EOS M2

Started Sep 21, 2013 | Discussions thread
Tom Hoots
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,756
Like?
Re: EOS M2
In reply to Jonathan Brady, 11 months ago

Jonathan Brady wrote:

Agreed. Orphaned products/lines do happen, rarely.

To me, the real oddity to people claiming there won't be an M2 (aside from the fact that they seem to be ignoring 13 mentions of the M2 in DPP and a new sensor that seems destined to be in a mirrorless camera) is that they're basing MUCH of it on a quote from a Nikon exec about how the mirrorless market in the US hasn't been what they expected. Ironically, Nikon just announced a NEW MIRRORLESS CAMERA. One that will be WAY more niche than any of their other 1 series cameras.

Jonathon,

Crikey!  Do you suppose that it takes a bit of lead time to write narrative text in a software program, and furthermore, perhaps some time between the software development and the actual distribution of that software, Canon might have CHANGED THEIR MINDS about actually developing, producing, and marketing the "M2" that's mentioned in DPP?  I consider the DPP mentions to be just about PRECISELY as reliable as all of the rumors from the Canon Rumors web site have been, in regards to any reality that an M2 might ever get released.

I have talked about the Nikon statements, but also about the abysmal sales figures from Olympus and others -- including Canon's EOS-M.  Yes, we read how mirrorless is doing quite well in Japan, but the EOS-M has a whopping TWO PERCENT of the Japan market, last I read.  Meanwhile, with all of the fire sales and Canon USA's decision not to sell the 11-22mm lens, it just boils down to how the EOS-M has been an ABYSMAL SALES FAILURE -- not one company on this planet can continue "selling" a camera that it cannot make a profit with.

So, just look at the G1X before it, and now the EOS-M -- yes, even Nikon with its "death march" press release has managed to produce a new mirrorless camera, while Canon has produced NOTHING.  Meanwhile, profitable or not, the other mirrorless manufacturers are developing and producing absolute BOATLOADS of new cameras.

I still submit that Canon will easily sell FAR MORE SL1 DSLR cameras than they'll ever sell any EOS-M cameras they will ever produce -- so WHY BOTHER??  Especially with the Canon USA decision with the 11-22mm lens, what makes far more sense to me is that they are just going to abandon these cameras and the EOS-M system -- they put a nail in the coffin when they released the SL1, which gives them a small and lightweight camera that can still fit within their DSLR range that they protect so strongly.

I'm not so sure that Canon will "cease production" of the G1X and the EOS-M -- the development has been done, and they can crank out and sell whatever quantities that they can sell.  They might as well milk them until the sales are completely moribund.

The original M didn't sell well because it was AF-crippled and priced too high, a Nikon exec said US mirrorless sales are less than impressive, 1 lens hasn't been made available for US markets yet (happens with other manufacturers too - doesn't mean anything), and it's been about a year since the M hit the market. Does that about wrap it up?

I think it's absolute folly to dismiss Canon USA's decision not to sell the 11-22mm lens, just like it's folly to dismiss how you can now buy full two-lens-plus-flash systems for less than some of Canon's compact-sensor cameras.  You can say that "Oh, it's just the United States," but the US market isn't exactly chopped liver, and in fact plenty of online retailers are dumping EOS-M systems originally destined to be sold in other markets into the US market, and for anyone else who can place an international order with them.

In the end, it just boils down to "something isn't right here" -- and there's just no doubt whatsoever that "what's wrong" is "no profits."  And I just don't expect Canon to develop a new camera that it still can't make any profits with -- it's as pure and simple as that.

As I've said again, I'm not saying ANYTHING AT ALL about the actual pieces of equipment that are the current EOS-M bodies and lenses -- they are quality products, and they produce great image quality.  They have "pros and cons" to them like any other camera or system, but they are what they are.  As I've said before, I've got two bodies -- I'm not knocking the actual equipment at all.

However, the fact remains that the EOS-M's feature set fell far below the average feature set of its competitors in the market, and it was INSANELY overpriced against those competitors -- even without the fatal slow focusing failure that it shipped with, it already had two strikes against it compared to the competition.  It all adds up to why its sales were nearly stillborn, right from the start.  And now we have whole new generations -- GENERATIONS -- of competitors that have leapfrogged over it.

Well, I suppose I'm near the limit here, so I'll leave it there.  But I think it all boils down to how the most prudent thing Canon can do FINANCIALLY is to just stop where they are, and walk away.

Tom Hoots
http://www.pbase.com/thoots
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/4330317199/albums

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow