You are obviously too stupid to read properly!
Discussion with you would be a lot easier if you would use arguments instead of personal insults!
Upvote
0
You are obviously too stupid to read properly!
Discussion with you would be a lot easier if you would use arguments instead of personal insults!
Correct.Not really. The M50 and M200 target the Rebel Demographic, so they don't really need to make more EF-M lens models. Neither PowerShot buyers nor M50/200 buyers have lenses what work on R - but that's OK.
Should I go back further down the timeline? ...Sadly, some people on this forum would not know a fact if it bit them on the behind. it’s hard to hear reason when your own opinion is thundering too loudly in your head.
Why does everybody believe that having multiple mounts is a problem? Canon should be streamlining expensive components, like sensors and DIGIC processors, which they are doing. The mount? That’s just a piece of stamped metal. There’s very little cost efficiency to be gained from that. People who buy R bodies are generally not interested in using M lenses on them, and vice versa. These are different product lines that serve different customer segments, with different needs and different performance expectations.I wrote about the M-Lineup being done in 2020 and a lot of people with M-Cameras were mad and went off on me. I stated that it wouldn't make sense to support 3 lens lineups at the same time. They told me that the EF was going to be the one to go, and I said that is correct along with the M. you wouldn't believe how angry people were for me saying that lol. all good. They have to streamline the lineup and make sure that there is one mount moving forward. it's going to be important that all camera brands do this because of how sensitive the market can be at any given moment. I also think that the M-Series will make for a great novelty camera that people will end up paying above market value for in the future.
The issue is not about the mount, per se, but rather lenses designed for the mount. EF lenses are different designs than RF lenses, which are different than EF-M lenses. Having said that, I agree that it's not a problem. First off, Canon is a big company. How many different styles and shapes of ink and toner cartridges do they manufacture for their printers? I don't know, but it's not a small number. They clearly have the resources to maintain multiple lines of a wide and diverse array of products.Why does everybody believe that having multiple mounts is a problem? Canon should be streamlining expensive components, like sensors and DIGIC processors, which they are doing. The mount? That’s just a piece of stamped metal. There’s very little cost efficiency to be gained from that. People who buy R bodies are generally not interested in using M lenses on them, and vice versa. These are different product lines that serve different customer segments, with different needs and different performance expectations.
As I already said, the problem is not having 2 or more mounts but the cannibalization of similar products.I can see the reasoning behind your case, but there's no reason why Canon can't keep RF *and* M alive, if both are profitable, which they are. We tend to think only about our own markets (mostly North America & Europe), but the M series are huge sellers in Asia. Even EF will remain for at least another 5 years, as Rebels are still among Canon's biggest sellers.
Look at other brands - Fujifilm is doing very well with 2 mounts, Panasonic is still doing OK with 2 mounts despite having a much smaller segment of the market. I think Canon still has the largest ILC market share, they are a massive company and perfectly able to produce and sell 2 or even 3 systems concurrently. Ultimately the survival of the M series will depend on how the Asian market reacts. They tend to like small, stylish, and relatively cheap cameras there, and the M series fits that requirement far better than any other Canon product line.
BTW, I'm not a defensive M owner, just a neutral observer.
It's always legal....if they don't catch you.I didn’t think it was legal to fly drones in national parks, but I might be wrong. Best to check before you go.
I'm not disagreeing with your logic , just stating that Canon are a big enough and rich enough company to be able to afford to keep to both lines running if they want to do so. And for the next 3-4 years, I think that's what they'll choose to do, despite "cannibalisation", because the M50 in particular is still extremely popular in Asia, which is a major market for Canon.As I already said, the problem is not having 2 or more mounts but the cannibalization of similar products.
Fujifilm has 2 mounts because they differ well in product specs and/or price level. One for APS-C and one for medium format with a full frame gap inbetween.
Panasonic is similar: One mount for MFT and one for full frame with even 2 formats (APS-C and full frame) inbetween.
Sony, Nikon and Canon only offer APS-C and full frame. These two formats are close together. Therefore it does make sense to give them one mount.
Exchange of format/lenses and transition of target groups is a big benefit facing an unknown future. Manufacturers can adapt faster and cheaper to new challenges and customer demands ... in a shrinking market it's wise to have less mounts with less product lines.
What about the M50 and M200? They are similar in specs and price level ...
Short answer:
They are both dying out dinosaurs!
Long answer:
Once there was a M5 and M6. Now there is only the M6 (threatened with extinction probably because of the newer R10)
Once there was a XXD and a 7D line. Now there is only the R7.
Once there was a M50 and M200. In the future there will be only the R100.
Apropos Panasonic:
They are part of the L-mount alliance and share the same mount with different(!) manufacturers.
Why are they doing this?
I haven't kept any kind of official records, but lots of folks seem to think the M cameras are only best sellers in Asia, and that does not seem to be the case. Every month or so for the past year or more I check the Amazon best sellers and the M50 and/or M50 II is always near the top, usually in the top 5 although today I checked and among mirrorless the M50 II w/ kit lens and other extras is #9, M50 II content creator kit is #15 and the M200 kit is #19.I can see the reasoning behind your case, but there's no reason why Canon can't keep RF *and* M alive, if both are profitable, which they are. We tend to think only about our own markets (mostly North America & Europe), but the M series are huge sellers in Asia. Even EF will remain for at least another 5 years, as Rebels are still among Canon's biggest sellers.
Look at other brands - Fujifilm is doing very well with 2 mounts, Panasonic is still doing OK with 2 mounts despite having a much smaller segment of the market. I think Canon still has the largest ILC market share, they are a massive company and perfectly able to produce and sell 2 or even 3 systems concurrently. Ultimately the survival of the M series will depend on how the Asian market reacts. They tend to like small, stylish, and relatively cheap cameras there, and the M series fits that requirement far better than any other Canon product line.
BTW, I'm not a defensive M owner, just a neutral observer.
On the subject of consolidation, I would speculate that the EF/EF-S and EF-M mounts already use the exact same electrical signaling and protocol. Only the form factor is different. That’s why you can buy a cheap no-name adapter on Amazon and it just works.The issue is not about the mount, per se, but rather lenses designed for the mount. EF lenses are different designs than RF lenses, which are different than EF-M lenses. Having said that, I agree that it's not a problem. First off, Canon is a big company. How many different styles and shapes of ink and toner cartridges do they manufacture for their printers? I don't know, but it's not a small number. They clearly have the resources to maintain multiple lines of a wide and diverse array of products.
The other factor is that Canon is not stupid. Where possible, they reuse lens designs. The RF 400/2.8 and 600/4 are EF lenses with an RF adapter fixed to the back end. The RF-S 18-45 is a new design (likely needed because 15mm doesn't need to be retrofocal with the EF-M 18mm flange distance, but would need to be with the 20mm RF flange distance), but the RF-S 18-150 is a repackaged version of the EF-M 18-150.
RF-S 18-150mm
View attachment 204148
EF-M 18-150mm
View attachment 204149
That suggests they could do the same with the EF-M primes and the M55-200. That minimizes development costs, which increases profits (and incidentally eliminates one of the biggest problems with product cannibalization).
I think this isn't a problem at all for Canon, it's only a problem in the minds of some forum participants. But then, it's clear that some forum participants have about as much business acumen as a bowling ball.
Indeed. Some data from 2021:Canon aren't foolish enough to drop a top-selling camera. You may consider it to be a "dinosaur" but try telling that to the consumers in Japan.
For 10 years people have called DSLRs "dinosaurs", yet I think they still account for about 40% of Canon's total sales. Change is of course inevitable, but change doesn't happen rapidly, and IMO it will take at least 3 years to phase out the M series.
There are also people who buy an M as a travel camera, to complement their EF or RF gear, but I think that you've described the *typical* M buyer very well.What I think most forum member miss is that the target market for the M cameras is people buying a camera (perhaps their first) at Amazon, Best Buy, Cosco, Target, etc. Thy don't care if it is mirrorless or DSLR, they don't care if they can use RF lenses (they won't even know they exist, most likely), they are looking for inexpensive and small. It is a camera they will use for the next 5-10 years, and they won't need any more than 3 lenses at most (wide angle zoom, standard zoom, telephoto zoom) or they will choose the 18-150 as a one lens kit. They don't need eye-tracking, they don't need high fps, they don't need any R&D to be put into the system. They are just looking for something that is more versatile and an upgrade to the smartphone. Something easy to use on vacation, on family events, or for simple YouTube video creation. They are not gear-heads. At least, that is my opinion on the target market. Others, I'm sure, will disagree.
What Canon hopes ( I would think) is that at least some percentage of people who start out with an M camera, will develop a greater interest in photography and will look to get a more advanced camera, and more advanced lenses at some point. If they are happy with their M camera, Canon hopes they will check out Canon's new RF system before looking at other brands.
Being unavailable hasn't stopped retailers advertising different Canon bodies and lenses and taking orders even if the supply chain delays have meant extensive delays in fulfillment.Just because something is unavailable doesn't mean it is discontinued. Given all of the supply chain and transport issues, this is probably THE worst time to make such a conclusion.
It is hard to follow your grammatical tenses here. "Once there was a" would indicate a fairy tale in the long distant past. Clearly this is not the case.Long answer:
Once there was a M5 and M6. Now there is only the M6 (threatened with extinction probably because of the newer R10)
Once there was a XXD and a 7D line. Now there is only the R7.
Once there was a M50 and M200. In the future there will be only the R100.
So, if a bowling ball like me gets you right it is as cheap and easy to adapt same lenses on different mounts like ink cartridges on different printers, right?The issue is not about the mount, per se, but rather lenses designed for the mount. EF lenses are different designs than RF lenses, which are different than EF-M lenses. Having said that, I agree that it's not a problem. First off, Canon is a big company. How many different styles and shapes of ink and toner cartridges do they manufacture for their printers? I don't know, but it's not a small number. They clearly have the resources to maintain multiple lines of a wide and diverse array of products.
The other factor is that Canon is not stupid. Where possible, they reuse lens designs. The RF 400/2.8 and 600/4 are EF lenses with an RF adapter fixed to the back end. The RF-S 18-45 is a new design (likely needed because 15mm doesn't need to be retrofocal with the EF-M 18mm flange distance, but would need to be with the 20mm RF flange distance), but the RF-S 18-150 is a repackaged version of the EF-M 18-150.
RF-S 18-150mm
View attachment 204148
EF-M 18-150mm
View attachment 204149
That suggests they could do the same with the EF-M primes and the M55-200. That minimizes development costs, which increases profits (and incidentally eliminates one of the biggest problems with product cannibalization).
I think this isn't a problem at all for Canon, it's only a problem in the minds of some forum participants. But then, it's clear that some forum participants have about as much business acumen as a bowling ball.
Yes, not every camera is discontinued already. But I think it is quite obvious that not every line of camera once existed (or even still existing) will have a successor in the future. For ex. 90D and 7D was melted to R7. M5 and M6 was melted to M6 II. M50 and M200 (probably) will melt to an assuming R100. That doesn't necessarily mean all these cameras aren't produced anymore. It's just not sure if they will have an (direct) successor or not ...It is hard to follow your grammatical tenses here. "Once there was a" would indicate both a fairy tale in the long distant past. Clearly this is not the case.
The xD series is still being sold (6Dii/5Div/5Ds R).
There are a number of xxD and xxxD bodies currently for sale
The M50/M200 is currently for sale
The R10 is arguably better than the 7D in terms of AF performance/AF points/AF aperture minimum (RF800/11 + 2xTC), mp count, fps (mech, eshutter and pre-shooting), flippy screen - and video.
If better weather sealing, IBIS, bigger battery, more mp and dual cards are important to you then the R10 is the other option
Sure, there may be a migration path but that is not clear based on the current line up.