Why did the M-series fail in the Marketplace?

[nnowak]

It really depends on your definition of failure. From a sales standpoint, the M system was relatively successful However with a shrinking market, it would be a challenge for Canon to support 2 different mount systems and maintain the same profitability levels. It seems like a logical move to consolidate their systems around a single mount rather than splitting their resources to support M and R.

and EF and EF-S...

 

[nnowak]

Which was a completely artificial and unnecessary restriction. Canon could have used the consistent outside diameter to standardize on a single filter/lens cap size, but we ended up with four different sizes on eight lenses.

This is why I'm more inclined to believe in a series of cockups than a malevolent plot to screw the customers.

Couldn't agree more. It also does not look like the careful execution of a thoroughly vetted decades long strategy.

 

[nnowak]

Yeah, right.

LOL you may not realize it but you prove my point exactly that these big lumbering corporations (the Japanese especially) develop a grand long range business plan that is often (even detrimentally) very slow to pivot with quickly changing market forces. Sony bursting into the professional mirrorless arena simply forced everybody to move up their existing timetables.

My evaluation stands that Canon never had any huge plans for the M System (history of course bears this out). It was designed to be a system that filled a specific spot in the marketplace and reach no further (Canon has always been ultra-protective of their upper echelons of products).

This we agree on, but Canon's intentions for the M system were not apparent until a few years into the system. Even Canon themselves were unsure what to do with the M system at the start. Canon started off trying to pursue a higher end market with a more premium build and frequently displayed the original M mounted to the back of a great white lens. A few years later that all switched to plastic everything and the advertising consisted of young women photographing their lunch.

In this role the M System (and the EF-M mount) also served as a placeholder until the R System (and RF mount) was ready for release.

Here is where we completely disagree. I see zero evidence that Canon was already working on the R system more than a decade ago and the M system was solely a placeholder until R was ready. Even though the original R was mostly a repackaged 5D IV, it was a bit of an awkward mess at launch, and certainly not an example of a decade of refinement. Canon could have launched the RF mount with its new communication protocols back in 2010. There is no magical new technology underpinning the RF mount that was unavailable until years later. Canon had enough of the technical pieces that they could have launched a full frame mirrorless camera five years before the first a7. The only thing that stopped Canon and Nikon from launching their current full frame mirrorless lines were their desperate clinging to DSLR sales.

Regardless of how much you lover your M and R gear, you have provided zero evidence that either system was a part of decades long master plan. If you look at the timing of the launch of both the EF-M and RF system, it is clear that both systems were launched in reaction to changes in the market. Canon sees competitors gain market share from the launch of new product lines. Canon launches competing product to target that same niche. Nothing more. The reason the M system is being dropped is because Canon misunderstood the mirrorless niche the first time around.

IMHO the R System represents a HUGE step forward in Canon’s business model, limiting full compatibility to only Canon’s (truly awesome) proprietary RF autofocus lenses, and improving profitability in their ever important lens division, while also keeping compatibility with its huge existing population of EF lenses. Brilliant move Canon.

The Samyang/Rokinon 85mm RF mount autofocus lens used the old EF communication protocols. To the camera, it looked just like an old EF lens with a permanently attached RF adapter. Canon blocked this third-party lens via patents on the dimensions of the RF mount. Canon could have done the exact same thing with the EF-M mount, but chose not to.

I think the difference is that I'm talking about long term Strategic Planning (which is a pillar of Japanese business culture), and you're talking about near-term Tactical Moves. Unless you want to join so many other lost businesses in the corporate graveyard, you cannot ignore either!

Personally I can easily see what Canon's plan has been for the M System (it's written in the history of the past decade now). However neither of us can predict their near-term future moves accurately (they certainly don't ever communicate much to us!), but strategically it's pretty clear. So I'll be sticking with the R System for all its advances, and keep the M System for all its fun. You can keep deriding me for that, but you go your way, I'll go mine.

R2

I am not deriding your use of the M and R system. I am deriding your unsubstantiated insistence that the timing, adoption, and lifecycle of both the M and R systems played out exactly according to some grand master plan.

Both Canon and Nikon initially misjudged mirrorless and launched systems that would later be unsuitable for "pro" use with a full frame sensor.

Both Canon and Nikon lost significant market share and profits to Sony due to the popularity of the full frame a7 series among both pros and armatures.

Both Canon and Nikon tried a variety of tactics to prop up high-end DSLR sales well beyond when they should have been retired.

Both Canon and Nikon have abandoned their initial mirrorless systems.

Both Canon and Nikon finally launched their second attempt at a mirrorless system in 2018

Both Canon and Nikon had all of the technical pieces in place to launch full frame mirrorless systems several years before they actually did.

If both Canon and Nikon had executed mirrorless right the first time, Sony would only have single digit market share and quite possibly could have completely exited the camera business by now.

But yeah, sure, all of these obvious mistakes by both Canon and Nikon were part of a long term strategy that went exactly to plan.

 

[SW Anderson]

Well, what was Your motivation for buying into the M System?

I didn't. I had already built out a Nikon SLR kit for both film and digital, and the D800 was a natural upgrade from my then 6+ year-old D200. But I could see the appeal of the cameras, and had I been starting fresh, I would have picked an M3 or M6 over the Nikon or Sony APS-C offerings.

I did, however, sink a fair amount of money into a Nikon 1-Series setup. I feel I have a pretty good idea why that system failed, and I know how I felt about it. But those reasons didn't seem to carry over to the M-system. Hence my curiosity.

Nothing against you, we’ve just had threads like this here forever. ;-)

Most folks here have been wishing for a much more complete system, but as it’s turned out that’s never been part of Canon’s plan. As a small fun alternative to the big systems however, it’s been extremely successful!

Myself, I was indeed looking for something small and fun, and when I saw that the M5 was going to get Canon’s Dual Pixel AutoFocus (which I was loving on my 70D DSLR), I knew it was going to be a very capable camera, and pre-ordered one. None of the previous models’ specs (without DPAF) had appealed to me.

I eventually added the (awesome) M6 Mark II and a dozen EF-M lenses (plus an M6) to round out the system. It’s remained my small and fun alternative to all of my R gear to this day.

Looking back, I do find it pretty interesting that my own path (as well as a goodly number of others’ here) has followed exactly the route that Canon had set out for us! :-D

R2

I think you give Canon too much credit stating they had this route planned out. I think it's more likely that Canon did not see mirrorless taking over the market like it did. They developed the M system as a side kick to DSLRs but seemed to expect the latter to remain the top choice of pros, hence no full frame mirrorless and limited lens development. R is a response to mirrorless taking off and it definitely wasn't a part of their plan or way to route their customers.

Canon's entrance into the mirrorless realm began with the original M, a camera designed with great care to not cost Canon the sale of even one entry-level DSLR. Not surprisingly, the original M was met with so-so reviews, at best. It ended up being greatly discounted. No offense meant to those here who still have and dearly love their small, light M with its terrific color and other charms. Others compared it to some great MILC's from Olympus and Panasonic, and opted for the latter.

The original M was literally a repackaged T4i DSLR and had all of the same capabilities in firmware. The original M had poor sales because the AF was noticeably worse than the competition, Canon was one of the last to market with a mirrorless camera, and in the USA, the M was originally only sold as a kit with the EF-M 22mm.

As far as Canon's long-term strategic plans, full frame was the obvious next logical step. Canon needs to sell lenses — lots and lots of lenses — to be successful with its photography products. Cameras are the company's meat, lens sales are its gravy. The fact is, there are jillions of EF and EF-S Canon lenses throughout the photographysphere. Then, there's all those third-party lenses. Together, new, refurb and used, all those lenses represent competitive dead weight hampering Canon's ability to make ambitious profits selling new lenses. The only viable pathway to more-robust lens sales was to come out with new cameras sporting a new lens mount. History repeats. I remember long-ago howls of consternation at Canon's previous moves to a new lens mount.

Nice conspiracy theory, but no. To remain competitive in the market, Canon absolutely needed a new full frame capable mirrorless mount. The only thing Canon got wrong was to botch the original specification for the EF-M mount and inadvertently making it unsuitable for future full frame use.

Conspiracy theory? A component of a major corporation pursuing a long-term strategic plan to increase sales and profits is what successful businesses do. It's also what unsuccessful business failed to do or did badly.

From the Merriam Webster site's definition of "conspiracy theory:"

conspiracy theory noun
. . . a theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators

| the conspiracy theories surrounding Kennedy's assassination
also : a theory asserting that a secret of great importance is being kept from the public

Honestly, I don't understand what in my comment caused you to believe I was indicating a conspiracy in the nefarious sense.

By the way, if anyone is skeptical about how much I've emphasized the importance of new lens sales to the good people at Canon, ponder this: Canon has long been capable of building IBIS into its cameras. But until very recently Canon has stuck with in-lens IS for its DSLR's and MILC's. IBIS is an invitation to third-party competition on the lens front, and can make third-party lenses more desirable to cost-conscious lens buyers. As we've seen recently, Canon has very limited enthusiasm for competition from third-party lensmakers.

Yet another conspiracy theory. Nikon also did not put IBIS in their DSLRs. This is for multiple reasons and had nothing to do with blocking third party lenses. Part of it is due to patents around IBIS. Part of it is due to lens IS being far more effective than IBIS at longer focal lengths. As for third-party lenses, if the Canon/Nikon OEM lens had IS, the third party alternative would also typically have lens based IS. In some cases, there are third-party lenses with IS where the OEM Canon/Nikon version does not.

nnowak, you're confusing discussion of motives and intentions with alleging conspiracies.

Your impression is that that third-party lenses competing with Canon IS lenses typically also have IS. My impression is that they don't. Let's just agree to disagree; I doubt either of us has the time or patience to actually research the matter.

 

[Michael Benveniste]

Your impression is that that third-party lenses competing with Canon IS lenses typically also have IS. My impression is that they don't. Let's just agree to disagree; I doubt either of us has the time or patience to actually research the matter.

Of the 8 EF-M lenses, all but the 22mm and 32mm primes had IS.

 

[R2D2]

Yeah, right.

LOL you may not realize it but you prove my point exactly that these big lumbering corporations (the Japanese especially) develop a grand long range business plan that is often (even detrimentally) very slow to pivot with quickly changing market forces. Sony bursting into the professional mirrorless arena simply forced everybody to move up their existing timetables.

My evaluation stands that Canon never had any huge plans for the M System (history of course bears this out). It was designed to be a system that filled a specific spot in the marketplace and reach no further (Canon has always been ultra-protective of their upper echelons of products).

This we agree on, but Canon's intentions for the M system were not apparent until a few years into the system. Even Canon themselves were unsure what to do with the M system at the start. Canon started off trying to pursue a higher end market with a more premium build and frequently displayed the original M mounted to the back of a great white lens. A few years later that all switched to plastic everything and the advertising consisted of young women photographing their lunch.

In this role the M System (and the EF-M mount) also served as a placeholder until the R System (and RF mount) was ready for release.

Here is where we completely disagree. I see zero evidence that Canon was already working on the R system more than a decade ago and the M system was solely a placeholder until R was ready. Even though the original R was mostly a repackaged 5D IV, it was a bit of an awkward mess at launch, and certainly not an example of a decade of refinement. Canon could have launched the RF mount with its new communication protocols back in 2010. There is no magical new technology underpinning the RF mount that was unavailable until years later. Canon had enough of the technical pieces that they could have launched a full frame mirrorless camera five years before the first a7. The only thing that stopped Canon and Nikon from launching their current full frame mirrorless lines were their desperate clinging to DSLR sales.

Regardless of how much you lover your M and R gear, you have provided zero evidence that either system was a part of decades long master plan. If you look at the timing of the launch of both the EF-M and RF system, it is clear that both systems were launched in reaction to changes in the market. Canon sees competitors gain market share from the launch of new product lines. Canon launches competing product to target that same niche. Nothing more. The reason the M system is being dropped is because Canon misunderstood the mirrorless niche the first time around.

IMHO the R System represents a HUGE step forward in Canon’s business model, limiting full compatibility to only Canon’s (truly awesome) proprietary RF autofocus lenses, and improving profitability in their ever important lens division, while also keeping compatibility with its huge existing population of EF lenses. Brilliant move Canon.

The Samyang/Rokinon 85mm RF mount autofocus lens used the old EF communication protocols. To the camera, it looked just like an old EF lens with a permanently attached RF adapter. Canon blocked this third-party lens via patents on the dimensions of the RF mount. Canon could have done the exact same thing with the EF-M mount, but chose not to.

I think the difference is that I'm talking about long term Strategic Planning (which is a pillar of Japanese business culture), and you're talking about near-term Tactical Moves. Unless you want to join so many other lost businesses in the corporate graveyard, you cannot ignore either!

Personally I can easily see what Canon's plan has been for the M System (it's written in the history of the past decade now). However neither of us can predict their near-term future moves accurately (they certainly don't ever communicate much to us!), but strategically it's pretty clear. So I'll be sticking with the R System for all its advances, and keep the M System for all its fun. You can keep deriding me for that, but you go your way, I'll go mine.

R2

I am not deriding your use of the M and R system. I am deriding your unsubstantiated insistence that the timing, adoption, and lifecycle of both the M and R systems played out exactly according to some grand master plan.

Both Canon and Nikon initially misjudged mirrorless and launched systems that would later be unsuitable for "pro" use with a full frame sensor.

Both Canon and Nikon lost significant market share and profits to Sony due to the popularity of the full frame a7 series among both pros and armatures.

Both Canon and Nikon tried a variety of tactics to prop up high-end DSLR sales well beyond when they should have been retired.

Both Canon and Nikon have abandoned their initial mirrorless systems.

Both Canon and Nikon finally launched their second attempt at a mirrorless system in 2018

Both Canon and Nikon had all of the technical pieces in place to launch full frame mirrorless systems several years before they actually did.

If both Canon and Nikon had executed mirrorless right the first time, Sony would only have single digit market share and quite possibly could have completely exited the camera business by now.

But yeah, sure, all of these obvious mistakes by both Canon and Nikon were part of a long term strategy that went exactly to plan.

You're just not reading right nnowak. I never said (or inferred) that everything went exactly as planned. In fact, let me re-post what I did say...

"Contrary to what some here believe, the M System did not fail. It's patently obvious that it was DESIGNED TO BE REPLACED"

You may not see the light, but this is certainly obvious to me. The M System is what Canon not only intended it to be, but they also followed through and made it that way.

Then I posted what my own experience was with the M System...

"I do find it pretty interesting that my own path (as well as a goodly number of others’ here) has followed exactly the route that Canon had set out for us!"

Which was loving the M System and purchasing scads of bodies and lenses. Until the R System matured (with the advent of DIGIC X) and offered capabilities well beyond that of the M System (Canon made darn sure that was the case). I myself have benefitted from this technology since the R5 and R6 were released (bought scads of R bodies and lenses). But I've also kept my M System for the same reasons I've always enjoyed it. It's small and fun.

So don't go changing what I say to fit your own beef against Canon. Sure, go ahead and rip Canon all you want (again), but don't go attributing any of it to me. I was very specific with my meaning and communication.

R2

--
Good judgment comes from experience.
Experience comes from bad judgment.
http://www.pbase.com/jekyll_and_hyde/galleries

 

[nnowak]

Yeah, right.

LOL you may not realize it but you prove my point exactly that these big lumbering corporations (the Japanese especially) develop a grand long range business plan that is often (even detrimentally) very slow to pivot with quickly changing market forces. Sony bursting into the professional mirrorless arena simply forced everybody to move up their existing timetables.

My evaluation stands that Canon never had any huge plans for the M System (history of course bears this out). It was designed to be a system that filled a specific spot in the marketplace and reach no further (Canon has always been ultra-protective of their upper echelons of products).

This we agree on, but Canon's intentions for the M system were not apparent until a few years into the system. Even Canon themselves were unsure what to do with the M system at the start. Canon started off trying to pursue a higher end market with a more premium build and frequently displayed the original M mounted to the back of a great white lens. A few years later that all switched to plastic everything and the advertising consisted of young women photographing their lunch.

In this role the M System (and the EF-M mount) also served as a placeholder until the R System (and RF mount) was ready for release.

Here is where we completely disagree. I see zero evidence that Canon was already working on the R system more than a decade ago and the M system was solely a placeholder until R was ready. Even though the original R was mostly a repackaged 5D IV, it was a bit of an awkward mess at launch, and certainly not an example of a decade of refinement. Canon could have launched the RF mount with its new communication protocols back in 2010. There is no magical new technology underpinning the RF mount that was unavailable until years later. Canon had enough of the technical pieces that they could have launched a full frame mirrorless camera five years before the first a7. The only thing that stopped Canon and Nikon from launching their current full frame mirrorless lines were their desperate clinging to DSLR sales.

Regardless of how much you lover your M and R gear, you have provided zero evidence that either system was a part of decades long master plan. If you look at the timing of the launch of both the EF-M and RF system, it is clear that both systems were launched in reaction to changes in the market. Canon sees competitors gain market share from the launch of new product lines. Canon launches competing product to target that same niche. Nothing more. The reason the M system is being dropped is because Canon misunderstood the mirrorless niche the first time around.

IMHO the R System represents a HUGE step forward in Canon’s business model, limiting full compatibility to only Canon’s (truly awesome) proprietary RF autofocus lenses, and improving profitability in their ever important lens division, while also keeping compatibility with its huge existing population of EF lenses. Brilliant move Canon.

The Samyang/Rokinon 85mm RF mount autofocus lens used the old EF communication protocols. To the camera, it looked just like an old EF lens with a permanently attached RF adapter. Canon blocked this third-party lens via patents on the dimensions of the RF mount. Canon could have done the exact same thing with the EF-M mount, but chose not to.

I think the difference is that I'm talking about long term Strategic Planning (which is a pillar of Japanese business culture), and you're talking about near-term Tactical Moves. Unless you want to join so many other lost businesses in the corporate graveyard, you cannot ignore either!

Personally I can easily see what Canon's plan has been for the M System (it's written in the history of the past decade now). However neither of us can predict their near-term future moves accurately (they certainly don't ever communicate much to us!), but strategically it's pretty clear. So I'll be sticking with the R System for all its advances, and keep the M System for all its fun. You can keep deriding me for that, but you go your way, I'll go mine.

R2

I am not deriding your use of the M and R system. I am deriding your unsubstantiated insistence that the timing, adoption, and lifecycle of both the M and R systems played out exactly according to some grand master plan.

Both Canon and Nikon initially misjudged mirrorless and launched systems that would later be unsuitable for "pro" use with a full frame sensor.

Both Canon and Nikon lost significant market share and profits to Sony due to the popularity of the full frame a7 series among both pros and armatures.

Both Canon and Nikon tried a variety of tactics to prop up high-end DSLR sales well beyond when they should have been retired.

Both Canon and Nikon have abandoned their initial mirrorless systems.

Both Canon and Nikon finally launched their second attempt at a mirrorless system in 2018

Both Canon and Nikon had all of the technical pieces in place to launch full frame mirrorless systems several years before they actually did.

If both Canon and Nikon had executed mirrorless right the first time, Sony would only have single digit market share and quite possibly could have completely exited the camera business by now.

But yeah, sure, all of these obvious mistakes by both Canon and Nikon were part of a long term strategy that went exactly to plan.

You're just not reading right nnowak. I never said (or inferred) that everything went exactly as planned. In fact, let me re-post what I did say...

"Contrary to what some here believe, the M System did not fail. It's patently obvious that it was DESIGNED TO BE REPLACED"

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.

 

[SW Anderson]

Yeah, right.

LOL you may not realize it but you prove my point exactly that these big lumbering corporations (the Japanese especially) develop a grand long range business plan that is often (even detrimentally) very slow to pivot with quickly changing market forces. Sony bursting into the professional mirrorless arena simply forced everybody to move up their existing timetables.

My evaluation stands that Canon never had any huge plans for the M System (history of course bears this out). It was designed to be a system that filled a specific spot in the marketplace and reach no further (Canon has always been ultra-protective of their upper echelons of products). In this role the M System (and the EF-M mount) also served as a placeholder until the R System (and RF mount) was ready for release. IMHO the R System represents a HUGE step forward in Canon’s business model, limiting full compatibility to only Canon’s (truly awesome) proprietary RF autofocus lenses, and improving profitability in their ever important lens division, while also keeping compatibility with its huge existing population of EF lenses. Brilliant move Canon.

Personally I think we can all benefit from this new lineup if/when we are ready for something beyond the M System (many here are in fact doing exactly that). And as wonderfully capable as the new R System is, it’s completely amazing that there’s still room to keep the M System in our bags! We all know the reason, because it’s still the smallest and lightest and funnest lineup of cameras and lenses out there. :-D

And that was exactly according to Canon’s plan. ;-)

R2

You make a good case with many solid points that ring true. nnowak brings up an interesting angle — Sony's entrance into the field with full-frame mirrorless — although my understanding is that Sony's market share with those was kind of small.

But, in both these analyses something's missing: price. Let me put it this way. Imagine if Cadillac were to suddenly bring forth a fabulous, game-changing hydrogen fuel-cell car with 600-mile range, excellent power, speed and comfort, breathtaking styling and 10-year, 100,000-mile engine and drive train warranty for the full cost of parts and labor. All that for only $95,000 plus sales tax and delivery charge. Wow, right? Well, yes, for those who could afford one and would be willing to spend that much for one.

For many of us who are amateurs with no intention of going pro, with no chance to amortize our gear outlays on our taxes, the price of a good full-frame R-mount camera with a couple of good lenses is daunting. And, for me, at least anytime soon, the siren-call of a new APS-C R-mount Canon does not ring loudly in my ears. If I were to feel my M gear and some of my other cameras were unsatisfactory it might be different. But that's not the case.

Will I never move up to an R-mount camera? I won't say that. A few years on if a good deal, especially on a full-frame model and lens comes along in the secondary marketplace, I might go for it. I suspect I'm not alone in looking at it this way.

 

[SW Anderson]

. . .

It will be interesting to see how long it takes for the RF-S range to be as comprehensive as the famously limited EF-M range.

Indeed. I've thought as much myself.

 

[R2D2]

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.

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

 

[R2D2]

Yeah, right.

LOL you may not realize it but you prove my point exactly that these big lumbering corporations (the Japanese especially) develop a grand long range business plan that is often (even detrimentally) very slow to pivot with quickly changing market forces. Sony bursting into the professional mirrorless arena simply forced everybody to move up their existing timetables.

My evaluation stands that Canon never had any huge plans for the M System (history of course bears this out). It was designed to be a system that filled a specific spot in the marketplace and reach no further (Canon has always been ultra-protective of their upper echelons of products). In this role the M System (and the EF-M mount) also served as a placeholder until the R System (and RF mount) was ready for release. IMHO the R System represents a HUGE step forward in Canon’s business model, limiting full compatibility to only Canon’s (truly awesome) proprietary RF autofocus lenses, and improving profitability in their ever important lens division, while also keeping compatibility with its huge existing population of EF lenses. Brilliant move Canon.

Personally I think we can all benefit from this new lineup if/when we are ready for something beyond the M System (many here are in fact doing exactly that). And as wonderfully capable as the new R System is, it’s completely amazing that there’s still room to keep the M System in our bags! We all know the reason, because it’s still the smallest and lightest and funnest lineup of cameras and lenses out there. :-D

And that was exactly according to Canon’s plan. ;-)

R2

You make a good case with many solid points that ring true. nnowak brings up an interesting angle — Sony's entrance into the field with full-frame mirrorless — although my understanding is that Sony's market share with those was kind of small.

Sony definitely pushed everyone’s timetable up. One of my good (pro) friends was in Las Vegas for a portrait workshop in early 2014 (Sony was a sponsor) and she won one of the door prizes. It was a brand new just-released Sony A7 (and Alpha lenses). Now I had been shooting with Sony mirrorless bridge cameras for over a decade by then (as well as Canon DSLR’s), and this new camera was all pro through and through (my jaw just dropped when I took it out on a shoot). I knew right then that the competition was going to have to step it up to compete with this system. And Sony made it patently clear with their communications that they were aiming directly at the heart of the pro market.

The rest is history of course. :-O

But, in both these analyses something's missing: price. Let me put it this way. Imagine if Cadillac were to suddenly bring forth a fabulous, game-changing hydrogen fuel-cell car with 600-mile range, excellent power, speed and comfort, breathtaking styling and 10-year, 100,000-mile engine and drive train warranty for the full cost of parts and labor. All that for only $95,000 plus sales tax and delivery charge. Wow, right? Well, yes, for those who could afford one and would be willing to spend that much for one.

For many of us who are amateurs with no intention of going pro, with no chance to amortize our gear outlays on our taxes, the price of a good full-frame R-mount camera with a couple of good lenses is daunting. And, for me, at least anytime soon, the siren-call of a new APS-C R-mount Canon does not ring loudly in my ears. If I were to feel my M gear and some of my other cameras were unsatisfactory it might be different. But that's not the case.

Will I never move up to an R-mount camera? I won't say that. A few years on if a good deal, especially on a full-frame model and lens comes along in the secondary marketplace, I might go for it. I suspect I'm not alone in looking at it this way.

Yup. I still love my (very capable) M System. Huge bang for the buck. I’ve always felt it’s unfortunate that Canon held it back (intentionally), because it held such big promise. Fortunately Sigma single-handedly came to its rescue with their EF-M releases. Sadly they came up one lens short though IMHO - the much-desired fast standard zoom. I would have bought one in a heartbeat!

But don’t fret. Even though I’ve invested 30+ grand in the R System the past threee years, I can tell you that the M System’s capabilities are still very close! Enjoy what you have! :-D

R2

--
Good judgment comes from experience.
Experience comes from bad judgment.
http://www.pbase.com/jekyll_and_hyde/galleries

 

[MAC]

I just saw a nearly unused M6 Mark II kit sell for $610 on fleaBay, which seems quite low, which got me to wondering. The M-series should have appealed to a broad range of users. Why didn’t it sell better? Was it a technical issue, such as lack of IBIS or AF performance? Or was it a “tweener” issue, where entry level buyers stuck with dSLRs and “prosumers” wanted so-called full frame? Or was it poor advertising and promotion by Canon?

fail? really?

wrong word and portrayal imo

—
Light travels at 2.13085531 × 10^14 smoots per fortnight. Catch some today!

 

[M4Mobility]

It didn't fail.

Not long ago, the EOS M system accounted for 30% of Canons total camera revenue.

For anyone interested, here is the CanonWatch article about the interview at Xitek:

From May 2022 (So yes, as I said in another post "a year or two ago") .

https://www.canonwatch.com/canon-eo...s-r7-and-eos-r10-not-for-the-young-interview/

--
- M
“I ain't afraid of no noise.”

 

[nnowak]

Yeah, right.

LOL you may not realize it but you prove my point exactly that these big lumbering corporations (the Japanese especially) develop a grand long range business plan that is often (even detrimentally) very slow to pivot with quickly changing market forces. Sony bursting into the professional mirrorless arena simply forced everybody to move up their existing timetables.

My evaluation stands that Canon never had any huge plans for the M System (history of course bears this out). It was designed to be a system that filled a specific spot in the marketplace and reach no further (Canon has always been ultra-protective of their upper echelons of products). In this role the M System (and the EF-M mount) also served as a placeholder until the R System (and RF mount) was ready for release. IMHO the R System represents a HUGE step forward in Canon’s business model, limiting full compatibility to only Canon’s (truly awesome) proprietary RF autofocus lenses, and improving profitability in their ever important lens division, while also keeping compatibility with its huge existing population of EF lenses. Brilliant move Canon.

Personally I think we can all benefit from this new lineup if/when we are ready for something beyond the M System (many here are in fact doing exactly that). And as wonderfully capable as the new R System is, it’s completely amazing that there’s still room to keep the M System in our bags! We all know the reason, because it’s still the smallest and lightest and funnest lineup of cameras and lenses out there. :-D

And that was exactly according to Canon’s plan. ;-)

R2

You make a good case with many solid points that ring true. nnowak brings up an interesting angle — Sony's entrance into the field with full-frame mirrorless — although my understanding is that Sony's market share with those was kind of small.

But, in both these analyses something's missing: price. Let me put it this way. Imagine if Cadillac were to suddenly bring forth a fabulous, game-changing hydrogen fuel-cell car with 600-mile range, excellent power, speed and comfort, breathtaking styling and 10-year, 100,000-mile engine and drive train warranty for the full cost of parts and labor. All that for only $95,000 plus sales tax and delivery charge. Wow, right? Well, yes, for those who could afford one and would be willing to spend that much for one.

For many of us who are amateurs with no intention of going pro, with no chance to amortize our gear outlays on our taxes, the price of a good full-frame R-mount camera with a couple of good lenses is daunting. And, for me, at least anytime soon, the siren-call of a new APS-C R-mount Canon does not ring loudly in my ears. If I were to feel my M gear and some of my other cameras were unsatisfactory it might be different. But that's not the case.

Will I never move up to an R-mount camera? I won't say that. A few years on if a good deal, especially on a full-frame model and lens comes along in the secondary marketplace, I might go for it. I suspect I'm not alone in looking at it this way.

The whole RF "price" argument is really quite tired and outdated. Sure, Canon did not have a lot of options back in 2018, but the lineup is quite a bit different now. I just checked B&H, and there are 14 full frame RF lenses that are $1000, or less. There are 9 lenses at $500, or less. Most of these lenses will outperform their EF-M equivalents. There are also full frame bodies that are not much more than what the M5 or M6 II launched at. Are the "L" lenses expensive? Yes, but "L" lenses have always been expensive. Nothing new there.

We are at the point where it is maybe a 30% price premium for a RF kit that will outperform a comparable M kit.

 

[Boris22]

The whole RF "price" argument is really quite tired and outdated. Sure, Canon did not have a lot of options back in 2018, but the lineup is quite a bit different now. I just checked B&H, and there are 14 full frame RF lenses that are $1000, or less. There are 9 lenses at $500, or less. Most of these lenses will outperform their EF-M equivalents. There are also full frame bodies that are not much more than what the M5 or M6 II launched at. Are the "L" lenses expensive? Yes, but "L" lenses have always been expensive. Nothing new there.

---------------

What's not tired and outdated is the fact that all my EF-M gear is bought and paid for and any R gear is not. That's the way reality works.

 

[nnowak]

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.

 

[M4Mobility]

Yawn, this thread is at a dead end!

And it is just getting worse.

--
- M
“I ain't afraid of no noise.”

 

[R2D2]

Yawn, this thread is at a dead end!

And it is just getting worse.

That's for darn sure. I've stated to him now that I'm not replying to his posts here any more. Lots of great other stuff going on in M-Land. Like pictures! And helping other members! :-D

R2

 

[mmartel]

M failed because Canon was only ever half-hearted about it, effectively willing it to fail despite a high volume of sales in certain markets. They have also been too greedy in the way they are attempting to sell R cameras and lenses.

It seems to me that Canon’s view has been “why sell a customer an M when we can sell an R and they’ll go on to buy some of our nice expensive, profitable R glass” rather than “If the customer doesn’t want an R, let’s sell them an M to attract them away from Fuji X or Sony A6000 and get sales of M glass that we wouldn’t otherwise get”.

The original M camera in 2012 had an indifferent reception in the market place and gained a lacklustre reputation due to slow autofocus, limited feature set and too-small range of dedicated lenses. In the following years, Canon released too few interesting native M lenses to give the system the boost it needed. The introduction of the wonderful Sigma Contemporary lenses might have made a difference if they had come 5 years earlier.

Likewise, there weren’t enough M bodies to appeal to enthusiasts. The ones that did appear – M5, M6 and M6 II - didn’t have the features that some enthusiasts wanted – in-body-stabilisation and, in the M6 / M6 II, a built-in viewfinder.

I agree.

When I decided to go mirrorless years ago from Nikon DX (and Nikon 1), I looked at every mirrorless system available — Fuji, Canon, Panasonic, Olympus, and Sony (Nikon hadn't launched the Z system yet).

Canon EF-M system lost consideration for me because (a) lack of bodies that fit my needs; (b) many good and high value lenses but overall limited selection. Specifically, I was looking for:

- weather sealed body + lens options
- IBIS options
- traditional dials (+dual dials), highly customizable operation, easy access to custom pre-sets

On top of this, the hotshoe-mounted EVF on m6/m6ii was a nonstarter for me. Looked way too fragile/lose-able and I didn't want to have to choose between an EVF and a flash / remote flash trigger.

An M6 Mark III with IBIS looking like a Sony A6xxx series and with a built-in viewfinder in place of the flash ought to have been a good seller.

Certainly would not have hurt one bit.

The Sony models seem to sell OK today and a new model was released recently. Likewise, an M5 Mark II with IBIS would have appealed to certain buyers.

My own situation involves using an M6 II for its compactness when it’s not appropriate to use my 5D IV DSLR. IBIS is unnecessary for my shooting and I can manage without a viewfinder, although I’d still like to have a Sony-A6xxx-style built-in one. I really like the M6 II and its high quality prime lenses and will keep using it until it eventually wears out. At that point, instead of another Canon I’ll buy Fuji, Sony or maybe even M4/3 as they seem more interested in the market for really compact interchangeable lens cameras.

Perhaps. But in the meantime, full-frame makers and full-frame lens-makers are going to keep trying to make their systems more attractive/competitive relative to crop systems; and phones will continue to get better and better. We'll see what the world looks like and what's on offer in the next 5 years. Should be interesting.

 

[Adam-T]

DISCLAIMER:- My Take as an ex owner of M cameras YMMV ..

Canon at the beginning didn`t seem to put their heart into it, they released the original M with a couple of lenses and added a couple more later and left it at that for way too long, even the original G1X was a more practical camera at the time IMO - I liked the M and 22mm combo a lot and loved that I could use the tiny bundled flash 90ex on my 1DS series work cameras as a small unobtrusive fill light but they took way too long to replace the M with a model with any kind of performance (the M6) .

the M2 was basically the same camera as the M and the M3 flopped because of dismal performance - it was when the M5 and M6 came out with DPAF that things got interesting but by then the 18-55 (which was very good if you got a hard to find top copy) was replaced with the (IMO) dreadful 15-45 (hard to get a good one and when you did wasn`t that good) , the cameras were too small to the EF adapter much fun or practical with all bar the smallest lenses, they still didn`t have any fast native zooms (and never did and still haven`t in RFS) and EVF option for the M6 was comically expensive ..

The next run - the M100 and 50 IMO moved things on a pace, superb cameras but I feel it was too late, there still weren`t any decent zooms bar the surprisingly excellent 11-22 and only a couple of really good primes (which were stellar) - by this stage, APS_C MILC was very much owned by Fuji and Sony

Then the M6-II was launched when many wanted an M5-II (built in EVF) , it was very expensive and was cripppled compared to the DSLR version (90D) in that they removed the EFCS option from the firmware so shutter shock abounded with any lenses with IS onboard -bad move Canon , a lovely camera apart from that and incredibly capable , could become a bargain prime cam in the future on the used market as it has the same RAW IQ as the new R7 in a pocket sized body..

I really liked the original M , the M6 and M50 with the 11-22 and 22mm prime - but M was and is very much a cult system because Canon simply didn`t care enough to plough resources into it . sad thing is that with the new RF APS_C cameras, lens wise , they`ve done the same thing (minus the superb M 11-22) , Nikon seem to have followed suit with the Z-DX line , though at least the kit lenses are fantastic there ..

The biggest mistake IMO was for canon to deliberately make the RF mount flange distance too close to M to allow adapters to be made in either direction (it`s that close it has to be deliberate) and as of yet they haven`t used the M 11-22, 32 and 22 optical units in RF-S lenses which they could with Zero R&D

--
** Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist **