You also said "the M System (and the EF-M mount) also served as a placeholder until the R System (and RF mount) was ready for release."
You keep making these statements, but have yet to provide a single fact to support your repeated assertions. There is zero business case for what you keep suggesting.
Was the Nikon 1 system "designed to be replaced"? Was the Nikon 1 system a "placeholder" until the Z mount was ready?
The M system was most certainly not "DESIGNED TO BE REPLACED". The M system NEEDED to be replaced because Canon botched the initial design. I have done enough measuring and modeling of the EF-M mount to know that Canon literally missed by mere millimeters. I don't think you realize how ridiculously close the EF-M mount was to being able to fit a full frame sensor. There is nothing magical about the dimensions Canon chose for the EF-M mount. Fuji and Samsung, which both use(d) a slightly larger sensor, have smaller mounts than the M system. Nikon missed by more that a few millimeters, but the logic behind their errors were the same.
Canon did not need a "placeholder" until RF was ready. Canon had enough of the technological pieces in place that they could have launched full frame mirrorless even before the launch of the M system, but they were too concerned about maintaining DSLR sales. The same is also true for Nikon. Maybe more so as some of their early mirrorless cameras had some of the best AF of the time.
Canon and Nikon both made the exact same mistakes and both ended up with the exact same results.
Well you go ahead and read it your way, I’ll read it mine. You ask for proof, but the proof of the pudding is in the mix already. It’s history already for everyone here to see plain as day.
Ahh, so basically, you have nothing to back up your argument.
I’m not going to try to convince you (because I know your history here). You’ll just have to advance your knowledge on your own. I’ll continue my conversation with others.
Best of luck,
R2
We both agree that the M system was never meant to be a high-end pro system. Where we disagree is on the "how and why".
You are adamant that the M system was "designed to be replaced" and was only a "placeholder" until RF was ready. Basically, you believe that Canon was planning on full frame RF back in 2010, but needed to launch the M system to fill a gap until RF was ready nearly a decade later.
I am convinced that Canon originally only viewed mirrorless in terms of smallest possible size and did not see it as a tool that pros would use. It wasn't until the popularity of the a7 series that Canon realized they misjudged mirrorless and needed to pivot. To be fair, most manufacturers initially misjudged mirrorless (including Sony).
Your theory makes zero sense for multiple reasons. For starters, Canon had the technological pieces in place that they could have launched a full frame mirrorless camera way back in 2008. The original 2018 R was just a repackaged 2016 5D IV. Canon could have launched mirrorless full frame far earlier than they did, but deliberately chose not to. There is no magical technological breakthrough in the R system that wasn't ready until 2018.
Most importantly, why would Canon launch a brand new mount in 2012, only to replace it in 2018, when that first mount could have been adjusted by only a couple millimeters to serve both purposes? There is a mental disconnect in your argument... If Canon was planning decades in advance for RF to launch later, and the M system was only meant as a short term placeholder, why didn't Canon just adjust the mount by 2mm so it could serve both systems? Another disconnect... if Canon is planning everything decades in advance, why launch an entirely new system with a short 6 year lifespan? How can a company working on a long-term plan be shortsighted?
You think Canon was methodically following a grand master plan and I think Canon has simply been reactionary with changes in the market.
