Is the new Canon full frame mirrorless called the EOS R?

[psolberg]

Erm, why not? It's the same money going to the same company, why should it matter whether they're mirrorless or not? A sale is a sale.

It matters in the context of full frame mirrorless. Are you really this desperate? So if I talk about truck sales for ford, I need to talk about for sedan sales?

and yes, a sale is a sale, but in the FF market for mirrorless to deny sony has had a big impact is to be in denial as you are. (bottom graphic, credit Thom Hogan) Sales of FF in dollars. Additionally we know sony's revenue in dollars is growing:

• From 2016 to 2017, Sony’s dollars increased 67%
• From 2017 to 2018, Sony’s dollars increased 78% (same six-month period)

So if the industry breaks down numbers in FF to discuss FF, why should I bunch it all up under the umbrella of ILC. All that does is stick your head in the sand and fail to see the disruption sony has had over the status quo in FF sales, like Neuro is

 

[Mikehit]

and yes, a sale is a sale, but in the FF market for mirrorless to deny sony has had a big impact is to be in denial as you are.

I don't think anybody is denying the impact Sony has had. The question is, and always has been when Canon need to enter the market. You are clearly of the thinking that Canon have made grave error (some only a year ago were talking of it being fatal) in delaying the release so long. I am one who contends that as long as Canon do it right, they have quite a while to release it without long-term damage.

The panning that Nikon got with the V/J models at the same time as the MFT being released shows how getting it right is more important than just making it for the sake of it. And this applies to many, many industries.

 

[psolberg]

What you are describing there is the latest meme. Which is why it will be very interesting to see what happens in about a year's time when all three big players have F mirrorless and there is much less novelty about it all.
Most people want a name they trust, with gear that just does the job and does it well. And I think even the most ardent Sony fan still looks on CaNikon as still having a lead there. If Canon and Nikon can bring their more stable ergonomics to the table in their first iteration then I genuinely believe that all the claims about Sony superiority will fade pretty quickly when people realise they just enjoy using CaNikon much more and they can use their existing lenses. Things like eye AF (which has been pretty impressive in recent models) will start to look like a 'how badly do I need it' buying option rather like the 1Dx2 AF system or 15 fps shooting.

But your comment "thinking they could let sony's FF mirrorless go unanswered for this long " still makes the assumption that FF is the more important area of photography and that the only worthwhile research is done there. There were rumours about Canon's FF mirrorless back in mid 2015 - and my interpretation is that (a) they could not get it to the standard of their DSLRs so did not release it (unlike SOny who put out repeated half-assed models simply to get something out there) and (b) they continued their mirrorless development but not with the urgency that SOny had to simply to survive and (c) Canon, because they had the success of the DSLR to maintain revenue could afford to wait until they felt they had got it right.

Canon have known for years which way the market is going, they could afford to take their time and judge when they had to move. And judging their businsess acumen on one minor specialist area of the market (which FF is) is a failure to look a the bigger picture and be seduced by the youtube wannabes who have viewing revenue to earn.

I don't disagree about your trust argument/youtube click bait, and I'm not defending "switchers logic" so you don't have to try to talk me into why a canon or Nikon body would appeal to its audience over a sony one. however there is a market for FF sensors and there is a GROWING market for FF mirrorless. We know this FACT not just from sony's revenue numbers, which are sales published sony (which btw, also canon/Nikon are missing on), but also the fact canon/Nikon are jumping in this new market regardless of what's going on in ILC overall (typically companies don't jump into shrinking markets).

I disagree that just because I point out that canon was sleeping at the wheel of FF mirrorless that I'm saying that is the most important area in photography. However just because something is not the most important, doesn't mean it is trivial. FF dollars are growing and it is not growing for DSLR players as much as it is for sony. Is that important for photography? sure, but more important is that it is growing and sony is in the middle of it, not canon or Nikon.

 

[psolberg]

I don't think anybody is denying the impact Sony has had. The question is, and always has been when Canon need to enter the market. You are clearly of the thinking that Canon have made grave error (some only a year ago were talking of it being fatal) in delaying the release so long. I am one who contends that as long as Canon do it right, they have quite a while to release it without long-term damage.

The panning that Nikon got with the V/J models at the same time as the MFT being released shows how getting it right is more important than just making it for the sake of it. And this applies to many, many industries.

It would require a time machine to know if canon made an error or not. Time will tell. If, as you are suggesting, they were waiting for the right time, that is logical and I actually buy into that. But it is also possible to wait too long for your competition becomes entrenched and with enough lead that they will in fact remain the leader. I'm not saying sony is undefeatable at this point as some claim. However anybody dismissing sony at this point is ignoring the fact canon/Nikon let them build a huge amount of momentum, perceived leadership, undeniable native mirrorless lens advantage, and a heck of a lot of fans (on top of undeniable and undisputable revenue growth in FF)

I think a great gauge of canon's timing will be what they release. If the lens lineup is lackluster or non existent, if the product fails to meet the expectations to beat the market leader (sony), and if 10 years from now, sony retained the broadest lens lineup, most of the pro market, and all the hype, then yes, canon was asleep at the wheel.

 

[Mikehit]

canon was sleeping at the wheel.

That really is the crux of it. You are talking of corporate ineptitude but you have no idea what decisions they made and why
Have they recognised the importance of mirrorless? Yes. The M series shows that
Have they developed strong mirrorless products ? Yes. The M series shows that
Have they been developing FF mirrorless? Yes, the 2015 rumours and since point to that
Was there an urgent need to release FF mirrorless before now? No, I don't believe so
Have Canon now got a product worth releasing? It seems so
Has this timing harmed Canon? It does not seem so - other than speculation by keyboard executives
What is your evidence of corporate ineptitude? FF sales from a relatively short period with three camera releases in quick succession against 2 players who have released nothing (Canon) or a model (the D850) that no-one can get hold of because of supply shortage. But Canon's imperative is to sell products: they literally do not care if it is FF, APS-C, mirrorless or DSLR. Sony, however are a one-trick pony (look guys we have FF mirrorless) - one hell of a trick admittedly but we will see what power that has over then next 12-18 months.

OK, that last bit was bit inflammatory, but let us look at the APS-C market. What impact are their Axxxx series having? I hardly hear about them but that is because they are up against DSLR in the same price bracket. There is a very high risk Sony will have the same issue in FF by the time the second generation CaNikon come around.
I genuinely want Sony to succeed because I think 3 players stops a cosy relationship forming in the market but I am also cautious about over-elaborating what Sony can do when people limit their view of the market to one small sector with only one player (so far).

 

[melgross]

there are plenty of samples of the 50mm f1.0 where the bokeh is negatively affected by intrusions of the mirror box but you can also see the same problem on f/1.2 lenses to a lesser extent. It makes for ugly artifacts in particular point light sources that creates the "spheres". Similar to "cat's eye", but worse....much, much, worse because the spheres are clipped in unnatural ways with weird angles and geometric intrusions.
https://fstoppers.com/gear/ultimate-lens-bokeh-canon-50mm-f10-5059
yuck.

a broad mount that is closer to the sensor will not have these problems, and I suspect the 58mm f/0.95 will have much less instances of box intrusion. Cat's eye is inevitable however, but that is not as distracting. Nikon engineers also said they picked the dimensions and flange to make designs easier, more telecentric, and/or that require less light bending or arriving at sharper angles on the sensor edges. Some of this may be more evident once there are more high end lenses on the Z mount, as I doubt you'll notice much different on the rather conservative 1.8 primes.

Also in the same interview, they indicated there may be faster glass coming, so maybe that patent for the 52mm f/0.9 is one of those lenses in the roadmap that Nikon didn't write anything on and just left a slot.

I still don’t see the problem. A lot of what is being talked about is just poor lens design. We see that with whatever choice is made. Getting the rear element nearer to the sensor isn’t a problem either way.

 

[psolberg]

That really is the crux of it. You are talking of corporate ineptitude but you have no idea what decisions they made and why
Have they recognised the importance of mirrorless? Yes. The M series shows that
Have they developed strong mirrorless products ? Yes. The M series shows that
Have they been developing FF mirrorless? Yes, the 2015 rumours and since point to that
Was there an urgent need to release FF mirrorless before now? No, I don't believe so
Have Canon now got a product worth releasing? It seems so
Has this timing harmed Canon? It does not seem so - other than speculation by keyboard executives
What is your evidence of corporate ineptitude? FF sales from a relatively short period with three camera releases in quick succession against 2 players who have released nothing (Canon) or a model (the D850) that no-one can get hold of because of supply shortage. But Canon's imperative is to sell products: they literally do not care if it is FF, APS-C, mirrorless or DSLR. Sony, however are a one-trick pony (look guys we have FF mirrorless) - one hell of a trick admittedly but we will see what power that has over then next 12-18 months.

OK, that last bit was bit inflammatory, but let us look at the APS-C market. What impact are their Axxxx series having? I hardly hear about them but that is because they are up against DSLR in the same price bracket. There is a very high risk Sony will have the same issue in FF by the time the second generation CaNikon come around. I genuinely want Sony to succeed because I think 3 players stops a cosy relationship forming in the market but I am also cautious about over-elaborating what Sony can do when people limit their view of the market to one small sector with only one player (so far).

Are you really going to try to strawman your way here with that? won't work. I don't think they are inept. It think they are suffering from hubris. Sleep at the wheel is just a cliché, an internet phrase. It doesn't mean they are inept, just that they are late so please don't strawman into: if they do something wring they can't be inept. Clearly they are not infallible either.

So let's talk about your points: M. Successful yes, in some markets like japan, but what happens now and what happens world wide?. IF a new mount comes in and you bought into the M system, are you screwed? Is there an adapter (so you have to buy two adapters, one for EF and one for ER? can you even do that?). So if in fact there is a new mount, I don't see all this calmed and calculated decision you're talking about with M. In fact, all the opposite, are they going to produce lenses for 3 mounts now? This grand vision doesn't seem so grand.

Also if M was such a hit, why wouldn't have it been at FF? how can you say canon wouldn't be THE sony right now with all the press, and the fans, and THE benchmark by which all are measured and with 20 some native lenses. Would this not be in fact better? and if in fact this is better, then why didn't they do it? why were they late? Sony didn't get there with perfection. They got there by being first, not late.

FF development, yes, rumors point to that and they are old. Undeniable. Without seeing the actual product you cannot tell what took so long. I think you are betting on some sort of golden unicorn or something they had in a lab and it is finally ready. I'm more skeptical, and I think canon is a heck of a lot more protectionist of its 5D and 1DX babies similarly to what happened to the 5D and its video feature set

Has the timing harmed them? Impossible to say either way. But undeniably it has allowed sony to raise and generate revenue, market share, market buzz, fans, audience, lens lineup (native mirrorless). And this happened because canon/Nikon failed to prevent it as they were both late.

Sales of FF, you say they are relatively short, but they are at a key inflection. the market is shrinking for everybody. canon Nikon have stated repeatedly. so players are going upstream to where growth is. and where is growth? FF mirrorless among other places. Enough for sony to boast a pretty good chunk over 3 years of an otherwise declining market. That's no "short" time.

I don't dispute canon has done well in EF-M. And precisely drives my "what if" they had gone FF. IMO they'd be the "sony" and just about owing that market.

 

[psolberg]

I still don’t see the problem. A lot of what is being talked about is just poor lens design. We see that with whatever choice is made. Getting the rear element nearer to the sensor isn’t a problem either way.

have you seen the rear element on that lens? it is flush with the mount as back as it can. How are you getting it closer with the electronic pins in the way? And mounting it would be a pain, just asking for it to get chipped/scratched.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/images/50mm-f1/D3S_0277-rear.jpg

if anybody has a 50 1.0 or 1.2 lens, and a sacrificial FF camera, they could rip off the mirror and box mechanism and see if that clears the path well enough to avoid the ugly clipped bokeh.

 

[scyrene]

It matters in the context of full frame mirrorless. Are you really this desperate? So if I talk about truck sales for ford, I need to talk about for sedan sales?

and yes, a sale is a sale, but in the FF market for mirrorless to deny sony has had a big impact is to be in denial as you are. (bottom graphic, credit Thom Hogan) Sales of FF in dollars. Additionally we know sony's revenue in dollars is growing:

• From 2016 to 2017, Sony’s dollars increased 67%
• From 2017 to 2018, Sony’s dollars increased 78% (same six-month period)

So if the industry breaks down numbers in FF to discuss FF, why should I bunch it all up under the umbrella of ILC. All that does is stick your head in the sand and fail to see the disruption sony has had over the status quo in FF sales, like Neuro is

Your original quotation was as follows:

yeah. hubris has a lot to do with decisions here. Canon and Nikon to some extent are still dreaming in DSLR days. Sony found a foothold and any good dominant player would never allow another to dictate the direction of a market. Sony is now calling the shots and they are THE frame of reference for what amounts to the smartphone equivalent of our industry, while Nikon and Canon are like blackberry still boasting about their marketshare in keyboard phones too afraid to kill that as it would accelerate the migration away from markets they control into markets where there is another rival with a lead XD.

say what you will about sony, but they are playing by the apple playbook here and are putting Nikon and Canon in a position unthinkable even just a few years ago. I hope we have a 3 way race in the end, but I think sony is not done doing damage to the status quo.

You didn't mention FF or mirrorless specifically. You made the general statement that Sony are 'calling the shots' and that Nikon and Canon are stuck in the past. Now if you meant only this segment then fine, be clearer next time - I see you've since clarified this.

Sony only leads in FF mirrorless - and nobody denies that - because neither Nikon nor Canon released cameras in that segment until now (edit: Sony may continue to dominate after all three have entered the segment, but that remains to be seen). It's pretty easy to be the winner in a race where you're the only competitor. It was a smart move - but they had to because their DSLR business - which they subsequently ditched - was going nowhere. But if you really believe that Sony is the Apple of cameras then you are deluded. Sony is still trailing a long way behind Canon in sales overall - even if their FF revenues are increasing - and doesn't appear to be gaining much from Canon. FF will always be a minority of camera sales whether mirrorless or not, so the idea that they will bankrupt their rivals with this is absurd.

 

[neuroanatomist]

you said that you thought there was a higher chance they wouldn't release a new mount and there was a higher chance they'd stick with EF, and I simply point out that the rumors was that they would release a new mount.

I don't have a horse in the race for I've always discussed this canon "rumored" ER or whatever mount in that context, but IF they do release it, well, lunch is served bud. enjoy

The rumor here is, "RF Mount (New mount, possible EF compatibility?)." If the new mount is EF compatible, I don't care if it's called RF, EF-Q, or Bob...it's a mount that natively accepts EF lenses, and that's an EF mount.

That's consistent with the previous rumor of a 'sexy solution' and either the idea of a Z-moving sensor (R for retracting) or lenses that protrude into the space in the body formerly occupied by the mirror box (R for recessed). In either case, it would be analogous to EF-S – the camera mount would accept EF lenses (and possibly EF-S with automatic cropping) and accept RF lenses, RF lenses would not physically mount on DSLRs (like EF-S lenses don't mount on FF DSLRs).

Crow for one please, I won't be joining you.

Well, based on this rumor at least. More likely isn't certainly, so there's certainly a reasonable chance for a completely different mount, like the EF-M scenario. Incidentally, I have argued that is very possible, provided thenew mount is such that a simple adapter can mount those new lenses on EOS M bodies, for an EF lens/APS-C DSLR analogous upgrade path.

 

[melgross]

have you seen the rear element on that lens? it is flush with the mount as back as it can. How are you getting it closer with the electronic pins in the way? And mounting it would be a pain, just asking for it to get chipped/scratched.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/images/50mm-f1/D3S_0277-rear.jpg

if anybody has a 50 1.0 or 1.2 lens, and a sacrificial FF camera, they could rip off the mirror and box mechanism and see if that clears the path well enough to avoid the ugly clipped bokeh.

It depends on the lens.

 

[psolberg]

Your original quotation was as follows:



You didn't mention FF or mirrorless specifically. You made the general statement that Sony are 'calling the shots' and that Nikon and Canon are stuck in the past. Now if you meant only this segment then fine, be clearer next time - I see you've since clarified this.

Sony only leads in FF mirrorless - and nobody denies that - because neither Nikon nor Canon released cameras in that segment until now (edit: Sony may continue to dominate after all three have entered the segment, but that remains to be seen). It's pretty easy to be the winner in a race where you're the only competitor. It was a smart move - but they had to because their DSLR business - which they subsequently ditched - was going nowhere. But if you really believe that Sony is the Apple of cameras then you are deluded. Sony is still trailing a long way behind Canon in sales overall - even if their FF revenues are increasing - and doesn't appear to be gaining much from Canon. FF will always be a minority of camera sales whether mirrorless or not, so the idea that they will bankrupt their rivals with this is absurd.

I already said why I didn't mention FF originally. I also clarified it later. But in case you didn't read, yes, this thread is about FF mounts/sensors and bodies, so I was speaking of that. I already clarified it so I'm not going to continue doing that repeatedly. Ultimately, the disruption has in fact happened in FF as per market stats I posted on dollars share of FF sales (versus units) as well as growth of sony's FF business. So Sony ARE in fact calling the FF mirrorless shots and you admit it as you say, they are the only ones effectively in the race. Everybody compares anything to them therefore. I said Nikon/canon are stuck in DSLR land. They are. That is their focus in ILC: they make more DSLRs than mirrorless IL bodies, that's a fact too. How many DSLR models canon have vs EOS-M? Clearly they are DSLR first and focus on that by FAR, unlike sony's ILC strategy where essentially their SLRs are a dead end.

I don't disagree that Sony has a first mover lead which is what you are referring to when you point out that it is easy to win when you're the only competitor! precisely! because canon/Nikon are missing, aka, late, aka what I was referring to so in fact you agree with me in this point.

Do I believe sony is the Apple? no. I said they are playing by the Apple book, which they are. Are they as good as apple? not a point anybody is making. So please stop making strawman arguments as it reeks of desperation to make a point nobody is making. It is pathetic. weak and to be honest annoying. If you want to discuss without strawmen, I'm more than open to. But if not, don't bother to even reply as it is clear when you pull out the strawman.

Lastly you say that they don't appear to be gaining much from Canon. And yes, if you compare canon's overall business and if you compare canon's share in the shrinking segments that are outside FF where sony effectively doesn't compete as aggressively. I don't think Sony is focused on winning the shrinking markets. They are trying to win on a growing market: FF mirrorless. Again look at the graph (repost from my earlier post, credit Thom Hogan): Canon HAS lost dollar share here, in this market, and that's undeniable and irrefutable. Off course that doesn't mean canon cannot gain ground.

and BTW, I never said they will go bankrupt. Please stop with the strawman arguments. It is pathetic and completely uninteresting. You're not going to make any point of any sense this way.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I So Sony ARE in fact calling the FF mirrorless shots and you admit it as you say, they are the only ones effectively in the race. Everybody compares anything to them therefore. I said Nikon/canon are stuck in DSLR land. They are. That is their focus in ILC: they make more DSLRs than mirrorless IL bodies, that's a fact too. How many DSLR models canon have vs EOS-M? Clearly they are DSLR first and focus on that by FAR, unlike sony's ILC strategy where essentially their SLRs are a dead end.

Sony was focused on APS-C MILCs (after they ran away from the DSLR market). What happened to Sony's APS-C MILC market share after the EOS M launched? Keep in mind that, as you state, MILCs were not Canon's focus. But now that Canon has actually stated their intent to expand focus on MILCs...well, if I were in charge of Sony's Imaging division, I'd be concerned. Very concerned. As a Sony customer I'd also be concerned, given Sony's historical penchant for abandoning markets where they don't remain competitive. I think we're seeing that with their APS-C MILCs, in the last three years they've released two of them, and 5 FF models.

 

[psolberg]

The rumor here is, "RF Mount (New mount, possible EF compatibility?)." If the new mount is EF compatible, I don't care if it's called RF, EF-Q, or Bob...it's a mount that natively accepts EF lenses, and that's an EF mount.

That's consistent with the previous rumor of a 'sexy solution' and either the idea of a Z-moving sensor (R for retracting) or lenses that protrude into the space in the body formerly occupied by the mirror box (R for recessed). In either case, it would be analogous to EF-S – the camera mount would accept EF lenses (and possibly EF-S with automatic cropping) and accept RF lenses, RF lenses would not physically mount on DSLRs (like EF-S lenses don't mount on FF DSLRs).

Crow for one please, I won't be joining you.

Well, based on this rumor at least. More likely isn't certainly, so there's certainly a reasonable chance for a completely different mount, like the EF-M scenario. Incidentally, I have argued that is very possible, provided thenew mount is such that a simple adapter can mount those new lenses on EOS M bodies, for an EF lens/APS-C DSLR analogous upgrade path.

Since we started this discussion, CR has posted a Hypothesis on that just like every site has for months. Yes, that is what we discussed back when the new mounts rumors were showing up: re-use the EF mount vs new mount plus adapters. I've admitted many times that is possible hey do both. Hell, I've argued Nikon/canon might end up releasing something like a 1D or 5D or D5 or D850 without the mirror AND still do a mirrorless small form factor attack on sony with a new mount for the small/size concerned folk. They can certainly do both.

BTW, when I made the point that "based on rumors", there could be a new mount and it was possible you ripped into that. But now, that you do the same, you claim such a thing is even REASONABLE (your own words), yet you accused me of treating rumors as facts...but that's exactly as you are doing now using a rumor, on a rumor site, on a thread about a rumor. Suddenly that' s reasonable? Off course it is! The only people who would think otherwise are ...YOU!, Who complains about rumor theorycrafting and turns around...and rumor theorycrafts lol. You may not end up eating crow, or may yet do, but watching your logic leaps has been amusing.

 

[neuroanatomist]

BTW, when I made the point that "based on rumors", there could be a new mount and it was possible you ripped into that. But now, that you do the same, you claim such a thing is even REASONABLE (your own words), yet you accused me of treating rumors as facts...

Actually, my point was that you were treating a rumor as fact, but were misrepresenting that rumor (or at best, ignoring the part of it that didn't fit your pet hypothesis). Sort of like having your crow and eating it, too. So, thanks for playing.

 

[psolberg]

Sony was focused on APS-C MILCs (after they ran away from the DSLR market). What happened to Sony's APS-C MILC market share after the EOS M launched? Keep in mind that, as you state, MILCs were not Canon's focus. But now that Canon has actually stated their intent to expand focus on MILCs...well, if I were in charge of Sony's Imaging division, I'd be concerned. Very concerned. As a Sony customer I'd also be concerned, given Sony's historical penchant for abandoning markets where they don't remain competitive. I think we're seeing that with their APS-C MILCs, in the last three years they've released two of them, and 5 FF models.

wow, did I say sony was not at some point focused on APS-C? no. Sony effectively bailed the NEX line and their APS-C futures not because the EOS-M. Just because canon found some success as of late (and beat sony in Japan), Sony has been focused elsewhere. Doesn't mean that history will repeat here because you fail to see the obvious difference: Sony is in a much stronger place with FF than they were in APS-C and unlike before, they are not going up-market from FF (at least not yet) to split their R&D. Indeed, back then, not only were they were devoting a lot of resources precisely to go FF in both sensors, bodies and optics but they were still lingering on those doomed alpha SLRs. So went for what made sense for them.

Well the niche snowballed into a big important area of growth.

So as of now, you say that sony commands a similar % in ILC share now vs a few years ago, but you off course omit the fact the slice of the pie in FF changed in favor of sony and to the detriment of Nikon/Canon. That's undeniable. You may not like it but sorry, that's how it is.

P.S. I don't give a damn if sony fails so don't bother attacking them. yeah they could fail. there I said it.

 

[psolberg]

Actually, my point was that you were treating a rumor as fact, but were misrepresenting that rumor (or at best, ignoring the part of it that didn't fit your pet hypothesis). Sort of like having your crow and eating it, too. So, thanks for playing.

I keep treating rumors as rumors in the rumors sections of the rumors forum. I never qualified anything as a new mount or sensor or lens as inevitable. We all rumor theorycraft here, you included, which is all the more hilarious when I see you obviously rumor crafting as facts, fact picking, yet ripping anybody who does lol. I don't care if you're even wrong about the new mount and turns out it is a new flange and new lenses and an adapter (although I'd find it amusing). I'm more interested in what canon will do and this "magical" solution.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I keep treating rumors as rumors in the rumors sections of the rumors forum. I never qualified anything as a new mount or sensor or lens as inevitable.

Well, yes...except when you suggested I 'eat crow' based on a rumor. But hey, you rewrite history all you want. I'm out.

 

[Ozarker]

This is all so much fun!

 

[Mikehit]

Are you really going to try to strawman your way here with that? won't work. I don't think they are inept. It think they are suffering from hubris. Sleep at the wheel is just a cliché, an internet phrase. It doesn't mean they are inept, just that they are late so please don't strawman into:

I'm not creating a straw man at all. If you are unable to use the English language properly then don't be surprised if people misinterpret what you say.
If you are saying they took a valid (at the time) decision that later proved to be incorrect that is a different matter

So let's talk about your points: M. Successful yes, in some markets like japan, but what happens now and what happens world wide?. IF a new mount comes in and you bought into the M system, are you screwed? Is there an adapter (so you have to buy two adapters, one for EF and one for ER? can you even do that?). So if in fact there is a new mount, I don't see all this calmed and calculated decision you're talking about with M. In fact, all the opposite, are they going to produce lenses for 3 mounts now? This grand vision doesn't seem so grand.

If you bought into the M system, you are not screwed. The M system is APS-C - if people needed FF they would have bought 5D/6D/1D. The M system can use the EF lenses so why are they screwed?

Also if M was such a hit, why wouldn't have it been at FF?

At the time, Sony did not have FF either - and for 3 years after introducing FF Sony's initial v1 and v2 cameras were pretty much along the lines of 'nice sensor but otherwise horrendous'.
And why should it have been FF? This comes back to your apparent obsession with the only mirrorless that matters is FF.

how can you say canon wouldn't be THE sony right now with all the press, and the fans, and THE benchmark by which all are measured and with 20 some native lenses. Would this not be in fact better? and if in fact this is better, then why didn't they do it? why were they late? Sony didn't get there with perfection. They got there by being first, not late.

You keep using this word 'late'. Just because they were not first does not mean they were 'late'.
Look at what Sony did - released half assed camera with recognised bugs, then fixed it by releasing another camera a year later fixing the bugs that should not have been there in the first place. It rankled Sony users and that is not how Canon does works.
Also you make the simplistic assumption that because one company has a product another company must be able to respond immediately with a similar (or better) product. It sounds like you have never been involved in product development with all the decision chains and barriers that come up.

I think you are betting on some sort of golden unicorn or something they had in a lab and it is finally ready.

Nope. I am expecting a solid but unexciting product released just to give Canon users an excuse not to move to Sony. I think the second iteration will be much closer to Sony's third generation

Has the timing harmed them? Impossible to say either way. But undeniably it has allowed sony to raise and generate revenue, market share, market buzz, fans, audience, lens lineup (native mirrorless). And this happened because canon/Nikon failed to prevent it as they were both late.

That tedious word 'late' again.
The simple fact is that Sony had to move from DSLR to mirrorless because they could not make enough money against CaNikon. They moved to APS-C mirrorless and got smoked pretty quickly when Canon released their M system. Fact is, the big money is made not with FF but with the APS-C where millions buy them. Sure the A7/A9 create buzz but when people go into the shop and look at the APS-C 1200D and the APS-C 6300 they do not see the massive savings in size and weight. The 'buzz' is being created in websites where people are interested in gear.

I don't dispute canon has done well in EF-M. And precisely drives my "what if" they had gone FF. IMO they'd be the "sony" and just about owing that market.

I have no problem playing 'what if' - it is half the fun of rumours websites. But looking back with hindsight and at the decisions made at the time, and then accusing the company of lack of action serves zero purpose.
Look at what the Sony execs said recently in an interview - they had a gem of a sensor and decided to go back into cameras because they had the sensor. They did not design the sensor to the camera but saw an opportunity with the product they had developed. I have said before that if it were not for the sensor, Sony would have a much lower share than they have now and if you look at the press for the first couple of generations, almost every review concentrated on the fantastic sensor with the camera functions almost an afterthought.
And also Sony has a strong mobile phone division as well and believe that from this experience they understood the rise of video, not from production direction (as Canon had) but from social media and this is why they concentrated so heavily on video.
So, no. I don't think Canon got their decisions wrong at the time. All companies make mistakes and the good ones react effectively (not necessarily quickly) when they need to to correct it.