Why I believe Canon should give a better ending for the DSLR system

ucps1985 said:

I know this sounds nostalgic, and I know the era of SLR is long gone, but there are better ways IMHO that Canon can end its best period of history in camera industry in a better way.

Canon is the winner and by and large its ruthless pragmatic determination, when it switched from mechanic to electronic, from film to CMOS, and from EF-M to R. There is no hesitation, no back-looking, no doubting, but pure calculation. I appreciate it and admire it because that is the right thing to do to survive. Look at Olympus, Pentax, and Minolta (or even Nikon), do you think there persistence helped their loyal user ultimately? So first thing first, I am not saying that Canon should continue producing DSLR cameras and lenses. I am saying that Canon should have a better ending of it.

(1) 5D and 5D mark II, 6D and 6D mark II, 7D and 7D mark II are great lineups and "touch up". I would consider 5D mark III and 5D mark IV as a new line that should be named 4D and 4D mark II as upgraded version to compete with mirrorless cameras. So I think Canon has done everything it can here. However, just like EOS 3 in the days of film photography, Canon should have made a EOS 3D to summarize all the "black technologies" that promises sequels that could knock your socks off (if it wants). It can be anything that is either not mature in time, or seemingly useless, or just unconventional for DSLR. That is what Canon can do as a finale. Of course, a 135L IS, a 50L IS, a 99D (catch up everything for the euthanistic amateurs), or even a m5 mark ii are all good candidates as well to end the era.

(2) This is not about selling or marketing. This is not about keeping the same lens mount like Nikon or Pentax did for SLR. (I know Sony is doing it as well, but it is too young to be discussed...) Again, this is a elegant gesture and a love letter for all the Canon users that says, I care of you. Look at what Olympus did in the past a couple of years-as a much smaller company department, they have the gut to upgrade nearly all their lines and squeeze in all techniques that they can before it went bankrupt. What do you think the purpose of it? It says, I am a reputable manufacture and I care about my reputation which is all about the best design and a dedication to the best engineering. Craftsman's spirit of Japan is what makes the camera country-all the innovation is based on the limitation of feasibility, affordability, and reliability. And DSLR can really showcase such spirit. That is why DSLR should be a tradition, not a trend.

(3) I know it is funny. Yesterday we complained about Canon that is too slow to make mirrorless with a concern of losing its market share of DSLR. Today we complained about Canon that do not make better DSLR afraid of competing with its own DSLR. But that is the beauty of being conservative. But let me think of a world without Sony. If Canon slows down a bit, the design pitfalls of m6 mark ii will not happen; the weird design of EOS R and R7 control wheel/bar will not happen. And R and Rp will have better modulation of the chips and will not be in their position today (think about how graceful and adequate when Canon started to lauch its full spectrum of DSLR from the 00s, one by one). All these rushed products are fundamentally ruining the reputation and market shares in the end since it is not about creating the best camera no more-it is all about beating Sony. So can you be sure that there is really nothing can be learnt from the 30 years of DSLR? Do we just want to follow Sony to do everything in the design of a good camera? In the end of the day, it is not a war of specs, at least that is not the game Canon has been playing successfully for the past 20+ years. Who do you want to sell your mirrorless cameras? How many of them are shooting videos (and upload to Youtube and discuss about the video capability)? There are many good questions that no one dares to think!

RIP DSLR...or?

Click to expand...

m4ndr4ke said:

Canon ended their DSLR line-up with a bang, by producing the best DSLR ever made, the 1DX Mark III.

Click to expand...

john1970 said:

This is a very true statement and one that critics complained about as usual. While I enjoyed using DSLRs it is very obvious that DSLRs are dead. The advantages of a mirrorless camera vs. a DSLR are numerous. For me the top two are: 1) AF sensors and tracking over the entire frame and 2) real-time exposure preview.

Click to expand...

tareqphoto said:

Can't they make those two main advantages you mentioned into new DSLR models if so?
I mean, they definitely made mirrorless as a future choice with whatever features and performances they put on them, they spent years in the past perfecting DSLRs as much they can, so why didn't they continue in that way? I mean for me it sounds that mirrorless cameras are just DSLR bodies but without mirror, and so they made it thinner sizes too.

Click to expand...

P-visie said:

Yes, DSLR’s with live view can focus over most of the frame and real-time image preview, you just have to flip the mirror out of the way and look at the screen on the back of the camer.

Click to expand...

AlanF said:

You might find this interesting https://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics

Click to expand...

Quack said:

For non-gear-heads, there is almost no difference between a DSLR and a Mirrorless camera. Removing the mirror was a much small evolution than adding Autofocus, or auto-exposure. DSLR's and Mirrorless cameras are 95% the same camera, so I really don't get the whole comment.

Click to expand...

Quack said:

For non-gear-heads, there is almost no difference between a DSLR and a Mirrorless camera. Removing the mirror was a much small evolution than adding Autofocus, or auto-exposure. DSLR's and Mirrorless cameras are 95% the same camera, so I really don't get the whole comment.

Click to expand...