Canon DSLR line is dead

[garry23]

https://petapixel.com/2020/07/20/canons-5d-dslr-line-is-dead-report/

[heder]

Yea, this was unavoidable in a marked that is price driven

Olympus has fallen
DSLRs are history (sooner or later)

Don't worry .. the future is bright, the future is mirror-less, but not hope-less 

[garry23]

At the risk of others trying to kill me, I’m going to say what my hope is.

When ML stated, the cameras then, photo or video, clearly were enhanced by the ML technology.

Today, many cameras offer us what we need, eg focus peaking, focus bracketing, exposure bracketing, exposure over/under warning etc etc.

What remains missing, IMHO, is a scripting engine built into the camera, so the user can ‘customise’ things via scripting, eg achieving more automated/complex workflows.

Bottom line: if there is to be a ML 2.0, eg for Post EOSM mirrorless cams, I would put scripting at the top of the list of things to achieve, ie by the code gurus that understand interfacing/linking with the Canon side.

As I say, just my humble thoughts.

[felix_]

DSLRs are history (sooner or later)

Nikon still sells analog SLRs and rangefinder cameras have yet to die...
DSLRs will stay with us for decades to come. But I guess Canon will stop making them.

[yourboylloyd]

Canon 5D4 and 5DS were trash anyway. The only reason the 5D3 and 5D2 were better was because MagicLantern uncrippled it.

Now if they make a 5DV and ask us guys over here what features should be on it, they would outsell Apple...

[yourboylloyd]

 accidental double post. please delete.

[Luther]

I like mirrorless. It reduces mechanical complexity, manufacturing prices and weight. While I disagree with other 'modern tech' on cameras (like wifi, who the hell needs wifi on camera?), mirrorless ain't one of them.

[names_are_hard]

Wifi is pretty useful:
 - can upload images automatically as they're taken
 - no need to access the card door should your camera be in some weird rig (e.g., waterproof casing)
 - direct printing
 - allows remote control of camera from hundreds of metres away

[71m363nd3r]

We can say that in prosumer market we will see less DSLR, but in 1D serie and Nikon D(x) we will still see them in pro segment, specially in sport&action.
From my point of view if you are doing sport and general fast moving subjects the mirrorless camera is slow for transmitting the full resolution picture on the EVP.

Simply I cant catch a 100% frame that I am sure that I got it.

I think that we could see in near future a pro line body like Canon Pellix a 45deg. SLR for faster shoots and quieter shooting.
The loos of light of 1/3 is not a problem in todays war of ISO & MP.

• Canon made the Pellix 45 years ago, a 35mm SLR. It, too, used a semi-transparent, or pellicle mirror, allowing faster, quieter shooting. The mirror was made from silvered Mylar-film, the stuff used to make carnival balloons, and sent two thirds of the light to the film and one-third to the viewfinder, resulting in a dark finder and the loss of 1/3-stop of light for the picture. Also, the mirror would deteriorate over time, growing dirtier and dimmer.

[yourboylloyd]

who the hell needs wifi on camera?

Imagine a world, where all you had to do is bring a camera and a laptop. Instead of your camera writing to an SD card, your camera transfers 12K RAW footage straight to your laptop's harddrive where your laptop automatically starts to converts the footage into proxys or h.266 files or whatever.

That is why we need wifi on a camera.

[Satis]

Imagine a world, where all you had to do is bring a camera and a laptop. Instead of your camera writing to an SD card, your camera transfers 12K RAW footage straight to your laptop's harddrive where your laptop automatically starts to converts the footage into proxys or h.266 files or whatever.

That is why we need wifi on a camera.

While for functionality I agree with you, having WIFI and wireless transmitters open up a whole new can of worms on cameras:
Namely surveillance tracking and potential information leaks. If you read Snowden's autobiography you know that these threats are very real. (wifi triangulation, hardware backdoors etc.)
So all in all no, I rather not have wifi and keep my photos and location for myself. Or, even better have a physical switch for it, so  you can do remote shooting if needed.

[Luther]

Wifi is pretty useful:
 - can upload images automatically as they're taken
 - no need to access the card door should your camera be in some weird rig (e.g., waterproof casing)
 - direct printing
 - allows remote control of camera from hundreds of metres away

The majority of people don't need those features. So the least they should do is to offer a version without wifi, IMO.
Some of those features seems like overengineering to me, like direct printing. Why can't you just use the computer to do that? It is really that difficult to type for 20 seconds instead of putting a wifi card inside the camera and paying $100 more for it? I don't think so.
That doesn't mean wifi is completely useless. Some of those are legit user cases.

Imagine a world, where all you had to do is bring a camera and a laptop. Instead of your camera writing to an SD card, your camera transfers 12K RAW footage straight to your laptop's harddrive where your laptop automatically starts to converts the footage into proxys or h.266 files or whatever.

That is why we need wifi on a camera.

This is a delusion. There's no wifi that can transmit at such high speeds and even if there was it would be way too expensive, power hungry and big to put in a camera. And, again, why can't you just plug the card on the computer an copy? What's the problem with that?
Idk, I think some modern tech are pretty dumb.

While for functionality I agree with you, having WIFI and wireless transmitters open up a whole new can of worms on cameras:
Namely surveillance tracking and potential information leaks. If you read Snowden's autobiography you know that these threats are very real. (wifi triangulation, hardware backdoors etc.)
So all in all no, I rather not have wifi and keep my photos and location for myself. Or, even better have a physical switch for it, so  you can do remote shooting if needed.

Exactly. Imagine photojournalists covering some political issue and the intel from some country erasing all the information.

[names_are_hard]

The majority of people don't need those features. So the least they should do is to offer a version without wifi, IMO.
Some of those features seems like overengineering to me, like direct printing. Why can't you just use the computer to do that? It is really that difficult to type for 20 seconds instead of putting a wifi card inside the camera and paying $100 more for it? I don't think so.

I believe that generally the reason why this isn't done is because it's cheaper to not have two models.  You need different factory processes, testing, marketing, packaging, extra support costs, etc.  The cost of the wifi physical component will be less than $5, probably less than $1.  It's a tiny percentage of the cost of the camera, so it's not worth having two models.  The people that do want / need wifi definitely won't buy a non-wifi cam, the people that don't care can ignore it or turn it off in menus.  From Canon's point of view, why risk the loss of sales when it's cheap to put wifi in even if most people won't use it?

So, strangely, you'd be paying more for the non-wifi model *and* the wifi model, if both existed.

[yourboylloyd]

This is a delusion. There's no wifi that can transmit at such high speeds and even if there was it would be way too expensive, power hungry and big to put in a camera. And, again, why can't you just plug the card on the computer an copy? What's the problem with that?

Wrong. 802.11ac can transfer 1.7Gbps. And do you not see the potential of automatically transferring and converting files to a NVME drive or the cloud?? That would save studios and amateurs hours of time. The space where the SD cards were can be replaced with a heatsink, or a larger battery.

Well imagine this then. You are on a shoot. The director, DP, and 4 Producers are on set. All they would need is a tablet and they could see every single camera in real time no lag.

Or imagine if you setup your camera 20feet away. Or 4K wireless zoom meetings with your wife. Or giving your client a tablet to view all of her pictures of the shoot so she can pick the ones she like on a full screen?

These are just the basic features wifi could provide theoretically. Who knows what other creative ways to use it are.

[yourboylloyd]

having WIFI and wireless transmitters open up a whole new can of worms on cameras:
Namely surveillance tracking and potential information leaks.

If so then the government already does that on each of our phones, laptops, computers, and things as soon as we transfer the files/footage anyway. What would be the difference on a camera? Pros are bigger than cons IMO