When is the M5 Shipping?

[Loswr]

My 100mm macro looks particularly unbalanced

Do you think moving the attachment forward 3 cm would help much? Looks like a tripod collar is what's really needed, I have one for my Canon 100/2.8L Macro IS.

 

[AvTvM]

Yes! It is (was) an extra advantage of the EF-M/EF adapter to serve as a well-designed and low cost way to equip non-collared lenses with a tripod foot.

 

[Loswr]

Yes! It is (was) an extra advantage of the EF-M/EF adapter to serve as a well-designed and low cost way to equip non-collared lenses with a tripod foot.

Help vs. help much. Looking at that image, it's still going to be really unbalanced. It wouldn't be so bad with a heavy body on the back side, but the M-series bodies are light (which is part of the point of them).

 

[AvTvM]

My 100mm macro looks particularly unbalanced

Do you think moving the attachment forward 3 cm would help much? Looks like a tripod collar is what's really needed, I have one for my Canon 100/2.8L Macro IS.

yes, it helps a lot with a 90/100mm macro lens to attach via adapter foot to tripod. Even if it is only 3 or 4 cm forward. Weight is already a lot better balanced.

But this is really sidelining the discussion. The real issue at hand is Canon' s ultimate shabbyness. Omitting such a little, low cost item from their forced-kit bundle. And going to lengths to print it on the box. :

We are talking blatant, corporate greed here. Very similar to Apple's decision to omit SD-card slot from their 2016 MB Pro and then trying to explain it as "and advantage to customers".

Stupid, Apple!
Stupid, Canon!

 

[Loswr]

The real issue at hand is Canon' s ultimate shabbyness for omitting such a little, low cost item off in their forced-kit bundle. We are talking blatant, corporate greed here. Very similar to Apple's decision to omit SD-card slot from their 2016 MB Pro and then trying to explain it as "and advantage to customers".

One individual's corporate greed is a corporation's good business practice.

 

[AvTvM]

The real issue at hand is Canon' s ultimate shabbyness for omitting such a little, low cost item off in their forced-kit bundle. We are talking blatant, corporate greed here. Very similar to Apple's decision to omit SD-card slot from their 2016 MB Pro and then trying to explain it as "and advantage to customers".

One individual's corporate greed is a corporation's good business practice.

Successful companies cater to their client's needs. Nickel 'n Diming your customer base definitely is not considered "good business practice". To the contrary, it is utmost stupidity.

 

[Loswr]

The real issue at hand is Canon' s ultimate shabbyness for omitting such a little, low cost item off in their forced-kit bundle. We are talking blatant, corporate greed here. Very similar to Apple's decision to omit SD-card slot from their 2016 MB Pro and then trying to explain it as "and advantage to customers".

One individual's corporate greed is a corporation's good business practice.

Successful companies cater to their client's needs. Nickel 'n Diming your customer base definitely is not considered "good business practice". To the contrary, it is utmost stupidity.

Remind me – which successful, multinational, multi-billion dollar corporations have you run? Yeah, that's what I thought.

 

[Orangutan]

The real issue at hand is Canon' s ultimate shabbyness for omitting such a little, low cost item off in their forced-kit bundle. We are talking blatant, corporate greed here. Very similar to Apple's decision to omit SD-card slot from their 2016 MB Pro and then trying to explain it as "and advantage to customers".

One individual's corporate greed is a corporation's good business practice.

Successful companies cater to their client's needs. Nickel 'n Diming your customer base definitely is not considered "good business practice". To the contrary, it is utmost stupidity.

Your hypothesis is plausible, and it's testable. In the case of Canon, market "testing," (i.e. long-term profitability) clearly shows that their current methods are working. You could assert that this can't go on forever, which would also be a reasonable hypothesis. However, without giving specific conditions under which their current strategies will fail your predictions become untestable, and fall beneath the level of Nostradamus.

 

[Don Haines]

The real issue at hand is Canon' s ultimate shabbyness for omitting such a little, low cost item off in their forced-kit bundle. We are talking blatant, corporate greed here. Very similar to Apple's decision to omit SD-card slot from their 2016 MB Pro and then trying to explain it as "and advantage to customers".

One individual's corporate greed is a corporation's good business practice.

Successful companies cater to their client's needs. Nickel 'n Diming your customer base definitely is not considered "good business practice". To the contrary, it is utmost stupidity.

I'm not sure if I would call it the utmost stupidity, but it isn't a good idea.....

Step back and ask the question why?

Why is someone using an M to EF adaptor? Obviously because they want to use an EF lens on an M... but what does that really mean? What it really means is that the user is mounting (typically) a large(r) lens to a small camera. The act of doing so negates the small form factor of the M camera, so all arguments about size and compactness are out the window because the user has decided that , at least for this application, small size does not matter.

If it is a very large lens, then it will have it's own tripod mount and the process is to mount the lens to the tripod and to mount the camera/adaptor to the lens. In this case, the adaptor tripod mount does not matter.

In the case of a tiny lens, such as a pancake, mount the camera to the tripod, adaptor to the camera, and lens to the adaptor. Once again, the adaptor tripod mount does not matter.

For lenses in the middle range, which according to sales numbers are the bulk of lenses sold, it becomes a different story. There is no tripod foot for the lens, yet if mounted by the camera the system becomes quite nose heavy. In this case an adaptor mount makes a lot of sense.

So here we are where in the bulk of cases that the EF mount would be used, that the tripod adaptor would be usefull.... To my mind it would make sense that the tripod mount would be included with the adaptor.

Is the omission utmost stupidity? No. Utmost stupidity would be to not even design it...... but it's omission is certainly a case of nickel and diming the customer for a part that should be included. They include batteries with cameras.... they include lens caps with lenses..... why not tripod mount with adaptor?

 

[lw]

Remind me – which successful, multinational, multi-billion dollar corporations have you run? Yeah, that's what I thought.

And which ones have you? Yeah, that's what I thought too.

I was product manager for a $300m product line in a well known global hi-tech. Making pricing & position decisions, and debating cannibalism from our lower cost products was my day job. In particular endless discussions about which features to leave in or out. Countless hours and dollars spent with the likes of Gartner group trying to figure out where the market was going. And we often made the wrong decisions and had to adapt. So yeah, been there. Done that. And you?

 

[Orangutan]

Remind me – which successful, multinational, multi-billion dollar corporations have you run? Yeah, that's what I thought.

And which ones have you? Yeah, that's what I thought too.

I was product manager for a $300m product line in a well known global hi-tech. Making pricing & position decisions, and debating cannibalism from our lower cost products was my day job. In particular endless discussions about which features to leave in or out. And we often made the wrong decisions and had to adapt. So yeah, been there. Done that. And you?

You knew they were wrong because they cost you sales. It's clear from available data that this is not the case for Canon. Canon has successfully navigated that path, at least much better than competitors, for over 10 years. My guess is that they will continue to do that.

Also, the reason you had those endless discussions about features was that you knew it would be unprofitable to put all your best features in a single product. Yes, there's a balance. Evidence shows Canon is balancing well.

 

[David Littleboy]

Is the omission utmost stupidity? No. Utmost stupidity would be to not even design it...... but it's omission is certainly a case of nickel and diming the customer for a part that should be included. They include batteries with cameras.... they include lens caps with lenses..... why not tripod mount with adaptor?

Because the mount adapter without the foot can be used without bumping into the third-party tripod mount plate you have on the body. And can be used with those smaller lenses that make gobs of sense on APS-C, like the 50/1.4 as a portrait lens, without cluttering up the form factor and tangling your fingers.

Watch this space for someone potentially really really irritated if the damn foot really does bump the RRS plate (which is beautifully made, by the way).

RRS did a great job getting the M5 plate + L bracket out before the M5; good work, guys. No such kudos for the folks at Lightroom. Sigh.

 

[lw]

You knew they were wrong because they cost you sales. It's clear from available data that this is not the case for Canon. Canon has successfully navigated that path, at least much better than competitors, for over 10 years. My guess is that they will continue to do that.

Also, the reason you had those endless discussions about features was that you knew it would be unprofitable to put all your best features in a single product. Yes, there's a balance. Evidence shows Canon is balancing well.

I don't disagree. I doubt the lack of a tripod foot is going to cost Canon sales. There's only a few of us nerds going to make an issue of it, and they can keep us quiet by just sending us one in the post

 

[AvTvM]

there is nothing to be potentially "cannibalized" at stake in this case. Not including tripod-foot is just plain stupid. No matter, whether Neuro and the Canon Defense League considers that decision to be "brilliant", "well thought out" and "making lots of business sense".

In reality it is a P.I.T.A and disappointment for many M5 kit customers.

My business sense tells me, that all the manpower wasted, logistics involved and cost incurred in order "to just send it by post" to disgruntled customers complaining ... will be a magnitude higher than just including the damn item in all boxes.

 

[Don Haines]

Remind me – which successful, multinational, multi-billion dollar corporations have you run?

Trump University? Come on now..... someone say Trump University.......

 

[Loswr]

For lenses in the middle range, which according to sales numbers are the bulk of lenses sold, it becomes a different story. There is no tripod foot for the lens, yet if mounted by the camera the system becomes quite nose heavy. In this case an adaptor mount makes a lot of sense.

So here we are where in the bulk of cases that the EF mount would be used, that the tripod adaptor would be usefull.... To my mind it would make sense that the tripod mount would be included with the adaptor.

Is the omission utmost stupidity? No. Utmost stupidity would be to not even design it...... but it's omission is certainly a case of nickel and diming the customer for a part that should be included. They include batteries with cameras.... they include lens caps with lenses..... why not tripod mount with adaptor?

It makes sense if you assume that 'in the bulk of cases that the EF mount would be used' it would be on a tripod. I'd argue that's not the case.

As for nickel and diming the customer for a part that should be included, I think you'd agree with me that a lens hood improves IQ by reducing flare, and offers protection for the lens. Canon doesn't include that part with most non-L lenses. Step back and ask if that's hurt their sales of non-L lenses. Conversely, some 3rd party vendors do include the hood with consumer-level lenses...and given the frequency at which I see people shooting in full sun with the included hood mounted reversed and thus doing no good at all, it seems that Canon may have a good understanding of that market's needs and usage habits. The same is quite possibly true in their omission of the adapter foot.

 

[Loswr]

Remind me – which successful, multinational, multi-billion dollar corporations have you run? Yeah, that's what I thought.

And which ones have you? Yeah, that's what I thought too.

I was product manager for a $300m product line in a well known global hi-tech. Making pricing & position decisions, and debating cannibalism from our lower cost products was my day job. In particular endless discussions about which features to leave in or out. Countless hours and dollars spent with the likes of Gartner group trying to figure out where the market was going. And we often made the wrong decisions and had to adapt. So yeah, been there. Done that. And you?

I haven't, but it seems your experience has led to understanding:

I doubt the lack of a tripod foot is going to cost Canon sales. There's only a few of us nerds going to make an issue of it, and they can keep us quiet by just sending us one in the post

(Well, except for the fact that they don't really give a crap about keeping those few people quiet.)

My comment was directed specifically at AvTvM, the guy who repeatedly claims Canon is stupid, who claims they should design and make the products he specifically wants, e.g., an EF-M 85mm f/2.4 IS, because 'due to pent up demand, millions of people would buy one immediately', and other such ludicrous statements.

 

[Don Haines]

BTW, I picked up a new tripod last week.

It included a soft cloth bag to protect the tripod from scratches....
It included a nice carry bag with a padded handle.....
It included a shoulder strap....
It included spike feet to replace the rubber feet.....
It included a stub centre column to replace the full size column....
It included all the tools required to assemble/disassemble/adjust the tripod....

All this could have been sold as separate accessories, but they chose to include them....
Most people will not use the spike feet and seldom use the stub centre column....

just saying.....

 

[Don Haines]

It makes sense if you assume that 'in the bulk of cases that the EF mount would be used' it would be on a tripod. I'd argue that's not the case.

I would certainly agree with that point

As for nickel and diming the customer for a part that should be included, I think you'd agree with me that a lens hood improves IQ by reducing flare, and offers protection for the lens. Canon doesn't include that part with most non-L lenses. Step back and ask if that's hurt their sales of non-L lenses. Conversely, some 3rd party vendors do include the hood with consumer-level lenses...and given the frequency at which I see people shooting in full sun with the included hood mounted reversed and thus doing no good at all, it seems that Canon may have a good understanding of that market's needs and usage habits. The same is quite possibly true in their omission of the adapter foot.

Also a valid observation....

But I do think that in the end, this issue comes down to a matter of personal opinion..... but regardless of our opinions, Canon decided not to include it, and for that, there must have been a reason. They have access to the data required to make that decision and we do not. We can only speculate as to what that reason is.

 

[Loswr]

BTW, I picked up a new tripod last week.

It included a soft cloth bag to protect the tripod from scratches....
It included a nice carry bag with a padded handle.....
It included a shoulder strap....
It included spike feet to replace the rubber feet.....
It included a stub centre column to replace the full size column....
It included all the tools required to assemble/disassemble/adjust the tripod....

All this could have been sold as separate accessories, but they chose to include them....

just saying.....

I bought a very expensive RRS TVC-33 a while back.

It included a useless soft cloth synthetic fabric bag to protect the tripod from scratches (during shipping)....
I had to buy separately a nice carry bag with a padded handle.....
It did not include a shoulder strap....
I had to buy separately spike feet to replace the rubber feet.....
It did not include a centre column at all (although I could buy separately)....
It included all the tools required to assemble/disassemble/adjust the tripod....

After that, I bought an expensive monopod and another expensive tripod from RRS.

Just saying.....