JamesErik1971 wrote:
without question the eos-m and 22mm is worth at least $499. I mean, it's basically a x100 without a viewfinder.
the key is pricing. the eos-m is MSRP'd for enthusiasts who do their homework, but those folks have other options with better features. it's clear from feature set and handling of the eos-m that canon wanted it to be more of a super point and shoot, than a high performance shooter like the GH3 or OMD. people with just one camera might not understand that. it's a great camera for what it is, but it's a APS-C point and shoot with 3 lenses.
im not saying it should be anything else, just price it like a point and shoot. at 499 this thing would be everywhere.
Margins are extremely slim on camera products, and profits are at an all-time low in the camera industry. I don't think Canon wants "point-and-shoot" pricing on a camera that has a desirably large APS-C sensor. And more importantly, I don't think Canon wants the EOS M to be pigeonholed as a "point and shoot" camera. There's just not a lot of profit to be made there, and you get lower-end bargain-hunting customers. Not the place you want to be stuck in.
Besides, the "point-and-shoot" market is being decimated by smart phones. The last thing Canon needs is to put an APS-C camera into that fast-shrinking, race-to-the-bottom
"point-and-shoot" market.
As for your assertion that "at $499 this thing would be everywhere", the EOS M with 18-55 IS kit lens is already at $345.79 on Amazon, and with the 22mm pancake it's $414.00 at Amazon. Both kits are well below your proposed $499 price. But this camera is definitely NOT "everywhere." Yet another hole in your sinking ship. LOL. Why? Because most people who want a "point-and-shoot" would rather just use the smart phone they already have in their pocket. The rest of us are waiting for Canon to offer something more substantial and performance-oriented before we make the investment. Canon, for their part, is probably taking this first EOS M as a mulligan, and is just selling the cameras off at cost. Heck, maybe even below cost.
If the EOS M system is to have a chance at long term survival, it has to be more of a full-fledged system that appeals to people beyond those who want a "point-and-shoot" because, like I said, the "point-and-shoot" market is being killed by smart phones. The EOS M system has to appeal to a much broader audience, from people who want a "super point and shoot" to those who also want something much more capable, flexible, and advanced. That's the only way you're going to get more serious users to invest more fully in the system. It can't be just an "APS-C point and shoot with 3 lenses", as you are proposing. Ultimately, people want a mirrorless and compact version of the Canon DSLR system, using the same APS-C sensor format. In other words, for long-term survival, Canon does need their EOS M system to offer something comparable to "high performance shooters like the GH3 and OMD." And yes, they'll need to, and want to, charge higher prices comparable to the GH3 and OMD. And people will be willing to pay higher prices, if the performance and specs are up to snuff.
I don't think there would be anything wrong with Canon introducing Canon's own version of the Sony NEX 7, or Panasonic GX7, or the Oly OMD E-M5, with a Canon APS-C Dual Pixel CMOS, at a comparable-- or even slightly higher-- price (ie, at least double your proposed price of $499). They would still sell a bunch (probably easily outselling the competition), and just as importantly, they would be selling at a healthy profit margin.
I'm a Canon user, but for mirrorless I chose m4/3. I still use Canon DSLRs, but m4/3 was what I ended up with for mirrorless. If Canon offered something comparable to the Panasonic GX7, or Oly OM-D E-M5, even at the same price or slightly higher, I'd switch my mirrorless choice back to Canon. Right now, the EOS M, even at its fire sale prices, isn't interesting enough for me. I'd rather wait for a higher spec, higher performance EOS M, even at a significantly higher price.
