but reusing the 18mp AGAIN really does feel like Canon is giving their customers a collective slap in the face with a little "Haha! Got you to buy one again! Nah! Nah!"
No doubt Canon is behind in sensor performance in relative terms, but you're having a top-down perspective:
Sony is currently advertising their mirrorless aps-c in Germany and the main point is that has a *large* sensor - aps-c! - and the *same* as in their "pro" aps-c dslrs. Obviously a lot of folks shooting iPhone consider a crop sensor as a step up, and in absolute terms in good light there is indeed nothing wrong with it but it's quite capable.
So I'd take the "bottom-up" perspective: There's nothing wrong with the M1/M2 sensor, but I'd personally wonder why I should buy a 70d in 2014 with about the same sensor performance for a whole lot of money more, not everyone is into bird or child tracking.
I'm not saying that Canon needs to dump the 18mp sensor because of external competition. I'm saying they need to dump it because they themselves already have better technology, and there is absolutely no reason not to utilize the 20mp DPAF sensor in the EOS-M2. I don't believe it would cannibalize 70D sales at all...different class of camera.
Not everyone may be into birds or children, true...but for the market segment where the EOS-M line fits best, a LOT of people are interested in video...and it is video where DPAF truly shines, what it was specifically designed for. Personally, I'd love to haul along an EOS-M with 20mp DPAF sensor whenever I go out shooting. I could either set it up with a little mount on top of my camera, and just let it rip, filming whatever I am shooting (kind of like a GoPro, only WAY better!
)...or I could set it up on a second tripod, and let it record beside me.
From what I understand about Hybrid AF, the fact that it requires a two stage PD->CD AF approach means it will never track well, if at all, and if the subject moves out of focus, then you will always have the potential for that CDAF stage which is immensely obvious and annoying in video.
All I am saying is, Canon can do better. They can do better not because they have to, or because of competition...but because they already have. It seems quite clear people in the US WANT the EOS-M...it isn't that they don't, it is simply that Canon is really doing a piss-poor job making it a compelling product for this marketplace. They don't even necessarily need to spend a lot of money on it...the 20mp DPAF sensor and two or three new basic lenses would do it. They could probably get away with that for 2% of their total annual R&D budget, if even that much, and they would probably make bank... The whole EOS-M in the US is a strange ordeal, it doesn't feel like the Canon I've known for some six years plus now, and to be quite frank...it is a little frustrating.
I've never liked Sony electronics. I've had them in the past. I've known friends who live and die by Sony. But when compared to other products...I've always found better quality in Sony's competitors. Instead of a Sony TV, I went with a Samsung TV. Instead of a Sony car stereo, I went with a Pioneer. I once purchased a Sony laptop, their 18.4" 1080p HD laptop...total piece of junk that failed within a couple months, had to have a repair man out to my house (after nearly a year of trying to get support to help) to take the thing apart and replace the entire motherboard. I've found ASUS and even Lenovo ultrabooks and tablets to be far superior, more reliable products (even though they are supposedly lower rung products). So on and so forth...
I could use a mirrorless companion to my DSLR. It'll never replace what my DSLR does, but in the circumstances where I need a portable camera with a high quality sensor that is capable of shooting video with smooth focus tracking...Canon HAS the technology (they just aren't utilizing it), and I am truly loath to buy an A7r. I've handled Sony DSLR cameras, and their lenses...on quite a number of occasions, as I do with Nikon cameras whenever I'm in proximity to them at Mikes Camera or another store that has them. If I really had to, I'd move to Nikon, or at least add Nikon to my kit. Sony...not so much. Their products have always felt of lesser quality than both Canon and Nikon. They feel too light and like plastic, like breakable toys. Their lenses don't have the same solid, professional, properly damped feel as a Nikon or Canon lens. Things don't seem to perform as well or as fast on a Sony camera (speaking about DSLRs here, as they are my only regular first hand experience with Sony cameras.) Problem is...Sony has the most compelling
mirrorless product on the market. It certainly has a damn good sensor...but, as Nero himself often says...the sensor is rarely the single most important aspect of a camera. It's everything else
I wonder about, and I don't think I'll ever be able to shake the feeling that someone else, even Canon, can do a significantly better job than Sony at building a quality mirrorless camera.
That is...if they only would...