Canon EOS M2 Not Coming to North America

[zlatko]

Neuro, come on.... are you really still standing up for Canon and their 18mp sensor?

Back when the original 12 megapixel 5D was introduced, a very experienced wedding photographer bought it and soon returned it. He told me it had "too many megapixels". He realized he had no need for 12mp and didn't want to deal with the big files. Now we think the little EOS M2 should have more than 18mp. People who buy the little M2 will be making really, really big prints.

Or, downsampling to get less noisy photos with much sharper detail. Or to crop out a portion of the frame at higher detail. The value of having more pixels isn't purely to print large.

Yes, it has value. But the manufacturer has to make a rational decision in prioritizing goals for the little M2. For the typical buyer of the M2, 18mp will be plenty. I know of two wedding photographers who always shoot their 5D3 at the 10mp medium RAW setting. Fuji mirrorless X cameras are 16mp. Olympus mirrorless cameras are 16mp. Panasonic mirrorless cameras are 16mp. While 18mp isn't enough for everyone, it's clearly enough for a lot of camera buyers, including the likely M2 customer.

 

[Marsu42]

He realized he had no need for 12mp and didn't want to deal with the big files.

The whole IT side seems to evolve in unison, 12mp then regarding storage space and required processing power is about 20mp now for the same amount of money. In a couple of years it'll be 40mp with no downside, just like your good ol' youtube clip then was 10mb 240p and now it's 500mb 1080p with really no one noticing a drawback.

I know of two wedding photographers who always shoot their 5D3 at the 10mp medium RAW setting.

*Always*? Well, I admit that's a bit strange, I understand it for bulk reception shots but for the few select ones I'd expect anyone to go for the full resolution. Plus nowadays you can downsample raw with the Adobe DNG Converter to reduced resolution lossy dng which gives you a lot of flexibility with little storage space, admittedly at the time cost of converting cr2->dng.

 

[EchoLocation]

Neuro, come on.... are you really still standing up for Canon and their 18mp sensor?

Whether I'm standing up for it or not is as irrelevant as whether you're bashing it or not, because as you stated:

...they can sell tons of DSLR's to the masses.

But he, like myself, will no longer be recommending Canon cameras to "the masses" that ask us for advice on which digital camera to buy. Multiplier effect.

yes,
just because something is popular does not meant it is good. 5 years ago I certainly would've recommended buying a Canon camera... These days, not so much.
I'm here to talk about things I like, things i'm in interested in. I wish Canon had an a7 competitor to discuss with you guys here, but they simply don't.
Just because something is popular does not mean it's good.
look at bieber.

 

[EchoLocation]

Neuro, come on.... are you really still standing up for Canon and their 18mp sensor?

Back when the original 12 megapixel 5D was introduced, a very experienced wedding photographer bought it and soon returned it. He told me it had "too many megapixels". He realized he had no need for 12mp and didn't want to deal with the big files. Now we think the little EOS M2 should have more than 18mp. People who buy the little M2 will be making really, really big prints.

BTW, my problem with the 18mp sensor has absolutely nothing to do with the number. I think it is pretty much the perfect amount of Megapixels for my needs... I just bought the a7(not the a7r.)
I just think at this point Canon needs to do something to get over this hump with their 18mp sensor... buy them from Sony, figure out some new technology, do something...
From the 7D in 2009 to yesterdays EOS-M2 release, there has been very little innovation in the Canon world recently.

EOS-M isn't a compelling product in the competitive US marketplace, but it could be, and it really wouldn't take all that much effort on Canon's part to make it so. The thing that confuses me is, instead of even trying...they drop it from our market? Strange. Very strange, and disappointing.

This is the part that is strange. Why don't they make a competetive product? Ok, the M was late to the party... but now they just quit? The M isn't a new release, couldn't they get an M2 to the US market before the holidays this year? My only guess is a more upgraded M will be released in the US sometime next year... I just cant get why it isn't available yet?

 

[Loswr]

But he, like myself, will no longer be recommending Canon cameras to "the masses" that ask us for advice on which digital camera to buy. Multiplier effect.

All two of you, huh? I bet that has Canon executives quaking in there dress shoes. I'm sure they're just terrified that the two of you, and however many people you talk to (and that actually believe you), are going to outweigh all of those Canon cameras "the masses" see being used every day by wedding photographers, sports photographers, their friends, etc. Inflated sense of self importance, anyone?

Back on topic, the the EOS M is currently selling quite cheaply in the USA. Meanwhile, Canon USA is running a major television ad campaign for the somewhat more expensive Rebel SL1, "The world's smallest dSLR." That may be part of the reason for Canon USA's lack of interest in bringing out a new M at this time.

 

[sdsr]

People no longer buy gear that just does enough..
We buy new cameras and of course expect to have new tech inside, regardless if we need it or not or if the old tech works as well..that's no longer the point.
It's all about innovation and keeping up with the times. when another company releases something new, it will most definitely be something "new" worth upgrading to. Canon seems to be the only one releasing new models using old tech and not changing much else.
We just feel short changed that's all..it's not because we need the new tech..it's because we're paying for something new, we'd want something new.

But the "we" you're referring to is a group of people who chat about this sort of thing in forums like this. Canon's "new models using old tech", at least in their dslrs, are still outselling everyone else, even if "we" don't think they deserve to; and even then, "we" tend to be awfully fond of Canon's lenses, especially the newer ones; and those lenses work best on Canon bodies, so....

I've been using my 6D less since buying a 5DIII and OM-D, so I took the 6D on a short trip the other day with nothing but the 24-105L (the other half took the OM-D) and ended up, unexpectedly at a museum which was very dark inside and followed that with a brief visit to another after dark which happened to be very photogenic from the outside. The camera performed flawlessly (I wasn't trying to photograph "herons catching fish") and although most of the resulting images were ISO 6400, the only time I applied any noise reduction afterwards was a couple of shots with a lot of dark sky, and they didn't really need it anyway. I dare say new tech could conjure up something even better, but for my purposes at least I don't know of anything currently available from other companies that would perform any better. That's just me, of course, but I suspect the that number of people out in the real world who find current gear to be inadequate is a rather small "we" that doesn't have all that much influence on the market. (Although not in the same class, the OM-D did very well too, by the way; I - perhaps unnecessarily - set its max ISO to 1600, but with Olympus's good fast lenses and excellent IBIS it didn't need to go higher.)

 

[sdsr]

Well considering that you are in an EOS M thread I think it is safe to assume that many of us posting here are in the market for a mirrorless system and are very dissapointed with the way things look to be turning out for the M.
I am not one of those with a limitless supply of funds for camera/gear. I have 2 little ones in daycare and a wife that doesn't accept financial tomfoolery, as I don't either. I absolutely love my M and credit purchasing this awesome little camera with getting me back into my first, and most intense hobby. I love this system for a number of reasons, first and foremost being the size and portability of it. I hike and ride extensively and this has just fit right in. But I chose the M for 2 reasons: I had been with Canon for about 10 years with a 20D and then a 40D, and because of the firesale price. I felt loyal to Canon because, even though I didn't use them very much, I really loved those to cameras. As for the price of the M, I concede that to complain and whine when I bought it at bargain basement price is a littly petty, but since getting the kit I’ve purchased the other two lenses, flash and filters. I have-what I consider to be-a sizeable investment in the Canon version of the mirror less system now. I was really looking forward to a version of the M that would have been more in line with the OMD EM1/5, EP-5 or GX7. Now it's looking very sketchy that we will EVER see that from Canon.

So yes, it pisses me off because now I feel like I've been marginalized by Canon because of my geographic location. Secondly, I am REALLY not interested in selling off all my stuff at probably half or, if I'm lucky, 2/3rds what I paid for it just to get me about 2/3rds the way there to an EP-5, or GX7.

And before I get flamed I'll also acknowledge that in the big scheme of things this is not a big deal. But in my little photography world that I live in on the weekends...this is supremely frustrating hahahahaha...
[/quote]

Your post makes perfect sense. I'm not trying to say you're wrong, but I'll just point out a couple of things. First I'm not sure how much you would end up losing if you sold your M gear. I bought mine in the first fire sale - not as much as yours, though (body + flash + 22mm + 18-55) - didn't like it and sold it a couple of months later on ebay for more than I paid for it all (good timing, perhaps - the first fire sale had just ended). Second, yesterday amazon's "gold box" camera was an Olympus M43 E-PM2 (same excellent sensor as the OM-D EM5, but no EVF); you could buy it + two kit lenses (the equivalent of 28-84mm & 90-300) for $349....

(I also feel inclined to note that while it is, of course, possible to buy from Japan, if enough of us do that it will only reinforce the impression that mirrorless cameras don't sell in the US, thereby continuing the problem!)

 

[Proffarm]

Well considering that you are in an EOS M thread I think it is safe to assume that many of us posting here are in the market for a mirrorless system and are very dissapointed with the way things look to be turning out for the M.
I am not one of those with a limitless supply of funds for camera/gear. I have 2 little ones in daycare and a wife that doesn't accept financial tomfoolery, as I don't either. I absolutely love my M and credit purchasing this awesome little camera with getting me back into my first, and most intense hobby. I love this system for a number of reasons, first and foremost being the size and portability of it. I hike and ride extensively and this has just fit right in. But I chose the M for 2 reasons: I had been with Canon for about 10 years with a 20D and then a 40D, and because of the firesale price. I felt loyal to Canon because, even though I didn't use them very much, I really loved those to cameras. As for the price of the M, I concede that to complain and whine when I bought it at bargain basement price is a littly petty, but since getting the kit I’ve purchased the other two lenses, flash and filters. I have-what I consider to be-a sizeable investment in the Canon version of the mirror less system now. I was really looking forward to a version of the M that would have been more in line with the OMD EM1/5, EP-5 or GX7. Now it's looking very sketchy that we will EVER see that from Canon.

So yes, it pisses me off because now I feel like I've been marginalized by Canon because of my geographic location. Secondly, I am REALLY not interested in selling off all my stuff at probably half or, if I'm lucky, 2/3rds what I paid for it just to get me about 2/3rds the way there to an EP-5, or GX7.

And before I get flamed I'll also acknowledge that in the big scheme of things this is not a big deal. But in my little photography world that I live in on the weekends...this is supremely frustrating hahahahaha...

Your post makes perfect sense. I'm not trying to say you're wrong, but I'll just point out a couple of things. First I'm not sure how much you would end up losing if you sold your M gear. I bought mine in the first fire sale - not as much as yours, though (body + flash + 22mm + 18-55) - didn't like it and sold it a couple of months later on ebay for more than I paid for it all (good timing, perhaps - the first fire sale had just ended). Second, yesterday amazon's "gold box" camera was an Olympus M43 E-PM2 (same excellent sensor as the OM-D EM5, but no EVF); you could buy it + two kit lenses (the equivalent of 28-84mm & 90-300) for $349....

(I also feel inclined to note that while it is, of course, possible to buy from Japan, if enough of us do that it will only reinforce the impression that mirrorless cameras don't sell in the US, thereby continuing the problem!)
[/quote]


The thing is, right before the fire sale in July I had pretty much decided on the EP-5 (Olympus). I was going to wait for a bit to see the price drop on it, then on the way home from work I saw the M at 299.99 with the 22mm and said to myself 'For that price I'm a fool if I dont pick this up...'

I was all excited because I thought that I had just bought myself into this system mega cheap and that Canon would come through in the next year with their version of the EP-5 or whatever and all I'd have to do is get the body...

Yeah, so Canon basically has me by the ***** at this point. I'm not gonna jump ship and run the risk of them actually releasing the high end M that we are hoping for.. Unless all of next year goes by and they don't show any movement in that direction.

 

[Triggyman]

Well considering that you are in an EOS M thread I think it is safe to assume that many of us posting here are in the market for a mirrorless system and are very dissapointed with the way things look to be turning out for the M.
I am not one of those with a limitless supply of funds for camera/gear. I have 2 little ones in daycare and a wife that doesn't accept financial tomfoolery, as I don't either. I absolutely love my M and credit purchasing this awesome little camera with getting me back into my first, and most intense hobby. I love this system for a number of reasons, first and foremost being the size and portability of it. I hike and ride extensively and this has just fit right in. But I chose the M for 2 reasons: I had been with Canon for about 10 years with a 20D and then a 40D, and because of the firesale price. I felt loyal to Canon because, even though I didn't use them very much, I really loved those to cameras. As for the price of the M, I concede that to complain and whine when I bought it at bargain basement price is a littly petty, but since getting the kit I’ve purchased the other two lenses, flash and filters. I have-what I consider to be-a sizeable investment in the Canon version of the mirror less system now. I was really looking forward to a version of the M that would have been more in line with the OMD EM1/5, EP-5 or GX7. Now it's looking very sketchy that we will EVER see that from Canon.

So yes, it pisses me off because now I feel like I've been marginalized by Canon because of my geographic location. Secondly, I am REALLY not interested in selling off all my stuff at probably half or, if I'm lucky, 2/3rds what I paid for it just to get me about 2/3rds the way there to an EP-5, or GX7.

And before I get flamed I'll also acknowledge that in the big scheme of things this is not a big deal. But in my little photography world that I live in on the weekends...this is supremely frustrating hahahahaha...

Your post makes perfect sense. I'm not trying to say you're wrong, but I'll just point out a couple of things. First I'm not sure how much you would end up losing if you sold your M gear. I bought mine in the first fire sale - not as much as yours, though (body + flash + 22mm + 18-55) - didn't like it and sold it a couple of months later on ebay for more than I paid for it all (good timing, perhaps - the first fire sale had just ended). Second, yesterday amazon's "gold box" camera was an Olympus M43 E-PM2 (same excellent sensor as the OM-D EM5, but no EVF); you could buy it + two kit lenses (the equivalent of 28-84mm & 90-300) for $349....

(I also feel inclined to note that while it is, of course, possible to buy from Japan, if enough of us do that it will only reinforce the impression that mirrorless cameras don't sell in the US, thereby continuing the problem!)

The thing is, right before the fire sale in July I had pretty much decided on the EP-5 (Olympus). I was going to wait for a bit to see the price drop on it, then on the way home from work I saw the M at 299.99 with the 22mm and said to myself 'For that price I'm a fool if I dont pick this up...'

I was all excited because I thought that I had just bought myself into this system mega cheap and that Canon would come through in the next year with their version of the EP-5 or whatever and all I'd have to do is get the body...

Yeah, so Canon basically has me by the ***** at this point. I'm not gonna jump ship and run the risk of them actually releasing the high end M that we are hoping for.. Unless all of next year goes by and they don't show any movement in that direction.
[/quote]

The same thing happened to me yesterday - I got the kit (18-55) with flash that I ordered for $288, but won't put any more money to the little thing, just maybe an extra battery and that's it. I see there's nothing to look forward to for the system in North America at least.

EOS-M fits my needs for a smaller camera that's not entirely a P&S (bought the elph100 with less than desired IQ and wasn;t happy about it), but with IQ that's about the same as my old 60D that I can walk around and don't mind being snatched away from me Well depends on every person I guess.

 

[Proffarm]

After reading the various threads here for the past few months, and especially this current thread I think I’ve come to a conclusion about the EOS M. Now, this is just my crackpot theory, but here me out..
I think all of the posters that say that there IS NOT a market for the M (and mirrorless cameras in general) have it wrong. I think that there is a MASSIVE market here in the U.S. for this type of system, and I think Canon knows it. Unfortunately, the consumers in this market don’t know it yet-and that is the problem.

Short background.
I love photography, and I have for the past 20 years or so. I’ve had a lot of point and shoots, and my first ‘big’ camera (SLR) was a Nikon D70. Then I went to Canon with a 20D then a 40D-and I never used them. They were too big, too obtrusive and distracting. I felt like they took ME out of the moment and I didn’t like that. The problem I faced was that I wanted something with a lot of the capabilities of ILC, but without the bulk and the price. I wanted great looking pictures without looking like some creepy guy on the street with a big camera. Then on a search one day, about 1.5 years ago I found the ‘M’ and I KNEW that this was what I had been looking for. That led me to research all the different brands and their various incarnations. I fell in love instantly with the idea of the small, mirrorless system that has many of the chops of the big boy DSLR’s. So I waited and bought the M when it went on sale and the rest is history. My wife is jealous of that camera…

Anyway, back to the theory.. Assume that there are actually a fair number of consumers here in the U.S. (the market) that want something MORE than their point and shoots/phones. They found while playing with their cell phones that this little thing called photography is pretty fun and cool, and now they want the next step. So in they walk to Best Buy, Walmart, Target or whatever giant retailer because honestly, they have no other choice since dedicated photog retailers are pretty much dead. They tell the salesman that they want something cool that does more than a point and shoot. The salesman does what? He points to the low-end DSLR’s (the Rebels and the Nikon versions) and hawks the bargain basement kit at them for 500-800 bucks. He tells them that THIS is what they are looking for and that THIS is what will give them the pictures they want. The customer thinks to themselves, ‘Ok, but that is kind of bigger than what I wanted to be holding, but yeah, I’ll try it?’ and buys the Rebel. They get home, they play with it and realize quickly that it intimidates them, and it makes them kind of stick out whenever they take it anywhere-and that might make them feel uncomfortable. Now the DSLR sits on the desk collecting dust.

What if there was an alternative that was a little bigger than a point and shoot, but definitely smaller than a DSLR? You can’t possibly tell me that people WOULDN’T WANT THAT. No way. But Canon doesn’t want them to want it because it could potentially cut huge swaths of red into their big boy DSLR lines.. No way, says Canon. We WANT them to want the DSLR lines that are cemented in retail concrete that we’ve spent so many years developing and solidifying. Don’t even give them a choice, because it could really gut our bottom line.
I never saw one commercial for the M. Not one. The other companies have probably seen the writing on the wall with Canon dominance over the DSLR market and realized they have to come up with something new or else fade away.

Seriously, what average consumer that wants to jump into the cool world of photography wouldn’t want something half as big, and in many cases significantly cheaper than a DSLR?

Alright guys, now come at me and tell me how wrong I am.

 

[Loswr]

But he, like myself, will no longer be recommending Canon cameras to "the masses" that ask us for advice on which digital camera to buy. Multiplier effect.

All two of you, huh? I bet that has Canon executives quaking in there dress shoes. I'm sure they're just terrified that the two of you, and however many people you talk to (and that actually believe you), are going to outweigh all of those Canon cameras "the masses" see being used every day by wedding photographers, sports photographers, their friends, etc. Inflated sense of self importance, anyone?

I don't talk to the masses, rather I talk to co-workers or friends or family who know what sort of camera I've got and think "he's got a good camera, I'll ask him for a recommendation." It's a behavior that isn't specific to cameras. And I'm not speculating here, that conversation has happened.

I believe you. But even if you're having that conversation with a few people or a few dozen, you're not conversing with hundreds or thousands of people, and it would take hundreds of thousands to make the sort of impact you're implying you are having.

The point is, I bet for every person to whom you recommend against choosing Canon, there are several people recommending the opposite to their co-workers or friends or family. For the most part, people tend to recommend what they use…and more people use Canon that the other brands.

Actually, I think you've missed the point that they are putting their latest sensor technology into cameras but that they've focused on R&D into sensors that have new features rather than new sensors with more megapixels or higher IQ.

No, I haven't missed the point. But I think perhaps you've missed the point that Canon has focused their sensor R&D in areas that they think customers will impact customer buying decisions, and low ISO DR isn't one of those.

 

[Marsu42]

No, I haven't missed the point. But I think perhaps you've missed the point that Canon has focused their sensor R&D in areas that they think customers will impact customer buying decisions, and low ISO DR isn't one of those.

I really don't want to intervene in the entertaining dilbert & neuro talk , but I'd like to add that even if Canon would consider low iso important, they have no hope on reaching or overtaking Nikon/Sony in this area due to patents, so it's smart to stop trying and expand their own strengths - which unfortunately seems to be amateur video and high-end sports/tele.

 

[Loswr]

No, I haven't missed the point. But I think perhaps you've missed the point that Canon has focused their sensor R&D in areas that they think customers will impact customer buying decisions, and low ISO DR isn't one of those.

I really don't want to intervene in the entertaining dilbert & neuro talk , but I'd like to add that even if Canon would consider low iso important, they have no hope on reaching or overtaking Nikon/Sony in this area due to patents, so it's smart to stop trying and expand their own strengths - which unfortunately seems to be amateur video and high-end sports/tele.

"No hope?" I wouldn't say that… If nothing else, Sony has IP and runs in the red, Canon has deep pockets, and there's this thing called licensing…

 

[Marsu42]

Canon has deep pockets, and there's this thing called licensing…

Indeed, but it seems Canon execs would rather drop dead than to license IP, for example they programmed their own operating system (DryOS) rather than license an existing real time os. But of course I don't know what non-Canon IP already is in my cameras, and I surely would love to see them license exmor ... but Sony would have to be really desperate to give away one of their most exposed tech advantage, wouldn't they?

 

[Random Orbits]

Canon has deep pockets, and there's this thing called licensing…

Indeed, but it seems Canon execs would rather drop dead than to license IP, for example they programmed their own operating system (DryOS) rather than license an existing real time os. But of course I don't know what non-Canon IP already is in my cameras, and I surely would love to see them license exmor ... but Sony would have to be really desperate to give away one of their most exposed tech advantage, wouldn't they?

That is also assuming that Sony would license it to Canon. If they license the technology, what advantage does SoNikon have?

 

[Loswr]

Canon has deep pockets, and there's this thing called licensing…

Indeed, but it seems Canon execs would rather drop dead than to license IP, for example they programmed their own operating system (DryOS) rather than license an existing real time os. But of course I don't know what non-Canon IP already is in my cameras, and I surely would love to see them license exmor ... but Sony would have to be really desperate to give away one of their most exposed tech advantage, wouldn't they?

That is also assuming that Sony would license it to Canon. If they license the technology, what advantage does SoNikon have?

Even before that, one has to assume that Canon would want to broach the idea in the first place. As I've said repeatedly, the evidence indicates that a bit less DR at low ISO is not hurting Canon's sales at all.

 

[eml58]

The point is, I bet for every person to whom you recommend against choosing Canon, there are several people recommending the opposite to their co-workers or friends or family. For the most part, people tend to recommend what they use…and more people use Canon that the other brands.

And among all the possible scenarios we see here on CR, this is the one irrefutable piece of info, it's irrefutable not because some at CR say so (although we do, repeatedly), it's irrefutable because Canon, for 10 years ?? (Neuro, need help), have continuously been the largest seller of Cameras on the Planet, by a decent margin.

It could be because they make Garbage and have a supreme Marketing team that's able to sell Ice Makers to Eskimos, but....... I don't think so, it may just be that Canon make an excellent group of products (not saying in all areas the best, just excellent), have first class support, and are smart enough to paint their large Lenses....white.

 

[Woody]

No, I haven't missed the point. But I think perhaps you've missed the point that Canon has focused their sensor R&D in areas that they think customers will impact customer buying decisions, and low ISO DR isn't one of those.

Lower noise and higher DR are what I look for in successive cameras and that improvements should be visible right through the range of ISO values, not just in one particular area. It just so happens that one of Canon's competitors has produced a camera that quite clearly trounces Canon at ISO below 800, giving us a better feel for what's possible with existing technology.

I think Canon marketing department is doing a great job (certainly better than Sony/Olympus/Panasonic in this regard) and clearly know how to expand their products in different regions in the world at the appropriate time. That is why their market shares for interchangeable lens cameras has not changed significantly over the years.

However, in maturing markets such as the USA, their inability to match the sensor performance of their competitors is hurting them. A couple of years ago, 8 out of 10 DSLRs sold in the USA carry the Canon logo... now, they are down to 6 out of 10. This is because most folks can no longer strongly recommend Canon to their friends and family. I am sure most folks do not need wide dynamic range at low ISO 90% of the time, but if the competition (i.e., Nikon) can offer this capability at the same price, what's stopping them from buying Nikon? IMO, the SL1/100D is a SUPERB entry level DSLR, but it is clearly not dominating the sales charts like the DRebel or DRebel XT. I believe poor word of mouth has something to do with it.

Personally, I am quite happy with my Canon DSLRs but I won't be upgrading them in the next few years unless Canon is able to make significant progress in their sensor imaging capabilities. Neither will I recommend Canon to friends and family. For compact cameras, I'll go for Sony RX100. For mirrorless, probably Fuji or Olympus. For DSLRs, Nikon. Nothing from Canon is compelling.

 

[Loswr]

A couple of years ago, 8 out of 10 DSLRs sold in the USA carry the Canon logo... now, they are down to 6 out of 10.

Interesting. Would you mind providing your source for those data? Thanks!

 

[jrista]

A couple of years ago, 8 out of 10 DSLRs sold in the USA carry the Canon logo... now, they are down to 6 out of 10.

Interesting. Would you mind providing your source for those data? Thanks!

Ditto.