It’s like they trying to wipe the M6ii off the earth Locked

OpticsEngineer wrote:

yes. fab time is very expensive. also scheduling fab time is expensive and money is already allocated. even though parts aren’t built yet. But from an internal company financial perspective it is the same as if parts already were made. i work for a monster big. corporation and how money is hsndled and allocated just does not sense from a simple engineers point of view. it is just from my experience seeing how money is handled i have this idea that at some point the marketing people in Canon had this awful realization that they were going to have a bunch of 32 MP chips depreciating in inventory and they were scrambling to find some product to use them in And a realization that DSLR sales were plummeting much faster than anyone expected so the 90D was not going to work out as a place to put all of them.

First off, image sensors are not light bulbs. You can't just unscrew one and upgrade it with a newer, better version. All of the hardware in a camera needs to be deliberately designed specifically for a given sensor. Conversely, an image sensor needs to be designed with a clear understanding of what hardware will be used in the target camera.

Second, the timing of camera launches is just too far off to support your theory. Canon would never have launched the crop RF cameras before the R5 and R6. Even if we accept your theory that the R10 and R7 were delayed, the earliest they would have launched would have been 2021. That is still two years after the M6 II and 90D and would have been long before any hardware or spec's would have been locked down for the R7.

Just using my M6ii i just have the impression it does not have the refinement that my 90 D has. That probably is why I have the feeling the M6ii was planned as a dead end.

The M6 II launched at $849 for the body. The 90D launched at $1199 for the body. It is not at all surprising that a body that costs almost 50% more would be a bit more refined. Just as the $599 M50 II body is not as refined as the nearly 50% more expensive M6 II.

Here is the reality of the 32MP sensor. Contrary to the conspiracy theories constantly posted here, Canon did not kill the M6 II because the sensor was "too good". Canon is killing the entire M system, not just the M6 II, because it makes more financial sense for Canon to consolidate all cameras under the RF mount. The M6 II was likely just the first to go because it overlaps more with the R7 and that production capacity needed to be reallocated for R7 production.  The 90D, which uses the same sensor, has not been discontinued and is still readily available.

Then why launch a new sensor for a dead mount? First, the mount wasn't going to be phased out for a few more years. The timing of the phase out would not have had a hard date, predicted years in advance, as there are a lot of moving variables with existing stocks and lead times on new products. Second, Canon was falling years behind the competition without a single camera capable of decent 4k video. The old 24MP sensor is not at all up to the task and a new sensor was desperately needed. If you already need to completely design a new sensor to accommodate the requirements of 4k video, there is no reason not to tweak the pixel count at the same time. Third, the 32MP sensor is coming off of a newer fab line than the old 24MP sensor. By launching the 32MP sensor in lower volume bodies like the 90D and M6 II, Canon was able to work out the kinks before before the line got stress tested with R5 and R6 sensor production.