thoughts on 70D based EOS-M

[Jonathan Brady]

I don't recall reading or hearing that Canon wanted the M to be a high quality P&S. Can you share where you heard that? Because that sounds like their G series to me.

You've stated a LOT of things as fact in this thread and I haven't seen a single quote to back them up. You may be right but without proof it's opinion presented as fact

 

[Marco Nero]

JamesErik1971 wrote:

Some folks can continue hoping for a 70D based EOS-M. I highly doubt that. Remember canon brought you a base model level, 650D sensor EOS-M and tried to charge $800 for it. The premium is on size and build, not performance. Not to mention canon is in this to make money, and no one is going to buy a $1X99, mirrorless system with few lenses (mostly slow zooms), and these things just cost too much to produce. I am sure some folks will always scream they'd buy the moon for a dollar if only canon would sell it to them. Reality is canon and nikon are late to mirrorless and their first offerings were complete and utter commercial failures (great cameras though).

I've been around cameras for a very very long time

I'm a former Canon dealer from 2001.

, and I saw a similar transition happen with digital. Canon and nikon are in a tough spot, and until full frame sensor cameras can sell for $500 they are in a holding pattern. I expect EOS-M2 to be a cheaper (plastic) version of EOS-M, possibly only available in japan and europe, for $499. it would sell like hot cakes.

The Dual Layered Sensor was patented especially for use in the EOS-M MkII. It was NOT patented with a DSLR in mind and the patent specifically elected not to mention the term DSLR, unlike other patents of a similar ilk. I state this because of the specific wording of the Patent description. And the whole point of the Dual Layered Sensor is to "reduce hunting" with the lens when AF is used. We were talking about this last year.

.
Canon do NOT CARE if you think the camera is too expensive. Did you know they have built custom L-lenses for over half a million dollars EACH in the past? They know that the public will pay extra for certain features. Because you WILL pay for cutting edge technology. The R&D costs are being consumed by the inclusion on the 70D during initial release and public test phase. This will make the cost of inclusion on the next Pro-version of the EOS-M less expensive. And now you know that an EOS-M body is probably worth about $99 to produce and ship.
.

Canon are performing VERY well compared to companies like Sony... Sony have their backs to the wall at the moment and the one thing that has put them on the brink of bankruptcy is MIRRORLESS DIGITAL CAMERAS. Turns out you can't keep lowering the price to compete with Samsung - who in turn will sell at or below cost just to dominate the market (as Apple discovered). So Nikon are suffering, Sony is suffering. Fuji is suffering. But Canon, though along for the bumpy ride, put less eggs in their basket and were NOT as hard hit. Even though they lost their two Sensor handling robots and two factories in Japan to the Tsunami. But the EOS-M price drop was a brilliant decision. And Canon have now released a full list of lenses which are fully compatible with the new Dual-Layered sensor... with only a few left off that list.

.

The EOS-M Mk II may (or may not) contain the Dual Layered Sensor but the EOS-M Pro model almost certainly will. Expect to see the models introduced and announced after the 70D has been released. Canon are the healthiest outfit of ALL the camera manufacturers at this time. And this is because they did all their R&D decades ago and patented their knowledge so that when a competitor pays for a license to use that lens/body/software in their own cameras, Canon get a slice of that pie.

.

Advancements in technology will gradually lower prices over time. In 1996, it cost around $1000 per MB of memory storage. A professional memory card used to be a few MB. These days you can buy tens of GB for under $100. But that took almost 20 years. Don't expect to be paying a measly $500 IXUS price for a spankin' new EOS-M V2Pro because you'll have to cough up. I deal with people every day of the week who want to obtain the equivalent of a 4 course meal for the price of a cup of coffee. Then they'll haggle over whether or not the get a free cookie or not. I'm happy to lose a sale than to sell at a loss. Some of the products and services I supply are VERY expensive. The entry level gear is a couple of hundred bucks. The pro gear is nearly $10,000. You should hear them squeal when they can't get what they want and when they buy elsewhere and the competitor's product is so inferior. Our manufacturer supplies the US Dept of Defence so we're talking advanced tech in some cases. And sometimes the customers are astounded that they can't get that expensive item at a fraction of the asking price. I've even had to throw people out on the street because they just couldn't fathom the concept of bad businesses but they refused to go away. They threaten to go to the competitor (but the competitor's product is inferior). So in the end, they either pay for the premium product or they go away. It's the same with cameras. Sure, the competitor's AF might be faster but how's the image quality? Is the menu ergonomical? Do you feel confident in the quality?

.
Don't be that cheap guy who thinks he won't walk away unless the "price is right". But don't get suckered into paying too much either by the dealers who pay a premium for their overheads. You GET what you pay for in most instances. And, as they say: there's no such thing as a free lunch.

--
Regards,
Marco Nero.
www.pbase.com/nero_design

 

[Dedcakes]

I don't recall reading or hearing that Canon wanted the M to be a high quality P&S. Can you share where you heard that? Because that sounds like their G series to me.

You've stated a LOT of things as fact in this thread and I haven't seen a single quote to back them up. You may be right but without proof it's opinion presented as fact

It's pretty obvious JamesErik was stating opinion and this is just becoming a flame-war. You want to throw him under the bus because he's questioning YOUR system.

It should be noted that other members state opinion as fact, including your own renown member Marco -- it wasn't long ago he said (I'm paraphrasing) that Canon is just testing this technology in the 70D and Canon developed it for the M mkII...

Where is the proof for assertions that are in favor of Canon supporting the M?

 

[rrccad]

Marco Nero wrote:

JamesErik1971 wrote:

Some folks can continue hoping for a 70D based EOS-M. I highly doubt that. Remember canon brought you a base model level, 650D sensor EOS-M and tried to charge $800 for it. The premium is on size and build, not performance. Not to mention canon is in this to make money, and no one is going to buy a $1X99, mirrorless system with few lenses (mostly slow zooms), and these things just cost too much to produce. I am sure some folks will always scream they'd buy the moon for a dollar if only canon would sell it to them. Reality is canon and nikon are late to mirrorless and their first offerings were complete and utter commercial failures (great cameras though).

I've been around cameras for a very very long time

I'm a former Canon dealer from 2001.

I'm in awe to how quickly you can type all that

 

[Jonathan Brady]

if his posts didn't seem so outlandish or authoritative to me, I'd let it slide. It doesn't come off as being a realistic opinion, and that is why I'm asking for references and proof.

 

[67gtonr]

Dedcakes wrote:

Lawrencew wrote:

Given its prime raison d'être is to improve liveview performance, why would canon NOT put it in their next mirrorless camera?

It makes less sense to me to keep it just in DSLRs where in the case of something like the 70D most users will probably continue to use the OVF.

--
Regards
Lawrence
My Flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/lozwilkes/

that's also a good point. but it's just not in-line with the bottom line, IMO. canon wants the EOS-M line to be a high quality p&s, their mistake was charging a DSLR price. the camera sold out during the fire sales, and they have to address the price issue. if a 70D EOS-M comes out it will be something like a nikon V2, I suppose. but it will be priced into oblivion like the V2 as well and no one will buy it. this is all speculative, but I think canon is smarter than that. pros don't want "faux-pro" mirrorless cameras. we don't care about bulk and size, just performance and control.

Performance and control... Do people care about that in this automatic world we're living in

Anyway, I tend to agree with you James. It makes sense to place this technology in their DSLR line up first. My two speculative reasons are:

(1) DSLR video is an important selling point for the Canon brand. Video is becoming more important to journalist and hobbyist. It's one reason why I'm a Canon loyalist.

(2) While the M takes fine video, the battery life is disappointing, especially when recording. Dual pixel sounds fabulous for video, but is it a necessity for general photography? Will Canon market the M as a video device like they have with the Rebel line?

I suspect we'll see DP in a Rebel before a M.

All Canon literature describing the EOS M lists its video functionality first indicating what market place they were hoping to sell in!

 

[justmeMN]

The EOS-M Mk II may (or may not) contain the Dual Layered Sensor but the EOS-M Pro model almost certainly will.

And when (year) do you predict that an EOS-M Pro will be released?

Currently, there are only 2-3 EF-M lenses, so it hardly qualifies as a pro system.

In addition, since Canon was burned by poor EOS M sales, and had to dump then at a deep discount, I don't see them rushing ahead with an expensive high-end version.

 

[Jonathan Brady]

So many people think success looks like a straight line. It really looks more like a top-tier roller coaster. If companies abandoned ideas after one failure, they'd never succeed.

 

[rrccad]

justmeMN wrote:

The EOS-M Mk II may (or may not) contain the Dual Layered Sensor but the EOS-M Pro model almost certainly will.

And when (year) do you predict that an EOS-M Pro will be released?

Currently, there are only 2-3 EF-M lenses, so it hardly qualifies as a pro system.

In addition, since Canon was burned by poor EOS M sales, and had to dump then at a deep discount, I don't see them rushing ahead with an expensive high-end version.

canon saved nearly 20% or more just on exchange rates to the US (so around 160 USD / unit) between launch date and when they went on sale.

which is why nikon, canon and other japan manufacturers are discounting alot over the past 2-3 months.

the discounts aren't as deep as you would think.

why would they dump the bodies on the american market that doesn't sell mirrorless versus simply directing more sales and stimulating more sales via a more high profitable asian market? this was anything but a panicked "dump" as some would think.

An Interview:

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/0336328811/cp-2013-interview-with-canons-masaya-maeda

Despite this understanding, he concedes that the EOS M hasn't yet been fully able to exploit this market. 'Looking at worldwide results we've seen users are limited to certain regions - we're seeing very positive sales in Japan and South East Asia, looking beyond that we haven't established market share yet.'

'The concept of the EOS M is to make an interchangeable lens camera as small as possible while retaining the quality we would expect from an EOS product. It must be able to support a wide range of lenses - without that support, there's no point making it. Looking at the data, we're not seeing the EOS-M users making use of a variety of lenses. So one of the challenges is to roll-out a lineup of attractive lenses - that is our response to encourage people to use them.'

--

So how can you stimulate marketshare? by selling them at your cost and undercutting competitors. If your R&D is paid for, if the only corporate expense is your production and shipping costs you can easily lower the price and attempt to stimulate market penetration that may not do well otherwise.

 

[T3]

JamesErik1971 wrote:

missing my point. in an effort to avoid repeating myself, I ask you to reread my posts again, slowly. as the EOS-M has a 650D sensor inside, not a 60D sensor.

This belies the major fault of your argument. Just as Canon's CMOS sensor technology found its way into all of Canon's ILC cameras, so too will Canon's Dual Pixel CMOS sensor technology. Furthermore, since Canon's mirrorless EOS M cameras rely exclusively on their on-sensor focus capabilities, it makes it even more obvious that Canon's future EOS M cameras will get Canon's Dual Pixel CMOS sensors, since these sensors were specifically designed for on-sensor AF.

 

[T3]

JamesErik1971 wrote:

Some folks can continue hoping for a 70D based EOS-M. I highly doubt that. Remember canon brought you a base model level, 650D sensor EOS-M and tried to charge $800 for it. The premium is on size and build, not performance. Not to mention canon is in this to make money, and no one is going to buy a $1X99, mirrorless system with few lenses (mostly slow zooms), and these things just cost too much to produce. I am sure some folks will always scream they'd buy the moon for a dollar if only canon would sell it to them. Reality is canon and nikon are late to mirrorless and their first offerings were complete and utter commercial failures (great cameras though).

I've been around cameras for a very very long time, and I saw a similar transition happen with digital. Canon and nikon are in a tough spot, and until full frame sensor cameras can sell for $500 they are in a holding pattern. I expect EOS-M2 to be a cheaper (plastic) version of EOS-M, possibly only available in japan and europe, for $499. it would sell like hot cakes.

The EOS M was a product of the technology Canon currently had when the EOS M was created. In other words, the EOS M (and every DSLR in Canon's stable) were based on pre-Dual Pixel CMOS technology. Now that Canon has Dual Pixel CMOS technology, all future Canon sensors will be based on this technology. That means all future Canon ILC cameras (DSLR and mirrorless) will be getting this technology, either immediately or eventually. This has been proven time and time again with Canon. (You claim to be a student of history, and yet you ignore it, LOL.) But since Canon's mirrorless cameras rely *exclusively* on Live View On-sensor AF, it makes it obvious and clear that Canon will bring their Dual Pixel CMOS sensor to the EOS M line sooner than later.

BTW, the notion that an EOS M2 will simply be a "cheaper (plastic) version of the EOS M...for $499" seems completely ridiculous considering that the current version already sells for less than $350 with the 18-55 kit lens. So your argument is that Canon will sell the same camera, but in plastic, and sell it for more than the current model? LOL. And you claim that this will "sell like hotcakes? LOLOL. The reality (which you seem to enjoy ignoring) is that the only way they will be able to sell an EOS M2 for higher than they are currently charging for the current model is by giving it a newer, better-performing sensor with better on-sensor AF. Gee, where could they get such a sensor?!? Uh...maybe their Dual Pixel CMOS sensor?

 

[JamesErik1971]

what was the EOS-M MSRP again?

didnt nikon already try what you are talking about and fail miserably with a great ILC that was priced stupidly?

 

[T3]

JamesErik1971 wrote:

Lawrencew wrote:

Given its prime raison d'être is to improve liveview performance, why would canon NOT put it in their next mirrorless camera?

It makes less sense to me to keep it just in DSLRs where in the case of something like the 70D most users will probably continue to use the OVF.

--
Regards
Lawrence
My Flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/lozwilkes/

that's also a good point. but it's just not in-line with the bottom line, IMO. canon wants the EOS-M line to be a high quality p&s, their mistake was charging a DSLR price. the camera sold out during the fire sales, and they have to address the price issue. if a 70D EOS-M comes out it will be something like a nikon V2, I suppose. but it will be priced into oblivion like the V2 as well and no one will buy it. this is all speculative, but I think canon is smarter than that. pros don't want "faux-pro" mirrorless cameras. we don't care about bulk and size, just performance and control.

Most people didn't want to pay the asking price for the EOS M because the AF was so poor, especially for the price. And most people didn't want to pay the asking price for the Nikon V2 because they didn't want to pay that much for a tiny 1" sensor. So on the Canon mirrorless side, Canon was handicapped by poor mirrorless AF; while on the Nikon side, Nikon was handicapped by the too-small sensor. So how does Canon remedy this? By offering an EOS M2 with their Dual Pixel APS-C CMOS sensor.

Your assertion that Canon will NOT use their existing state of CMOS sensor technology on future models simply flies in the face of what Canon has done historically. Their existing state of CMOS technology is Dual Pixel CMOS. It was specifically designed for the modern-day demands of on-sensor AF. Canon's EOS M is specifically designed to rely exclusively on on-sensor AF. Canon will therefore implement their Dual Pixel CMOS in their future EOS M models. Feel free to make a buffoon of yourself by claiming otherwise.

 

[T3]

Dedcakes wrote:

I don't recall reading or hearing that Canon wanted the M to be a high quality P&S. Can you share where you heard that? Because that sounds like their G series to me.

You've stated a LOT of things as fact in this thread and I haven't seen a single quote to back them up. You may be right but without proof it's opinion presented as fact

Where is the proof for assertions that are in favor of Canon supporting the M?

The proof is that the EOS M system exists. You have to remember that the amount of resources, investment, and effort involved in launching a new system are tremendous, and companies do not do so without considerable forethought. You're being *extremely* naive to think that Canon would launch the EOS M system, then just a year after launching the system, decide that they aren't in favor of supporting the M system. But that's typical armchair internet quarterbacking, with typically amateurish short-term thinking. If there's any company that thinks longterm, it's Canon. Canon has always played the long game. Canon has always excelled at playing things slow and steady. And this "slow and steady" game has caused many, many, many people to declare that Canon would eventually go out of business, lose their success, lose their profitability, lose their way, etc...all doom and gloom predictions. But Canon continues to do fine, because they are a cautious, methodical, smartly-run company that plays the long game. They will continue to re-work, improve, and add to their EOS M system, steadily, until it becomes the success they want it to be.

 

[Dedcakes]

what was the EOS-M MSRP again?

didnt nikon already try what you are talking about and fail miserably with a great ILC that was priced stupidly?

The moral of the story is: do not post anything critical about the M-system in the M-forum. Keep your all of your thoughts to yourself unless its a very positive rumor.

Do you really want to argue with the incarnate of Biff (from Back to the Future).

 

[Dedcakes]

Reading comprehension. It's a lost skill.

I never said the M wouldn't do well eventually or use Dual Pixel technology. In fact, I'd like to see it succeed some day.

I'm questioning the lack, and desire, of proof for assertions that are in favor of the M.

 

[T3]

JamesErik1971 wrote:

what was the EOS-M MSRP again?

didnt nikon already try what you are talking about and fail miserably with a great ILC that was priced stupidly?

Like I said, Nikon made the critical error of choosing a 1" sensor, a sensor size that is even smaller than m4/3. That is a MAJOR deal killer for many people. No matter how "great" Nikon's system might be, it's still got a very small sensor. And it always will. Nikon would have had a lot more success with their mirrorless system had they chosen to go with their DX (APS-C) format for the same asking price. That's Canon's advantage. They chose the APS-C sensor from the beginning. So your claim that: "didnt nikon already try what you are talking about and fail miserably with a great ILC that was priced stupidly?"...is completely wrong. They tried it with a tiny 1" sensor, and furthermore they chose to not have cross-compatibility with Nikon's CLS flash system. These poor choices didn't make it a "great ILC" system in the eyes of many people, including many Nikon users.

Canon, on the other hand, won't be handicapped by Nikon's errors. They chose the same APS-C format that their DSLRs use. They gave it full compatibility with Canon's E-TTLII flash system that their DSLRs have. And soon, they will give it the Dual Pixel CMOS sensor that their DSLR system has.

Obviously, no matter what any of us say, you're going to stubbornly ignore it all and continue to travel down your road of buffoonery. Have a nice journey, LOL.

 

[T3]

Dedcakes wrote:

Reading comprehension. It's a lost skill.

I never said the M wouldn't do well eventually or use Dual Pixel technology. In fact, I'd like to see it succeed some day.

I'm questioning the lack, and desire, of proof for assertions that are in favor of the M.

People like yourself also claimed that Canon had no desire to enter the mirrorless market...until they did. And when Canon introduces the successor to the EOS M, you'll also *continue* to question Canon's "desire", by claiming that it was some half-hearted, half-@ssed effort, LOL. You'll probably continue to question their desire several generations into the EOS M!!!

The fact is, product development happens in secrecy. The world didn't even know the EOS M existed until it was introduced. What I find puzzling is that you actually think that Canon would be even remotely willing to write off who-knows-how-many millions of dollars they've invested in launching the EOS M system, or that Canon would simply forfeit the mirrorless market to Sony, Nikon, Fuji, Panasonic, and Olympus. Canon has always been long-term thinkers. Long-term, we don't know where the mirrorless market will end up. But Canon is smart enough to know that they need to be on that ship, wherever it goes.

Sure, right now, mirrorless is definitely a side business for Canon, especially in terms of revenue. But one must remember that product development is ongoing, with technologies, products, lenses, etc, constantly being worked on...without all these developments being publicized as some show of "desire". So if you're constantly looking for signs of "desire", then you'll probably constantly be doubtful and disappointed. I remember when Nikon still hadn't entered the FF DSLR market, they were showing no signs of "desire" that they had any interest in FF. In fact, they were even making statements *against* FF (obviously, you want to sell against FF, right up until the moment you have FF). But alas, time proved the naysayers foolish in their prediction of a Nikon that had no "desire" for FF. Which just goes to show how competition is enough of an impetus for "desire". And in the case of mirrorless, all the competition has mirrorless!!!

 

[rrccad]

Dedcakes wrote:

Reading comprehension. It's a lost skill.

I never said the M wouldn't do well eventually or use Dual Pixel technology. In fact, I'd like to see it succeed some day.

I'm questioning the lack, and desire, of proof for assertions that are in favor of the M.

that's pretty easy. if canon was going to dump the mount and not do any more - they wouldn't have started the production and manufacturing of the 11-22mm, nor released version 2.0.2 of the firmware.

both of which cost money well after the fact that sales stumbled (as do all mirrorless) in the united states.

 

[Jonathan Brady]

Than what the M + Dual Pixel sensor + a few more native lenses would be. Nikon 1 certainly isn't better, neither is Sony, nor M4/3.

A Dual Pixel sensor will put the A/F of most other systems to shame and even those it won't "shame"... it'll still be better than! Their lenses are TOP NOTCH and if the most recent rumor is correct, a macro and a telephoto zoom would completely round out the basic kit. Throw in the adapter and all of the EF & EF-S lenses that are supported with FULL AF AND IS.

That's why I say this system can be the best mirrorless system out there. NOTHING can top that! Canon knows this, and that's why I can't wait for a dual pixel M.

I also think it's smart of Canon to wait until the 70D is launched and reviewed to come out with a new M with the dual pixel sensor. They'll WANT reviews out there saying that the live view focusing is just as fast as the OVF focusing in the 70D. Having that sound bite swirling around on forums and review sites will make people LINE UP for the M2 (or M Pro or whatever it's going to be called). It's literally the only flaw of the current M and if it goes from practically worst in class (M) to best in class (next generation M) - why would anyone looking for a top tier system NOT buy it?