Donnie G: Over 1,000 comments and counting. Alright whiners, keep those clicks ah-coming. You're selling more cameras for Canon with your constant moaning and groaning than the company ever could by itself because controversy sells products too. Don't take my word for it, just ask Apple. Ha ha ha, LOL. Brilliant campaign Canon! :)
This is the kind of blind fanboyism that gives fanboys a bad name, LOL!
Controversy sells products? Wow, just wow. It might work for selling tabloid magazines, but last I heard Canon wasn't in the business of selling tabloid magazines.
justmeMN: It's just an advertising/marketing campaign, not the end of the world. :-)
Look on the bright side. These ads don't feature (eww) Ashton Kutcher. :-)
The "pseudo-outrage" about this advertising campaign is hysterical.
Canon haters continue to rant, and Canon continues to sell more cameras than any other company.
@Donnie G - No company is immune to a change in fortune. None. It doesn't matter how successful you are or how much of the market you have. Take a look at Kodak, RIM/Blackberry, Nokia, etc. There was a time when none of these companies were "desperately in need of every dollar" either. You simply can't take for granted that money will keep rolling through your door.
CraigArnold: I quite like it as a marketing campaign.
Sure if you are being cynical like 99.99% of DPR users then it's just a pretentious way of saying that the photographer is more important than the equipment. Canon does make good equipment, but everyone here really wanted more megapixels or something.
Not for gear forums, but to market themselves by showing all the cool stuff you can do with their products isn't a horrible idea.
People (real people not DPR people) are tired of buying better equipment when their current equipment is good enough. Sell them a dream or inspiration though and they might buy things they didn't realise they needed.
Good job Canon.
And it loads in all my browsers.
Thanks, Canon marketing guy. Nice of you to pat your own back, lol,
hexxthalion: not defending Canon, but at what point they mentioned or hinted that they're going to introduce a new camera or camera related technology?
the Ad itself wasn't published in any photo-related publication and we're just a couple of weeks after photokina.
let's not blame them for something they didn't deliver if they didn't promise to deliver it, it's a bit pointless
It's a bit misleading, obviously. I mean, who the heck sets a count-down timer for announcing a marketing campaign? Just imagine if Apple did that. They'd be raked over the coals. If Apple did a count-down teaser, only to announce a marketing campaign rather than an actual product, it would reflect very poorly on Apple. Would it be defensible for them to then say, " At what point did we mention or hint that we were going to introduce a new product? We didn't promise anything!"
In lieu of cutting edge products that lead by example, please accept this shiny red cube logo. Stare into it intently, and let its shiny goodness cast you into a trance.
Your Marketing Overlords,
sheepr: Over 700 comments. Canon's goal has more or less been achieved.
Right, and how many of these comments is favorable towards Canon? Do you think people's opinion of Canon has gone up or down after this publicity stunt? It's one thing to be a celebrity, where any attention is good attention. But it doesn't work that way with corporations and branding.
Now we know what the logo symbolizes: it's SMOKE AND MIRRORS! An illusion of substance!
jcunwired: Out of 731 (now 732) comments, I'd bet not one of the posters (posers?) owns Canon equipment but most wish they did. Just thinkin' out loud here...
Seriously? LOL. Yeah, NO ONE here owns Canon equipment, and if they did, they'd NEVER dare say anything unfavorable or critical of them! Sure.
samhain: Jokes and dreams aside...
"We see impossible".... That has me thinking it has to do with af. Perhaps an af system that can focus (or 'see') in the dark.
That, or having something to do with the impossible project.
I'm going with some sort of night camera/focusing
Well, then why wouldn't they have at least teased this at Photokina a couple weeks ago? Not even a prototype, not even a preview, not even a mock-up, not even a hint? Why? Because it probably has nothing to do with photography.
macky patalinghug: It is not impossible to see a camera so it will not be a camera. We can see what we like from Canon so it will have nothing to do with us. It will be something we can't comprehend and best of all it is something we can not buy. Which is a good thing so we can keep our money.
It's a space ship to Mars. Flown by chimps.
All the ideas people have suggested seem to ignore the fact that whatever Canon is announcing, it has to be something that has been considered "impossible" by everyone else. Basically, the teaser is saying, "You guys all thought this [whatever it is] was impossible, but we don't see it that way. We've made it possible. We've made this product that everyone else has been saying *can't be done*."
Either this product is truly extraordinary and ground-breaking, or they are setting themselves up for major disappointment. It kind of reminds me of Nikon's Df teasers. So much mystery, so much hype, so much anticipation. But it all ended up being a bit anti-climactic when the Df was finally introduced. Canon has set the bar even higher, by essentially claiming that they are going to introduce a product once considered "impossible" and "can't be done." We'll see if they can live up to that claim.
sproketholes: I want a mirrorless camera that has a bundled adapter for EF and FD lenses, in an insane flange distance which would allow anything to adapt to it. A high quality EVF, weather-proofing and hot-sht audio and video capability with all amazing port access, with the ability to connect to an SSD to record 4K output, a solid sensor that sucks in low light and be full frame, and about the size of the A6000.
All of this is really actually possible..
All of this coming from a company that didn't put wifi into the 7D MKII because they couldn't figure out how to put wifi into a metal device? Masaya Maede: "We considered adding this feature to the EOS 7D II but the body material presented challenges." Apparently, plenty of other companies have licked that challenge. But not Canon. For them, it's still "not possible". So, apparently, what might seem "actually possible" for one company doesn't mean it's possible for another company.
creisti86: New EOS M with EVF and the sensor from the 70D
If that's what Canon considers "See Impossible", then it shows just how far behind Canon really is. A mirrorless camera with an EVF! Wow, we sure didn't see that coming, Canon! Canon sure does see the impossible.
T3: The fact that this is a double page ad in the New York Times makes it unlikely that it'll be a camera product. We photographers tend to think Canon are all about cameras, but they aren't. They do a lot of other stuff too. It's more likely that it has something to do with their business machines division (office copiers, office automation, etc.). If they had something photo-related to tease, they would have done it at Photokina. But my guess is that since this thing isn't photo related, they are teasing it in the NYT.
Or it could be a white 7D MKII with a matching Stella McCartney handbag.
Well, the rest of the world outside of DPreview probably can't think of a photo camera that would be worthy of that level of hype either! A new camera is just not that important to the rest of the world, and certainly not worthy of a two page NYT ad (IMHO). Business machines and business products, on the other hand, are something that businesses rely on, on a daily basis. And it's a big part of Canon's business.
Look up "Canon ImageRUNNER logo", and you'll see that this logo is very similar to the logo they are using for their line of digital copier business products. They all use a similar box logo:
Coincidence? Seems unlikely.
falconeyes: With this comes a new "Canon See Impossible" box logo not seen before. That's not about a camera. Rather a new line of business products. IMHO.
If it is about a camera, then not a single specific new model. But rather a new technology incorporated in cameras. Or just a new logo art ...
Look up "Canon ImageRUNNER logo", and you'll see that this logo is very similar to the logo they are using for this line of digital copier business products. They all use a similar box logo:
Coincidence? Seems unlikely.
The fact that this is a double page ad in the New York Times makes it unlikely that it'll be a camera product. We photographers tend to think Canon are all about cameras, but they aren't. They do a lot of other stuff too. It's more likely that it has something to do with their business machines division (office copiers, office automation, etc.). If they had something photo-related to tease, they would have done it at Photokina. But my guess is that since this thing isn't photo related, they are teasing it in the NYT.
lacikuss: I was thinking about all these companies fighting in the mirrorless arena for a tiny marketshare while Canon is just sitting on the side like as if not caring at all. In the meantime there is a very portable small (almost pocketable) and very cheap mirrorless camera ($250) with and APS-C sensor and with access to one of the largest lens catalogs in the world.
So.. why don't buy and EOS-M instead? At this price range there is no match!
So maybe Canon is not sitting on the sides after all but only having fun while the other panaolymfujisonyniketc are eating each other alive?
I have the EOS M. But I'd rather have the LX100. Why? It has better ergonomics, better controls, an EVF, a body with a zoom lens that is as compact as the EOS M with just the 22mm, a small add-on flash (yes, EOS M even with 22mm pancake still benefits from having flash), panorama sweep, 4K video, WiFI, etc. Yes it costs more. But my point is that you get more. Things like EVF, camera controls, a comfortable grip, etc. are really important once you best past the "my sensor is bigger than your sensor" silliness.
BTW, lets not forget that Canon originally tried to sell the EOS M + 22mm as a $799 kit when it was released in November 2012! Talk about a rip-off! Thankfully, they didn't get away with it because the market roundly rejected that attempt at highway robbery. Its current price more accurately reflects its value, IMO.
@nerd2 - Unfortunately, you don't seem to know what you're talking about. No external controls? The Leica T has twin top-plate control dials. No built-in flash? It has a built-in pop-up flash. No EVF? The T has electronic contacts in the hotshoe for Leica's accessory EVF. And the EVF tilts. Poor ergonomics? The Leica T has a wide right-side grip area with a deep scallop for your fingers to hook into. And it has those twin top-plate dials that are in easy reach of your thumb. Also, if you prefer a grippier body, Leica offers form-fitting snap-on rubberized body skins for the T. As for lens selection, in addition to T lenses, Leica also offers a slim-profile adapter with full electronic contacts so you can use Leica's compact M lenses. The EOS M's adapter for EF lenses is huge, totally negating the slim profile of the EOS M's body, not to mention the fact that EF lenses are also large.
Yeah, well, with the EOS M you get what you pay for, which is not much. No EVF, no tilt screen, no external controls, poor ergonomics, no built-in flash (and no small clip on flash either), no panorama sweep, slow AF, hardly any lenses, etc. I tried liking mine, but it's just not as enjoyable to use or own as I was hoping. Canon didn't put much effort into it, and it shows. I wish the EOS M had the LX100's design, controls and ergonomics. Instead, your just get a soap bar of a camera.
captura: Panasonic fanboys rejoice! This article completely ignores the 'other' competition; the Sony RX100 trio, and the best-value Fuji X-30.
@captura - You can compare DXO points all you want, but a lot of people just don't like Sony controls. I just like the LX100's control layout much more. Dedicated exposure comp dial, dedicated shutter speed dial, dedicated aperture ring on the lens. People get so caught up in lab numbers that ultimately make very little practical difference out in the real world, but completely ignore how a camera handles and how well the controls are laid out. These days, just about any camera can produce great images if it's in the hands of a capable photographer. So I think a big differentiator that people should start taking into consideration is the design and layout of the camera. How a camera handles is important.