How can we understand this statement from Canon regarding M?

trungtran wrote:

RLight wrote:

trungtran wrote:

Every M50ii sold is one less R50 sold.

If you were in business what would you prefer?

A Camera that has a handful of lenses and no updated model or a camera that has new lenses launched every year.

As long as Canon has stock, it will say things to move it.

I think it’s a smart business move to keep M alive.

Based on what metric?

The M50 mark II is STILL the best seller. R10/7 did nothing to stop it. Granted R50 isn’t stocked yet, but it’s also not already back ordered like the R8 so I’m no rocket scientist but I don’t need to be.

It makes more sense to keep EF alive.

If you read the interview, he addresses that too.

But choices are good.

Not if they do half baked updates like M50 to M50ii

They don’t need to. Like the 18-150 that was a re-mount port, there’s absolutely no reason the R50 can’t be a remount port, either.

Would you pay $679 for an M50 Mark III that was an R50, but M mount, instead? Full 4K video, R3 AF capability, EFCS (no M6 II shutter shock), R10 sensor (improved DR and low light vs the M50/II)? Again, this isn’t hard for Canon to do, either. That’s a pretty slick looking offering. Granted buffer size stinks, C-RAW helps here just like it does on the M50s. Really the only drawback is the sensor cleaning. Air rocket which is a $10 fix there is my thought.

MyM6II wrote:

justmeMN wrote:

trungtran wrote:

Every M50ii sold is one less R50 sold.

If you were in business what would you prefer?

A Camera that has a handful of lenses and no updated model or a camera that has new lenses launched every year.

As long as Canon has stock, it will say things to move it.

Like when Nikon denied that Nikon 1 was being discontinued.

And where is Nikon now ? (Hint: Market share going down ↓ .)

Maybe they should have continued the 1 system to give buyers more choices.

Ah, but Nikon was aware, painfully aware, I suspect, of all those failing Nikon 1 Nikkor lenses out there.  In addition to wanting to go after bigger-spending pro's and wealthy amateurs, I think Nikon wanted to put that whole disjointed, defective-lens-ridden Nikon 1 episode as far behind the corporation as it could, as quickly as it could. And so it has.

Oh well, a Nikon 1 Nikkor 10-30mm zoom with stuck shutter does make a nifty-looking paper weight.

nnowak wrote:

MyM6II wrote:

justmeMN wrote:

trungtran wrote:

Every M50ii sold is one less R50 sold.

If you were in business what would you prefer?

A Camera that has a handful of lenses and no updated model or a camera that has new lenses launched every year.

As long as Canon has stock, it will say things to move it.

Like when Nikon denied that Nikon 1 was being discontinued.

And where is Nikon now ? (Hint: Market share going down ↓ .)

Market share might be down, but revenues are up.

Market share is a very important metric.

Maybe they should have continued the 1 system to give buyers more choices.

Nikon should have launched the DL series compact cameras. The CX 1 series was a terrible idea. Why buy a J5 with the 11-27.5mm f/3.5-5.6 kit lens when you can get a smaller and lighter RX 100 III with a built-in 8.8-25.7mm f/1.8-2.8 lens? Not only is the RX100 lens a full two stops faster, but it has a more useful 24-70mm equivalent range than the 30-74mm equivalent range of the CX lens. At the other end, you had m4/3 matching the size and weight of the Nikon 1 system while offering a larger sensor with a much more expansive lineup. The only interesting piece of the Nikon 1 system was the relatively small CX 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 with an equivalence of 189-910mm. For everything else, there were better options elsewhere.

Your opinions about the 1 system are irrelevant. Many people still loves it and are still using this small and nice ILC system, years later. Many of these people won't buy Z cameras, because they are too big. Likewise many M users will not buy into the R system.

nnowak wrote:

MyM6II wrote:

nnowak wrote:

MyM6II wrote:

justmeMN wrote:

trungtran wrote:

Every M50ii sold is one less R50 sold.

If you were in business what would you prefer?

A Camera that has a handful of lenses and no updated model or a camera that has new lenses launched every year.

As long as Canon has stock, it will say things to move it.

Like when Nikon denied that Nikon 1 was being discontinued.

And where is Nikon now ? (Hint: Market share going down ↓ .)

Market share might be down, but revenues are up.

Market share is a very important metric.

Maybe they should have continued the 1 system to give buyers more choices.

Nikon should have launched the DL series compact cameras. The CX 1 series was a terrible idea. Why buy a J5 with the 11-27.5mm f/3.5-5.6 kit lens when you can get a smaller and lighter RX 100 III with a built-in 8.8-25.7mm f/1.8-2.8 lens? Not only is the RX100 lens a full two stops faster, but it has a more useful 24-70mm equivalent range than the 30-74mm equivalent range of the CX lens. At the other end, you had m4/3 matching the size and weight of the Nikon 1 system while offering a larger sensor with a much more expansive lineup. The only interesting piece of the Nikon 1 system was the relatively small CX 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 with an equivalence of 189-910mm. For everything else, there were better options elsewhere.

Your opinions about the 1 system are irrelevant. Many people still loves it and are still using this small and nice ILC system, years later. Many of these people won't buy Z cameras, because they are too big. Likewise many M users will not buy into the R system.

If, as you claim, "market share is a very important metric", the Nikon 1 system would thus be an absolute failure.

Huh ? I am not sure what you mean by that.  I was talking about Nikons total ILC marketshare.

nnowak wrote:

MyM6II wrote:

nnowak wrote:

MyM6II wrote:

nnowak wrote:

MyM6II wrote:

justmeMN wrote:

trungtran wrote:

Every M50ii sold is one less R50 sold.

If you were in business what would you prefer?

A Camera that has a handful of lenses and no updated model or a camera that has new lenses launched every year.

As long as Canon has stock, it will say things to move it.

Like when Nikon denied that Nikon 1 was being discontinued.

And where is Nikon now ? (Hint: Market share going down ↓ .)

Market share might be down, but revenues are up.

Market share is a very important metric.

Maybe they should have continued the 1 system to give buyers more choices.

Nikon should have launched the DL series compact cameras. The CX 1 series was a terrible idea. Why buy a J5 with the 11-27.5mm f/3.5-5.6 kit lens when you can get a smaller and lighter RX 100 III with a built-in 8.8-25.7mm f/1.8-2.8 lens? Not only is the RX100 lens a full two stops faster, but it has a more useful 24-70mm equivalent range than the 30-74mm equivalent range of the CX lens. At the other end, you had m4/3 matching the size and weight of the Nikon 1 system while offering a larger sensor with a much more expansive lineup. The only interesting piece of the Nikon 1 system was the relatively small CX 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 with an equivalence of 189-910mm. For everything else, there were better options elsewhere.

Your opinions about the 1 system are irrelevant. Many people still loves it and are still using this small and nice ILC system, years later. Many of these people won't buy Z cameras, because they are too big. Likewise many M users will not buy into the R system.

If, as you claim, "market share is a very important metric", the Nikon 1 system would thus be an absolute failure.

Huh ? I am not sure what you mean by that. I was talking about Nikons total ILC marketshare.

I am talking about mirrorless market share. Nikon's current overall market share issues have nothing to do with canceling the 1 system and everything to do clinging far too long to DSLR sales.

It could have been much better if they had taken care of all their customers, even those who want small cameras and lenses.

nnowak wrote:

MyM6II wrote:

nnowak wrote:

MyM6II wrote:

nnowak wrote:

MyM6II wrote:

nnowak wrote:

MyM6II wrote:

justmeMN wrote:

trungtran wrote:

Every M50ii sold is one less R50 sold.

If you were in business what would you prefer?

A Camera that has a handful of lenses and no updated model or a camera that has new lenses launched every year.

As long as Canon has stock, it will say things to move it.

Like when Nikon denied that Nikon 1 was being discontinued.

And where is Nikon now ? (Hint: Market share going down ↓ .)

Market share might be down, but revenues are up.

Market share is a very important metric.

Maybe they should have continued the 1 system to give buyers more choices.

Nikon should have launched the DL series compact cameras. The CX 1 series was a terrible idea. Why buy a J5 with the 11-27.5mm f/3.5-5.6 kit lens when you can get a smaller and lighter RX 100 III with a built-in 8.8-25.7mm f/1.8-2.8 lens? Not only is the RX100 lens a full two stops faster, but it has a more useful 24-70mm equivalent range than the 30-74mm equivalent range of the CX lens. At the other end, you had m4/3 matching the size and weight of the Nikon 1 system while offering a larger sensor with a much more expansive lineup. The only interesting piece of the Nikon 1 system was the relatively small CX 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 with an equivalence of 189-910mm. For everything else, there were better options elsewhere.

Your opinions about the 1 system are irrelevant. Many people still loves it and are still using this small and nice ILC system, years later. Many of these people won't buy Z cameras, because they are too big. Likewise many M users will not buy into the R system.

If, as you claim, "market share is a very important metric", the Nikon 1 system would thus be an absolute failure.

Huh ? I am not sure what you mean by that. I was talking about Nikons total ILC marketshare.

I am talking about mirrorless market share. Nikon's current overall market share issues have nothing to do with canceling the 1 system and everything to do clinging far too long to DSLR sales.

It could have been much better if they had taken care of all their customers, even those who want small cameras and lenses.

I agree to a point, but the answer is a better crop Z lineup

That is not a good solution. The mount is too large.

, not the continuation of the CX 1 system.

nnowak wrote:

...

The system is clearly being discontinued, but apparently Canon does not want to do anything that might frighten anyone away from buying the remaining stock.

I bought my last M-body, the M6II, in November 2020 at Amazon for a price Canon only allows for outlets (always liked the price/performance of the M).

The M6II was their last mirrorless test, it was already clear 2,5 year ago they would ditch it and roll everything over to the R mount.

PhotoKhan wrote:

The man explicitly says: "There is still a strong demand for this from our customers. This means that we will continue to offer the EOS M series as we need to meet this high demand.

PK

Exactly. 👍 This should be very easy to understand.

And I also wonder why this kind of threads always make all the M haters crawl out from under their rocks? Where does all the hate come from?

I am only one customer. For many years I shot with a couple of APS-C bodies, starting with the 60D, and have accumulated a number of Canon EF-S and EF lenses along with several lenses from Sigma and Tamron and other accessories. This past Jan I purchased a M50 MKii kit, a number of EFM lenses (Canon and Sigma) and the EF-EFM mount adapter. All before the R50 was released. Size and weight were important factors for me, but overall the M system i think the M system is very capable and I s a very good value.

Even now if I had to make the decision knowing the R50 was available, and fantasizing a bit for what Canon might release in the next 12-24 months, I’d make the same decision again. There is nothing in the R system of interest. It’s overpriced, and fully proprietary. I expect to get 7-10 years out of my M system.

‘Who knows if I ever invest in another Canon system.

abruzzopat wrote:

Marco Nero wrote:

To make matters even worse, they've flooded the shelves with even more new models and now the poor dealers are stuck with a combination of older (discontinued?) R models they can't shift, which ties up their finances. It's perhaps not as much of a problem for the really large city stores with high volume and high turnover but then we have all the absurd pricing with the new lenses which are ultimately larger, bulkier and fail to appeal to the new age of digital photographers who demand smaller equipment.
.
Canon have waltzed themselves right into a corner here. Yes, you could possibly argue that the R-mount is good. It's certainly better than the EF mount. But it's not what consumers want. And that same group of buyers who seem blissfully unaware of the existence of the EOS-M mount are also incapable of deciphering which new R-models are Full Frame or APS-C... nor do they tend to care. And the more choices there are, the less likely people are to purchase because they'll inevitably stray to another brand and Canon then loses a sale whilst simultaneously reinforcing another brand. They learned this very lesson in the early 2000s. How they could make the same mistake again shows a lack of firm guidance from within the company.

So Marco, you’re basically a god on this forum and for good reason. You always provide very thoughtful and thorough posts. But at the risk of being ostracized I would like to rebut you just a little.

“Flooding the shelves” with new cameras is hardly a sin, and previously we have all complained about Canon’s lack of innovation. I’m sure your friends in camera stores are complaining about business… so is my local store. But there are myriad reasons for their problems, and Canon releasing new gear is probably low on the list.

Agree with you entirely. Here’s my own take regarding Canon’s approach with EOS R:

What Canon is doing here is providing the consumer with options that span the Entire Marketplace. Literally flooding it. And all of the new R cameras are tied together by the growing library of RF lenses, and the game-changer which is DIGIC X (and all of the capabilities that this core technology gives to such a growing assortment of camera models). The most recent releases are now beginning to appeal to those in the EOS M market. There’s of course still enough separation (at this early point) that M remains a very viable choice for many folks (including most of us ).

This hugely successful business model (of flooding the market with variations) has been applied by businesses of all types throughout history. One just needs to go to the grocery store to see it in action. Check the laundry detergent aisle, or soda pop, or cereal aisles. How about the exploding “sports drink” section?!

I think this is a winning approach for both Canon and us.  If all of these products were merely mediocre, then they might in fact be “over-extending,” but holy cow these cameras really Rock.

I am sad that Canon has abandoned the M line, and I will use my M6 until it dies or I do

Likewise. M certainly still has its appeal.

but I also (like you I believe) have room in my life for some full frame gear and I think Canon’s R series is actually quite impressive. They are leapfrogging the competition with some really interesting gear, including some affordable bodies in both APS-C and full frame formats.

Bingo.

Like others I hate their lack of support for 3rd party lenses, and that’s a gamble on their part. They have an idea of what consumers want, and maybe you’re right and they’re wrong, but I personally am glad to see them take chances.

Eventually Canon will be filling out the RF and RF-S lens lineups, and IMHO even the 3rd party lockout will end up actually strengthening their position as a company (including profitability!), allowing them to offer us even more great choices in the years ahead.

Canon saw this opportunity to not have their RF lens lineup undercut by other manufacturers.  They obviously did the math.  They made the same choice I would have, were I the same shoes.

All that said, I took my M6ii to my niece’s wedding last week and grabbed this shot at very high ISO while dodging the professionals.

Bravo.  Well done!  Vive le M!  

R2

pyla wrote:

The m-series of cameras has a lens mount that was optically designed for an aps-c sensor. The RF-S series has a lens mount that was optically designed for a full frame camera. I saw a review that compared the EOS R to the R7 using the 35 1.8. Although that is a sharp lens on the R, on the R7 the images were soft. When you compared that to the 32 1.4 (basically the same price lens) on the M6 II, the32 1.4 produces far superior images.

Bryan did the comparison of the RF 85 F1.2 lens with a lot of cameras

Canon RF 85mm F1.2 L USM Lens Image Quality (the-digital-picture.com)

what it shows is that the R had a stronger AA filter

R8/R6II are sharper than R with weaker AA filter

R7 holds its own

I'll likely get RF 35 F1.8 with my R8

but I'm keeping my m32 f1.4 on m6II and not getting RF 50 f1.8 for R8

MAC wrote:

pyla wrote:

The m-series of cameras has a lens mount that was optically designed for an aps-c sensor. The RF-S series has a lens mount that was optically designed for a full frame camera. I saw a review that compared the EOS R to the R7 using the 35 1.8. Although that is a sharp lens on the R, on the R7 the images were soft. When you compared that to the 32 1.4 (basically the same price lens) on the M6 II, the32 1.4 produces far superior images.

Bryan did the comparison of the RF 85 F1.2 lens with a lot of cameras

Canon RF 85mm F1.2 L USM Lens Image Quality (the-digital-picture.com)

what it shows is that the R had a stronger AA filter

R8/R6II are sharper than R with weaker AA filter

R7 holds its own

I'll likely get RF 35 F1.8 with my R8

but I'm keeping my m32 f1.4 on m6II and not getting RF 50 f1.8 for R8

I'm trying to decide if I need anything besides the RF16, RF50 (which I already have) and the RF24-50 kit lens. I mostly use the 22mm and 32mm lenses on my M6II, the 22mm mostly for its size. The equivalent RF35 is a lot larger, so I'm tempted to use the RF16 and crop in post.

And I'll keep hoping for an M300 with USB-C charging, face tracking in AF-servo and non-cropped 4k