Disappointed with the fate of the EOS M line

nnowak wrote:

rz64 wrote:

nnowak wrote:

Kharan wrote:

nnowak wrote:

KoolKool wrote:

in business perpective, Nikon 1 and Canon M are the most expensive mistake in camera industry

Not likely. Cameras like the M50 sold more than well enough for Canon easily recoup all of the M system development costs.

Nikon 1 might be a different story.

The problems here are the loss of consumer confidence, as well as the opportunity costs, incurred by Canon. It’s obvious, from reading this thread, that many EOS M users are very displeased at Canon for the end result of their dumb decisions

Not as much as you might think. While the members of this forum are quite vocal and the M50/M50 II were best-selling models, the M system as a whole never had a large user base. One year of Canon's peak DSLR sales basically equal the entire history of M sales.

The types of users buying into the M system are also important to consider. Entry level users, as a whole, often buy a single dedicated camera, then give up on the concept and go back to their smartphone. Many of them probably could not even tell you what brand of interchangeable lens camera they stuffed in the back of a closet years ago. The M100, M200, M50, and M50 II sold heavily to this group. At the other end were people who bought into the M system as an accessory to their larger DSLR's, and then later, their larger RF bodies. While this group might lament the loss of a small body like the M6 II, the compatibility of RF-S with their larger RF gear offers distinct advantages. It is really only the relatively small middle group of advanced users where the M system is their only/primary system who are suffering the most by this change.

(jumping into mirrorless late, with an obviously born-to-be-an-orphan mount, creating gimped products for it, and always treating it like the red headed stepchild). The damage will be difficult to quantify, but Fujifilm’s success should be a good indicator of the viability of the enthusiast APS market. Their user base is largely composed of “renegade” crop aficionados from other systems, and one of the main user donors (if not THE main one) has been Canon.

I don't think Fuji's market share has changed dramatically in the last few years. Any M users moving to Fuji are mostly coming from that small middle group I mentioned above. RF users will just add RF-S. M200 users will just go back to their smartphone.

All of Canon’s stupid decisions regarding EOS M have already exacted a toll, and will continue to do so. With that said, they finally did one thing right with the unification of everything under RF (the cinema cameras are coming any day now). This should reduce user anxiety a little, since RF will be Canon’s single focus for at least a decade, and probably for a lot longer.

Nikon 1 did definitely do worse, but it didn’t need to. It was more viable in the long term, because it could occupy a niche that no other system could. What Nikon didn’t do with was a real shame.

Nikon 1 and Canon M shared the same fatal flaw. Both systems were conceived as an accessory to a DSLR and smallest possible size was the sole design directive. At the time, neither Nikon or Canon saw mirrorless as a full on replacement for DSLRs. To be fair, Sony also made the same mistake, but the E mount was just barely large enough to fit a full frame sensor which allowed Sony to pivot while still keeping the same mount. If the manufacturers knew where mirrorless technology would end up, and how inexpensive full frame sensor would become, many (most?) would have made different design choices for their new mounts.

Nikon made the fatal flaw with N1 that they put a small sensor in a very small body. Due to the fear, that N1 could cannibalize their DSLR sales.

The biggest problem with the 1 system were the tiny zoom lenses with really slow apertures. Why buy a N1 body with a 10-30mm f/3.5-5.6 zoom when you could get a smaller Sony RX100 compact with a 2 stop brighter f/1.8-2.8 zoom?

Canon, however, made a step in the right direction with the M: a large sensor in a small body. A still perfect combination for everyday shooting, traveling etc.

Technically, for most people, a modern smartphone is a perfect combination for everyday shooting, traveling, etc.

Obviously you like turning things upside down. I have differentiated between smartphones and cameras. Anybody deciding for a camera is aware that it is larger than a smartphone.

In the early days of mirrorless, ALL manufacturers were prioritizing smallest possible size in the design process. Remember those early Sony bodies where the mount was bigger than the camera body? Prioritizing size back then made sense because in most other regards, performance was pretty lousy compared to a DSLR.

You cannot erase the size advantage of the M vs. R.

With reference to your comment, one could ask who will be the buyers of RF-S?
The same as you have described above for M: RF-S is just an accessory to their larger DSLRs or DSLMs.

The R50 with kit lenses will work just as well for an entry level user as the M5 II with kit lenses. As a standalone system, RF-S has some better options than EF-M for many situations. For example, the R7 and RF 70-200mm f/2.8 would be a great option for capturing sporting events that would be next to impossible to match with the M system

I am sure that you know the price for the RF 70-200 f/2.8. It is a large, heavy and very expensive lens, neither M-users nor "entry level users" are the target group for this lens.

But Canon follows again the path of "crippling" this new system.
I assume, that there will be (almost) no bright lenses for RF-S, because this could cannibalize the expensive RF-lenses. Since the value of a system is mainly dominated by the lenses, what is speaking for RF-S?

Canon only launched one truly bright lens for the M system (EF-M 32mm f/1.4), and it took 6 years into the existence of the system for that to happen. The Sigma trio took even longer. We are not even 12 months into the existence of RF-S.

Yes, it took 6 years, but we have the following lenses with good to very good IQ:
11-22, 22, 32, 55-200, Sigma trio
Just enough to get a perfect travel kit.

While not EF-M small, the RF 24mm f/1.8, 35mm f/1.8, and 50mm f/1.8 are all reasonably small, light, and inexpensive. Two of those three are even stabilized. As good as the EF-M 32mm f/1.4 may be, it is not defacto superior to the stabilized RF 35mm f/1.8 IS Macro. Stabilization and macro capabilities can be more valuable than the 2/3 of a stop difference. Pretty much all of the same is true of the EF-M 22mm f/2.0 vs. the RF 24mm f/1.8 IS Macro, but the RF lens is 1/3 of a stop faster.

Did you ever enumerate advantages of the M and its lenses? I am sure that you could also find several issues with the RF-lenses.
In general, R and its lenses are heavier, larger, and especially more expensive, as you know. Exceptions prove the rule.

And there is one more point concerning the general camera market: Beside the flooding with smartphones, to my mind the market for new digital cameras is oversaturated. Photographers in the last 20 years have improved their gear - probably several times - with new and better cameras and lenses. Beside the rise of the smartphones this is one more reason for the decline of camera sales numbers.

Yes, the camera market is mature, but that does not mean there is no room for new innovation.

But innovations become smaller and more expensive. And the optical results mostly won't get better significantly.
I am sorry, but many of your comments sound like being directly published by a Canon-R-promoter.