New EOS M3 - finally o.k.?

davinci953 wrote in post #17460924
I think they are serious about mirror-less. Canon seems to have determined that the U.S. market isn't a viable one for sales, and they're focusing on the Asian and European markets where apparently there is a stronger interest.

It's unfortunate that they've come to this conclusion but botching the EOS M and its failure on the market are probably why.

It did turn in to a great camera, I've had mine a little over a year and I love the EOS M but I would love to see them bring an improved product to the US. I'd especially like to see more lenses.

davinci953 wrote in post #17460924
I think they are serious about mirror-less. Canon seems to have determined that the U.S. market isn't a viable one for sales, and they're focusing on the Asian and European markets where apparently there is a stronger interest.

Well, Sony seems to think it's viable for sales.

It seems more likely that Canon makes such a profit on Rebels in the NA that they are willingly holding back their mirrorless in this market. I also suspect that these two product lines are under different executives and the head of NA sales is pushing the Rebel line.

Colorblinded wrote in post #17460944
It's unfortunate that they've come to this conclusion but botching the EOS M and its failure on the market are probably why.

It did turn in to a great camera, I've had mine a little over a year and I love the EOS M but I would love to see them bring an improved product to the US. I'd especially like to see more lenses.

"Botching"the original EOS M appeared to be a very deliberate strategy, again designed to protect the Rebel line. It's not like Canon didn't see the shortcomings or didn't have the engineering expertise to not have them in the first place. The subsequent market failure was to be expected.

As I said above, to me it looks like a typical sign of an interdepartmental struggle where one department is forced to bastardize their own product because the head of another department has far more clout inside the company and is concerned with the new product undermining his position.

i think there are only 3 things that would make this camera worth the extra its costing right now... AF enhhhhh you can go MF and get your skills together if the AF is really a problem.

but the swivel screen would be amazing esp since most people take selfies or group shots...
Peeking is another for the MF reason!
and a def need for a view finder!

other than that for the size and the price its much easier to get a better camera for more Professional purposes... then again its not the camera its the operator.

Amamba wrote in post #17464709
"Botching"the original EOS M appeared to be a very deliberate strategy, again designed to protect the Rebel line. It's not like Canon didn't see the shortcomings or didn't have the engineering expertise to not have them in the first place. The subsequent market failure was to be expected.

As I said above, to me it looks like a typical sign of an interdepartmental struggle where one department is forced to bastardize their own product because the head of another department has far more clout inside the company and is concerned with the new product undermining his position.

I agree with why the EOS M was "botched" and I suspect the same regarding their Rebel strategy.

Unfortunate, but it is what it is.

NoFitState wrote in post #17418505
I was all set to buy the new EOS M ... But canon decided not to include dual pixel sensor! Dual pixel af is a game changing technology for mirrorless cameras and canon left it out of their latest eos m ... Bizarre

It's in the M3. http://cpn.canon-europe.com …product/cameras​/eos_m3.do and go to the "Key Technologies" tab. I hope that, like the PowerShot SX-1, they'll eventually offer it in the US even if they haven't announced it to us yet.

Amamba wrote in post #17464709
Well, Sony seems to think it's viable for sales.

It seems more likely that Canon makes such a profit on Rebels in the NA that they are willingly holding back their mirrorless in this market. I also suspect that these two product lines are under different executives and the head of NA sales is pushing the Rebel line.

"Botching"the original EOS M appeared to be a very deliberate strategy, again designed to protect the Rebel line. It's not like Canon didn't see the shortcomings or didn't have the engineering expertise to not have them in the first place. The subsequent market failure was to be expected.

As I said above, to me it looks like a typical sign of an interdepartmental struggle where one department is forced to bastardize their own product because the head of another department has far more clout inside the company and is concerned with the new product undermining his position.

Past all that, the US importer may have decided that the original M poisoned the well, so to speak, and isn't willing to risk the M3. It doesn't even matter who the execs in Japan are if Canon USA decides they'll lose money on importing it.

The original M was cut at the knees so that it would not jeopardize the Rebel sales.

The much better M3 is not even allowed here so it would not jeopardize the Rebel sales.

At least this is how it looks.

Amamba wrote in post #17466002
The original M was cut at the knees so that it would not jeopardize the Rebel sales.

The much better M3 is not even allowed here so it would not jeopardize the Rebel sales.

At least this is how it looks.

The distributor lost a boat-load on the original M, which only received love here at $250 and only with the EF-M 22. I can't blame them for being gun-shy about its successors. Being stuck with a pile of product you can't move is a distributor's worst nightmare. I honestly can't imagine the M3 would do well at full retail, either.

Not thrilled with the grip on the M3, bellies portability.


Jason

From an interview with Masaya Maeda - Managing Director and Chief Executive, Image Communication Products Operations at Canon:

Why is the EOS M3 not available in the American market?

I’m speaking for Canon Inc. The global headquarters. We offer a full lineup of products from compacts to mirrorless and DSLRs. We offer this full lineup to our sales and marketing divisions in each region. They decide which products they want to introduce into the market, so the decision not to launch the EOS M3 in America falls to Canon USA, not Canon Inc. I’m saying “sell it!” but it’s their decision whether they want to or not.

In your opinion, what kind of mirrorless camera would sell best in the USA?

To be honest I don’t really know - I’m not that close to the US market so I can’t speak from first-hand experience. However I get the feeling that users in the US don’t really take a liking to small cameras. That’s just my sense.

You can read the full interview at DPReview.

http://www.dpreview.co​m …ry-day-im-saying-speed-up

they cant sell it in america because they want mid level prices for an entry level item. Even the original was not a bad camera, price was just ridiculous for entry level gear.

Charlie wrote in post #17470947
they cant sell it in america because they want mid level prices for an entry level item. Even the original was not a bad camera, price was just ridiculous for entry level gear.

People aren't willing to pay a profitable price for it. More goes into the pricing decision than what the market will bear, and if the market won't bear profit, they'll go back to just selling a million Rebels.

LonelyBoy wrote in post #17470973
People aren't willing to pay a profitable price for it. More goes into the pricing decision than what the market will bear, and if the market won't bear profit, they'll go back to just selling a million Rebels.

So why can Sony sell A6000 that's cheaper yet more feature-filled and with a better sensor and still make a profit on it ? How about Samsung ?

As I keep saying... Canon has a milk cow called Rebel, and don't want to threaten it with their own product. Regardless of whether the push comes from the US or the global HQ. The $800 price tag on M camera was a joke. The body itself didn't hold a candle to Sony Nex, M3 is just getting to the more level playing field yet still falls somewhat short, the primary reason to go with a Canon mirrorless system would be the lenses.

Amamba wrote in post #17472232
So why can Sony sell A6000 that's cheaper yet more feature-filled and with a better sensor and still make a profit on it ? How about Samsung ?

<snip>

Maybe Sony isn't making a profit on the A6000 and is willing to take the loss. You'd have to look at their financials.

davinci953 wrote in post #17472264
Maybe Sony isn't making a profit on the A6000 and is willing to take the loss. You'd have to look at their financials.

Yes they do make profit on cameras. Just not point & shoot cameras.

http://www.imaging-resource.com …ising-revenue-from-camera

There really isn't that much expensive tech in a mirrorless compared to a DSLR.

Samsung also has similarly featured bodies priced in about the same range, so does Olympus.

Canon could justify high cost of M line if there was plenty of cheap high quality glass to go with it (so the higher price of the body was the price of entry into their lens line), or if it was seriously high end IQ wise. But it's neither. As I said, the ridiculously high price of EOS M seems to be there primarily to protect it from competing with Rebels.