Some clarifications and amplifications due to responses to my post.
- First, it is important to realize that we are reacting to a RUMOR. And that what we are posting is a mix of speculations, current facts, preferences, and fears.
- I think we can agree that companies in the photo industry are in it to make money. (Victor Hasselblad may have been an exception, he just wanted a better camera for his bird photography. If he could sell some cameras it would help defray the costs).
- "Forecasting is difficult, particularly about the future!" A company entering a new market or a new segment will look at existing data, evaluate costs and pricing options. They will then estimate sales levels at various price points. Based on their analysis Sigma decided to enter the market segment of APS-C mirrorless primes, believing they could make money there with their f/1.4 Contemporary trio due to high quality and very competitive pricing. The fact that they have not abandoned this market segment indicated to me that they consider it profitable.
- The only camera company I know that employs scarcity marketing is Leica Camera.
- A backorder situation arises when your sales exceed your forecast. Your ability to ameliorate the situation may indeed depend upon current capacity utilization. But in any manufacturing operation there is almost always a certain amount of slack. If you look at the car manufacturing process (admittedly a less than perfect simile) you can first go to shift overtime, then to weekend work, at which point it may become cost effective to expand to one more shift. Reading the tea leaves I deduce that Sigma significantly underestimated demand for the EF-M mount. If the M mount was selling faster than the other mounts the logical response would be to focus production on the Canon version, which might then lead to a backorder situation for the other versions. But backordered absolutely means higher than EXPECTED sales.
And, no, I don't know sales volume by mount. Nor do I know total sales. All these numbers are relatively closely held. But let us now, for sake of the discussion accept that that the Canon M system is likely the best selling MILC system out there. There are many indications that this is the case, and very few contraindications. Combine this with the fact that the Canon M only had two general purpose primes and it is likely that Sigma saw a significant underserved market segment. And, as above, they seem to have been even more right than they expected.
Re R vs. M sales levels and profitability. Again, no, I don't know, nor do I think many people outside the company do. Certainly unit profit contribution is unknown. B&H and Adorama can certainly tell us about unit breakdown in the markets they serve, but that breakdown is likely not representative of the total US market. It seems that available data show vastly higher M unit sales than R sales. That is the same as we saw with the DSLR market, many, many more Rebels (and X0Ds) than 6Ds, 5Ds, and 1Ds. Canon made tons of money off the Rebels (I should know, I bought eight of them!) and I am pretty sure that the M is not a Nonprofit part of the organization. The data we have are not "meaningless", they are incomplete and segmented, but we can still infer conclusions.
Sigma did indeed endorse the M system by manufacturing lenses for it. The fact that the marginal investment in up-tooling for the new mount was limited can certainly have made the decision easier and less risky.
I don't know a lot about Sony, I only have an RX-100 Mk. VI, so I likewise don't remember whether there were third party lenses manufactured for the NEX system. I do know, however, that while there are no more NEX cameras, the system seems to be going rather strong under the a6X00 name with B&H currently offering four models. It is my understanding that it is the second best selling MILC system.
The APS-C DSLR market is/has indeed collapsed. But it is a fallacy to conclude from that that the APS-C MILC market is also dying. The starting point should be that the DSLR market is dying, both FF and crop. The reason is that today the MILC cameras are superior to DSLRs (Thank you, Sony!). They are smaller, lighter, less complex, and have additional capabilities (face and eye focus). But judging from what data we do have, crop MILCs are doing very well indeed. But the smartphones keep trying to nibble away.
A comment to riker. I paired my EF-S 17-55/2.8 with a Sigma 50-150/2.8 II which was a rather decent crop alternative to the 70-200/2.8. That was a pretty good combination. When supplemented with the 10-22 I had a three zoom outfit with 15x range, with nearly 9x being f/2.8. And I have shot the moon with Rebels and 400/2.8 plus 2x extender and 500/4.5. You do what works even if it looks silly to the purists.
As said in my previous post, when a commercial shoot comes along (not often these days) I shoot with my 5D series. But for personal shooting my M5 and M6 II and EF-M mount lenses are much kinder to an old man's back. I have both non macro primes, also Sigma 16 and 56 1.4 primes and a Viltrox 23/1.4. Then what another poster called fun lenses, Laowa 9/2.8, Rokinon 12/2.0, Mitakon 35/0.95, and Kamlan 50/1.1 both I and II. As for quality, remember that the heralded 5D III has 22.3 Mp (yes, I know there is more to quality than just Mps). And there are seven years between the 5D III and the M6 II sensors. For those who dislike any APS-C sensor, feel free to do so. But don't knock the format if you haven't really tried it. I am exceedingly pleased with the image quality I get from my M system. And for the people who scream for a new 7 series camera, just accept the 90 D. I know it only takes one card and it isn't as solid as the 7. But it will give you a vast quality improvement.
All images are from the M5. The white cat with the Sigma 16/1.4, girl with hat Sigma 56/1.4, and girl w/o hat EF-M 32/1.4, all indeed shot at f/1.4!
