AvTvM said:
Had Canon launched the M3 globally from the start and priced it 200 lower they'd by now already sold a good number more and made a really decent profit. Nobody in their right mind would believe that cost to build M3 is higher than a SL-1/100D or Rebel 5t/1200 D mirrorslapper.
How can you know any of that? You can't, it is pure speculation.
But looking at the Amazon Japan selling numbers it seems Canon do know their market, and it is very price sensitive just as Canon predict, a post earlier showed the M2 still outselling the M3 just because of price. That leaves plenty of room for a dumbed down M4 in the volume markets where the M series are actually selling well.
It has been said a few times that this forum gives a very distorted view of the camera buying public, most camera buyers don't give a darn about minutiae we compulsively demand.
I am teaching a photography course at a college, it is a paid course that gets no credits so the students are there because they want to learn, of the 24 course attendees two have full frame cameras (both Canon 5D's, one MkII and one MkIII) the rest are Rebels, and damn those SL1's are small, as well as a couple of Nikon's for the DSLR's, then a lot of SX Powershots, a couple of crop sensor Sony's, and a few higher end P&S's. The course requirement for cameras is that they have a Mode dial (or menu) and Exposure Compensation.
I am all for a higher end M, but I am realistic enough to accept that the market for an M4 is probably going to make Canon more money of it is lower specced and priced. Besides, it won't be until we get a range of EF-M enthusiast lenses that the M will make more sense to the Western enthusiast. I have under 500 images from my M in my Lightroom catalog, it has replaced my G10, which is probably what Canon expected.
