Will it be the EOS M1? [CR2]

[BillB]

...but I am convinced my experience reflects the majority of use cases in this regard.

LOL. : You're perpetually convinced that your views and usage patterns represent the majority. You need to get over that handicap and accept reality.

with all due respect, but I am way more representative for Canon Non-Pro users than many forum members here. 80% of forum members here seem to be shooting wildlife and birds in flight with 1Dxes and 600mm lenses. 99% of Canon users don't.

And so once again, we enter the realm of imaginary numbers.

 

[AvTvM]

with all due respect, but I am way more representative for Canon Non-Pro users than many forum members here. 80% of forum members here seem to be shooting wildlife and birds in flight with 1Dxes and 600mm lenses. 99% of Canon users don't.

And so once again, we enter the realm of imaginary numbers.

I would rather call them highly realistic common sense observations and estimates. But you are right, maybe I am wrong, and it is not 99% but only 98% of all Canon users who never in their entire life use a 600/4 lens and/or a 1D series body. :

 

[Orangutan]

I am way more representative for Canon Non-Pro users than many forum members here.

Even if it's true, it's irrelevant: it doesn't matter how you compare to forum members/posters, it matters how you compare to the buying public at-large. I think it's fair to say that anyone who cares enough about gear and chitchat to participate in a forum is an outlier. Most pros likely don't even join discussions with any regularity.

In short, you have no reason to believe you are representative of the buying public. There is some small reason to believe you are not because Canon continues to lead in sales despite not following your recommendations.

 

[AvTvM]

I am way more representative for Canon Non-Pro users than many forum members here.

Even if it's true, it's irrelevant: it doesn't matter how you compare to forum members/posters, it matters how you compare to the buying public at-large. I think it's fair to say that anyone who cares enough about gear and chitchat to participate in a forum is an outlier. Most pros likely don't even join discussions with any regularity.

In short, you have no reason to believe you are representative of the buying public. There is some small reason to believe you are not because Canon continues to lead in sales despite not following your recommendations.

Pro's are almost irrelevant, since they are such a small part of the buying public. 1% or 2% of Canon sales revenue with stills imaging products? Or is it even a whopping 5% ? They are only important to Canon because of (assumed or real) opinion leadership ... for marketing purposes ... white lenses at sports events etc.

From all I observe my shopping behaviour has been fairly typical for Canon amateur/enthusiast customers. And a small, affordable, yet fully capable Canon FF MILC and some decent, affordable and compact lenses to go with it - e.g. f/4 zooms and a few moderately fast primes - may not be desirable for 99% of the buying public and obviously not to an estimated 80% of forum members here ... but definitely for a large enough group of potential buyers to make it worthwhile making and offering it.

 

[Orangutan]

From all I observe

Here is the problem with your reasoning: one thing that you fail to observe is that you cannot observe the entire market. What you observe, or what I observe is irrelevant. Any single person will be unable to see any significant fraction of the market well enough to extrapolate.

 

[AvTvM]

From all I observe

Here is the problem with your reasoning: one thing that you fail to observe is that you cannot observe the entire market. What you observe, or what I observe is irrelevant. Any single person will be unable to see any significant fraction of the market well enough to extrapolate.

well, as soon as canon builds and sells the above mentionrd FF MILC system we will see, whether i am "representative enough" or not.

it is much more likely to be fairly representative than to be a true "outlier".

 

[rrcphoto]

...but I am convinced my experience reflects the majority of use cases in this regard.

LOL. : You're perpetually convinced that your views and usage patterns represent the majority. You need to get over that handicap and accept reality.

with all due respect, but I am way more representative for Canon Non-Pro users than many forum members here.

how on earth do you squeeze through normal doorways with a head that swollen?

 

[AvTvM]

...but I am convinced my experience reflects the majority of use cases in this regard.

LOL. : You're perpetually convinced that your views and usage patterns represent the majority. You need to get over that handicap and accept reality.

with all due respect, but I am way more representative for Canon Non-Pro users than many forum members here.

how on earth do you squeeze through normal doorways with a head that swollen?

i can assure you, and know from personal observation, that my head is fairly representative in size ... not only for a Canon user but for the entire human race. ;-)

 

[unfocused]

...a small, affordable, yet fully capable Canon FF MILC and some decent, affordable and compact lenses to go with it - e.g. f/4 zooms and a few moderately fast primes... but definitely for a large enough group of potential buyers to make it worthwhile making and offering it.

Aside form debating head size and market share, I question whether the magical unicorn camera that you are convinced Canon must make, is even realistic.

The requirements for "small, affordable, yet full capable" coupled with lenses that are "decent, affordable and compact" may be more difficult to achieve than you believe.

I am reminded of a friend of mine who used to tell clients that they could pick any two of the following three choices: fast, cheap and good. But, that they could not get all three. I've found that to be true in almost everything in life.

 

[BillB]

...a small, affordable, yet fully capable Canon FF MILC and some decent, affordable and compact lenses to go with it - e.g. f/4 zooms and a few moderately fast primes... but definitely for a large enough group of potential buyers to make it worthwhile making and offering it.

Aside form debating head size and market share, I question whether the magical unicorn camera that you are convinced Canon must make, is even realistic.

The requirements for "small, affordable, yet full capable" coupled with lenses that are "decent, affordable and compact" may be more difficult to achieve than you believe.

I am reminded of a friend of mine who used to tell clients that they could pick any two of the following three choices: fast, cheap and good. But, that they could not get all three. I've found that to be true in almost everything in life.

Well, at this point, it doesn't look like we are going to get it fast, and I have my doubts about cheap. Hopefully it will be good.

 

[BillB]

I am way more representative for Canon Non-Pro users than many forum members here.

Even if it's true, it's irrelevant: it doesn't matter how you compare to forum members/posters, it matters how you compare to the buying public at-large. I think it's fair to say that anyone who cares enough about gear and chitchat to participate in a forum is an outlier. Most pros likely don't even join discussions with any regularity.

In short, you have no reason to believe you are representative of the buying public. There is some small reason to believe you are not because Canon continues to lead in sales despite not following your recommendations.

Pro's are almost irrelevant, since they are such a small part of the buying public. 1% or 2% of Canon sales revenue with stills imaging products? Or is it even a whopping 5% ? They are only important to Canon because of (assumed or real) opinion leadership ... for marketing purposes ... white lenses at sports events etc.

From all I observe my shopping behaviour has been fairly typical for Canon amateur/enthusiast customers. And a small, affordable, yet fully capable Canon FF MILC and some decent, affordable and compact lenses to go with it - e.g. f/4 zooms and a few moderately fast primes - may not be desirable for 99% of the buying public and obviously not to an estimated 80% of forum members here ... but definitely for a large enough group of potential buyers to make it worthwhile making and offering it.

So, does this camera boil down to a fullframe M5?

 

[AvTvM]

Well, at this point, it doesn't look like we are going to get it fast, and I have my doubts about cheap. Hopefully it will be good.

;D ;D ;D

exactly! with Canon we get to pick only 1 out of 3, not 2.


to make my earlier statement more specific:
Canon EoS M1 ...
* GOOD: FF sensor as GOOD as next Sony A7R III,
* SMALL: not BIGGER than A7R III (ideally smaller, like A7 Mk. I)
* AFFORDABLE: not more EXPENSIVE than A7R III ... meaning, LESS than 5D IV, since a MILC is way cheaper to robo-produce than any mirrorslapper.

 

[BillB]

Well, at this point, it doesn't look like we are going to get it fast, and I have my doubts about cheap. Hopefully it will be good.

;D ;D ;D

exactly! with Canon we get to pick only 1 out of 3, not 2.


to make my earlier statement more specific:
Canon EIS M1 ... FF sensor as GOOD as next Sony A7R III, not BIGGER than A7R III (ideally smaller, like A7 Mk. I), and not more EXPENSIVE than A7R III ... meaning, LESS than 5D IV, since a MILC is way cheaper to robo-produce than any mirrorslapper.

Well, Canon's going to do what Canon's going to do, and some people are going to go on complaining about it.

 

[AvTvM]

Well, at this point, it doesn't look like we are going to get it fast, and I have my doubts about cheap. Hopefully it will be good.

;D ;D ;D

exactly! with Canon we get to pick only 1 out of 3, not 2.


to make my earlier statement more specific:
Canon EIS M1 ... FF sensor as GOOD as next Sony A7R III, not BIGGER than A7R III (ideally smaller, like A7 Mk. I), and not more EXPENSIVE than A7R III ... meaning, LESS than 5D IV, since a MILC is way cheaper to robo-produce than any mirrorslapper.

Well, Canon's going to do what Canon's going to do, and some people are going to go on complaining about it.

not only complain. I dont buy anything from 'em fuckers. For 32 years now. 8)

 

[neuroanatomist]

Well, at this point, it doesn't look like we are going to get it fast, and I have my doubts about cheap. Hopefully it will be good.

;D ;D ;D

exactly! with Canon we get to pick only 1 out of 3, not 2.


to make my earlier statement more specific:
Canon EIS M1 ... FF sensor as GOOD as next Sony A7R III, not BIGGER than A7R III (ideally smaller, like A7 Mk. I), and not more EXPENSIVE than A7R III ... meaning, LESS than 5D IV, since a MILC is way cheaper to robo-produce than any mirrorslapper.

Well, Canon's going to do what Canon's going to do, and some people are going to go on complaining about it.

not only complain. I dont buy anything from 'em fuckers. For 32 years now. 8)

Canon doesn't care.

 

[unfocused]

...not only complain. I don't buy anything from 'em... For 32 years now. 8)

Wait...what? You haven't bought anything from Canon since 1985 and you expect them to make a camera for you?

It's pretty basic business sense that no one stays in business by going after every possible customer. Some customers are just too costly and troublesome to chase, so businesses put their efforts into those that actually buy their products. I expect you should plan on waiting another 32 years.

 

[AvTvM]

sorry typo. meant 2-3 years. not 32 years. ;D

 

[kanehi]

I wonder if Canon will use the Sony sensors. Canon sensors are fine but they are weak at low light and low contrast images. When they do release a FF mirrorless i also hope it has an EVF and articulating screen, not the up and down screen. Canon should've learned by now how to built a better FF mirrorless by dissecting Sony and other FF cameras.

 

[dak723]

I wonder if Canon will use the Sony sensors. Canon sensors are fine but they are weak at low light and low contrast images. When they do release a FF mirrorless i also hope it has an EVF and articulating screen, not the up and down screen. Canon should've learned by now how to built a better FF mirrorless by dissecting Sony and other FF cameras.

I have to wonder if you have ever used a Sony FF camera. The main difference in the sensors is at base ISO, in low light there is very little difference. Since Sony's FF camera is by almost all accounts terrible in ergonomics and well below Canon in every metric but the sensor, it is really the other way around - Sony can learn to build a better camera by dissecting Canon FF cameras. I think you can be sure that Sony would never sell their sensors to Canon unless they go out of the camera business as that is their only selling point.