware. Neither Canon nor Nikon can really afford to ignore their existing dSLR customers, or even scare them too much. There's always a chance, however small, that the new systems will fail for some reason, so that's a slight concern (I have a Nikon 1 V1, and Nikon's CX mirrorless mount is now dead); arguably at least with a dSLR lens you know you can adapt it. Both companies have to fill out their mirrorless lens lines, so there's bound to be a flurry of activity, but after that the relative priority given to mirrorless and dSLRs is likely to depend on the rate of adoption. Mirrorless is probably eventually inevitable, but for so long as lenses adapt, I'm in no huge hurry to go mirrorless until there's a body that actually offers me a significant advantage in the areas I care about. I doubt many 5DIV owners are in a hurry, either. Given the duration of product cycles, it'll be telling to see whether either manufacturer iterates the 5D/D8x0 lines with a dSLR, or whether mirrorless product iterations take over; a similar question applies to the 1Dx and D5 updates.

    I'm still waiting to see what happens to the low-end "feeder series". Nikon's DX (APS-C) bodies are still resolutely dSLRs at this point, though there are rumours of yet another new mount changing that. Canon's EF-M isn't particularly compatible with the RF mount, and the Eos M line hasn't exactly shuffled the budget dSLRs out of Canon's lineup. Some people switch to Fuji, who have a higher investment in their APS-C lineup, but a fair number switch back - mirrorless, in its current incarnation, isn't for everyone.

    I'd not be scared of buying a dSLR in the next year or so. Five years? Maybe not, if the mirrorless products have advanced and the dSLRs haven't.
     
    Jochen likes this.
  5. Not quickly nor completely.
    As with Nikon, there is a huge market $$$$$$$ in dSLRs that both companies would be nuts to just drop. Neither company has the design and manufacturing capacity to replace ALL the pro gear out there overnight. It will take years to do that. Nikon published a multi-year lens release roadmap.
    Some pros will switch soon, others will wait (if it ain't broken, why fix/replace it). If you bought a 70-200/2.8, you expect to get x years of use out of it, to amortize what you paid for it. You are not going to replace it after only a year, unless that lens earned enough in that year to pay it off. That is unless the new MIL 70-200 is soooo much better than the old one, like maybe a 70-200/2 :D
    Many consumers are price sensitive, and until the MILC drop down to the consumer prices, the consumers won't go MILC. The Canon T5 et.al. and the Nikon D3xxx and D5xxx series will keep going, to feed that market. And it is a big market.

    If you have a dSLR, another dSLR would be just fine. I would get a D810 in a heartbeat, at the right price.
    If you have nothing, then either or. Just realize that the native mirrorless lenses are not all there, and will be released over several years. So a dSLR lens that you want, may not be availabe in the mirrorless version for several years.

    As TH mentioned, there IS the battery life issue.
    I can shoot my dSLR the entire weekend on ONE battery.
    On my EM1, the battery lasts about 4 HOURS. I need THREE batteries to take me through the day. And I am charging all three batteries that night to get me through the next day.
     
  6. I doubt that Canon knows the answer to that question. I believe that mirrorless is here to stay and that money spent on "R" system glass should have a long life. The good news is that EF lenses apparently work quite well on the R and the short flange distance provides far less potential benefit to longer lenses (so that EF telephotos and long zooms should integrate well with either the R or EF system). It seems clear to me that the "M" system is going to wither on the vine, and at some point Canon will introduce APSC R cameras and lenses to provide a lower cost entry into the R system.
     
  7. Ruminating and speaking about SLR future I recall 1987, when they quickly abandoned their so much beloved FD system.
    Consider this: Olympus and Sony switched to mirrorless very quickly, no looking back. See what is going on: Panasonic and Leica are creating L mount.
    I think they will need to sell their stock of DSLR without any panic among customers like they had been selling their film SLR EOS-1V stock for almost 2 decades.
     
  8. I can’t help but see Canon in the same position as Leica was in as Nikon and Canon put out their first SLRs. Leica is still here making rangefinders (and I shoot one and love them) but the mainstream had passed them by. SLRs were the wave of the future then. Now it’s SLRs who are to be kicked out of the mainstream. But it might take a while before Canon or Nikon would stop making them. Note that Leica tried to make SLRs too, but it was too far behind the power curve. Plus lots of people shoot SLRs and won’t want to change so they might be viable as a product for decades just as the Leica Ms are.
     
  9. Strictly speaking, Panasonic, Olympus and Sony switched to mirrorless very quickly. Although Panasonic and Olympus were already trying to support 4/3 dSLRs (which were always a bit big for what they were), and Sony were trying to make SLT work as a differentiator - all these companies had good reasons to go mirrorless fairly early (as did Fuji, who were mostly putting modified dSLRs on the back of Nikon lenses for a while).

    Panasonic are indeed, with Sigma, looking to join forces with Leica on the L mount. This might mean any one of:
    • Absolutely nothing, and Panasonic expect to run full-frame and micro 4/3 as complementary systems indefinitely.
    • This is Panasonic leveraging their relationship with Leica and sticking their toe in the water rather than a serious new system.
    • Panasonic think that micro 4/3 is under too much pressure from 1" compacts and the cellphone market, and they need to step up to differentiate themselves.
    I suspect both Nikon's Z mount and Canon's RF mount have a future and the companies know what they're doing. But I might have thought that about Nikon's CX mount (though less after I saw the cameras), and I think EF-M has some question marks hanging over it. Either of Canikon could decide that their first attempt at the new mount isn't working for some reason - or either of them could decide that the real future is medium format, or square sensors, or something equally oddball. Canon basically made everything work since 1987, but if we look at Nikon's history of autofocus (F3AF, AF/AF-D, AF-I, AF-S, AF-P) or aperture control (F mount, AI-S linear actuator, G lenses, E-aperture) and communication with the body (F mount, AI, AI-S, hybrid AF, purely electronic G), there's been an awful lot of second-guessing. Canon have been more consistent (give or take EF-S and Eos IX), but only after having already gone through several designs. Is this one going to "just work" without imminent further incompatible changes? Probably, but I'm not going to bet my existing F mount collection on it just yet.

    I'm normally quite an early-adopter, but in this case I subscribe to the "never buy version 1 of anything" philosophy. Maybe I'm just getting even more cynical in my old age.
     
    Landrum Kelly likes this.
  10. It will depend
    • on your financial breath
    • on your needs
    • your patience
    I just watched Tony Northrup on the R zooms Summary: 28-70/2 seems substantially more awesome than 24-70/2.8, 24-105/4 seems also more desirable in R mount.
    So what? There are good lenses and no matching cameras announced or time-lined yet. Good news: people might buy current EOS Rs to use that glass and might ditch them later, to get hold of for example an AF spot selection joystick.

    OTOH: What will you do in 2019, if parts of your dream kit aren't available in R mount?
    To me it seems like Canon will dry up the SLR thing slowly, at their pace. - So far, lenses aside, nothing has happened. Their insanely high resolution sensor Mk II has been rumored for quite a while but didn't surface yet.

    I suppose if you buy the current EOS R, you should better stash cash aside, to jump on something with eye detection AF or IBIS, if Canon will ever release such. Is an unstabilized standard zoom or a 50mm really all you need and want? Are those $2K2/ $3K lenses in your reach?

    I'm not sure about the mirrorless thing. - It has advantages if made well but it does vex, if made badly. I don't see a big issue about buying great (there might be some, right?) SLR lenses now and adapting them later when Canon release a sufficiently desirable camera to hold them. Looking at their to do list, I'd be surprised if they 'll get a replacement for the recently released 85/1.4 IS out soon.

    Some SLR stuff you buy, might last 12 or more years. EOS R seems capable to utilize orphan EF lenses if a freshly acquired SLR dies later. I feel challenged to see a big mistake in buying SLR, as long as that isn't a subjectively wrong move already at the very first moment.
     
    Landrum Kelly, ruslan and Gary Naka like this.
  11. You can still buy rangefinders today. You can still buy medium format. You can buy film cameras, including 4*5, and get the film to use them.
    So why do people continue to assume the (D)SLR must go the way of the dodo? Sure, it will become more of a niche market than it is today (and today it is still a bigger market than mirrorless!), but there is no reason why we should stop seeing DSLRs. And both Canon and Nikon, having vast installed base of users, are in my view the less likely to make a swift and complete move away from DSLRs - there is nothing to gain for either of them with making such a move, and a lot to lose.
     
    Landrum Kelly and Jochen like this.
  12. I don't think people mean they won't exist. I still use a rangefinder. I think they mean they won't be mainstream anymore. When people see me using a Leica M (film or digital, tough to distinguish at a distance) they think I'm quirky. At SOME point, maybe (or maybe not) people might feel the same way seeing you hauling around a big DSLR. But I (and the people using TLRs) will still look MORE quirky!:eek:
     
    Jochen likes this.
  13. EVF vs OVF is not a big deal to me, so I think you should let the size of your wallet guide you. I am in agreement with Jochen. Mirrorless is not in itself so fascinating, but it will steadily replace DSLRs, but, like steam trains, they will hang on for many years doing great service. For what it is worth, I think the Canon R looks a good solution for Canon users, although I think their specialized lenses are no-go for most of us (28-70, 50 1.2). I suspect that the majority of Canon lenses in the next 5 years will be R mount, but the R-EOS adapters will be so good that there will not be much pain for most current EOS users who will ultimately switch to Rs.
     
  14. I don't know what Canon or Nikon will do, but I expect to be spending the rest of my life shooting DSLRs, not only because I happen to like optical viewfinders, but because the big old lenses that fit DSLRs are so darned good. If I get so decrepit that I can't handle the weight of my DSLRs and their lenses, then I might switch, but that would be the only reason. I say all this with some knowledge of and experience with Olympus and Sony mirrorless. Olympus in particular with its 2x crop factor makes it possible to carry a very good Olympus (or Panasonic) 300 zoom into the mountains without feeling the weight in my knees. Everywhere else, I shoot DSLRs. They are as good as they ever were, and that is very good indeed.
     

Share This Page