I, for one, fully comprehend manufacturer/retailer relationships.
However, I'll never believe Canon does not have some hand in this particular move. To think B&H suddenly got a wild hair up their tookus one day and fire-saled the M and then their competition followed the piper like mice is far too improbable.
This is why I initially said I'm scratching my head trying to understand this. There is something behind it -- and I know all (or some at least) will be revealed in time.
Meanwhile, while I think it would be delightful to have the M right now, I'm not taking the bait. For me, it won't get me any pictures I can't get with my current equipment.
No offense intended to anyone who bought into this deal. I think that's great for you if you need it or just want it. And I'll be listening to hear your experiences with it -- so far I've heard nothing but good things. Thanks.
Why is it that people never seem to get that retailers are not Canon and an individual retailers pricing decision often occurs independent of Canon (or any other manufacturer).
Fact: Canon is not offering the EOS M for $299.
Fact: There is no rebate currently offered for the EOS-M, which means no enforcement of minimum advertised pricing.
Fact: B&H offered the camera for $299.
Fact: We don't know why B&H made this offer.
Fact: Adorama and Amazon are major competitors with B&H.
Fact: Adorama and Amazon matched B&H's price.
Fact: We don't know why Adorama and Amazon matched B&H's price, but we can speculate it has something to do with the competitive marketplace.
Fact: Eventually, the EOS-M will be replaced.
Assuming any relationship between the last fact and all those preceding, without correcting for all of the other variables, is simply sloppy reasoning.