FMANTCC?Someone please create an acronym based upon how Forum members are not typical camera customers.
Upvote
0
FMANTCC?Someone please create an acronym based upon how Forum members are not typical camera customers.
FMANTCC?
Someone please create an acronym based upon how Forum members are not typical camera customers.
Im thinking MANT covers it.
Yeah plus IBIS, high res and low latency viewfinder, a native 24-105 f/4 plus an electronic diopter control for bragging rights and it would be a half decent cameraI just want more lenses for this system! A new faster standard zoom or another pancake wide angle. PLEASE CANON!!
I don't how much control Canon has over the moderate price prime market once third party manufacturers can produce back engineered compatible lens mounts or how much Canon is willing to put into competing for that market. If Sigma wants to sell EF-M primes, Canon might let them do it, figuring that market isn't big enough to fight them for it.A few weeks ago someone was speculating that maybe Canon is willing to let third parties do the lens development for these cameras--maybe even was licensing them to do so. It seemed plausible at the time but now I'm thinking...why would Canon want to give up that market?
I don't how much control Canon has over the moderate price prime market once third party manufacturers can produce back engineered compatible lens mounts or how much Canon is willing to put into competing for that market. If Sigma wants to sell EF-M primes, Canon might let them do it, figuring that market isn't big enough to fight them for it.
Sure, that's possible. On the other hand, Sigma might decide to save some money and do what it has been doing--just go with its backengineered mount, and there are a few shades of grey in between these possibilities.In this particular case...I could imagine Canon actually encouraging them do it under license--"you pay us money, we give you the spec for the M mount--oh, and sign this non-disclosure"
Someone please create an acronym based upon how Forum members are not typical camera customers.
Well I'm pleased to see any activity from Canon for the M mount and it seems the focus is largely shifting to the cheaper cameras - I suspect they will replace Ef-S with Ef-m.
But how many of the forum members post on the Forum?I agree likely they aren't, yet there's a possibility that they are. Canon rumours guy once mentioned there's 30k subscribers or so, what makes you think they're definitely not typical?
And even if they aren't, then what? They cannot discuss the rumours and speculate about the cameras they want on the forum dedicated to rumours and speculations?
man, if canon hired ONE person from the forum.. at random. we'd see some actual developments that are needed. seriously..
None so blind....Let complainers start a company and do better.
Canon is changing over a brand new mount system, actually has a tilt-shift lens selection, has various RF lenses out and coming, and even stuff others don't have like the semi auto 470eX ai flash. There's a lot going on over at Canon. It would take a stoner to miss it.
I was using that 470EX AI recently, what an amazing little flash, it just works! I wish they had that tech in a 600EX RT that could be used as an on camera master!Let complainers start a company and do better.
Canon is changing over a brand new mount system, actually has a tilt-shift lens selection, has various RF lenses out and coming, and even stuff others don't have like the semi auto 470eX ai flash. There's a lot going on over at Canon. It would take a stoner to miss it.
My point is, it's irrelevant whether they're typical or not.But how many of the forum members post on the Forum?
It's only important when people start believing (or fantasizing ) that they are typical.My point is, it's irrelevant whether they're typical or not.
Why is it important for them to be "typical"??
Because they don't see enough money it it to be worth the investment with third parties active in a thin market. Don't know whether Canon has given up on the market, but that would be the rationale for doing so.A few weeks ago someone was speculating that maybe Canon is willing to let third parties do the lens development for these cameras--maybe even was licensing them to do so. It seemed plausible at the time but now I'm thinking...why would Canon want to give up that market?