Pages

Friday, 6 February 2015

Canon EOS M3 The malaise at Canon deepens


Above it all ?  FZ1000


I read on a photo rumor  site several days ago that Canon wants to be number 1 in the Mirrorless Interchangeable Lens Camera (MILC) market by 2017.

I read elsewhere  that sales of compact cameras have fallen dramatically, DSLRs sharply and MILCs slightly but from a very low base.

I wrote the comment below  at the end of 2012, about the original Canon EOS M which was released in mid 2012.
Canon was the last player to arrive at  the MILC party. They waited 4 years from the first MILC which was the Panasonic G1. They had all the time in the world to evaluate their competitor's products, analyse their strengths and weaknesses, develop  a strategy then produce a category killer product line.  Instead they presented the EOS-M, in my view the most derivative, uninspiring, under achieving new camera release in recent photographic history. To create the EOS-M,  Canon took an EOS 650D then hacked off  most of  the useful holding, viewing and operating parts.    Canon's image quality is going backwards. My EOS 40D of 2007 had a DXO Mark score of 64. The EOS 650D which apparently uses the same sensor as the M, scores 62. The slow autofocus performance of the M has been widely reported. The 650D's handle and thumb support along with the eye level viewfinder and most of the buttons and dials, have all gone, along with the swing out monitor. If this thing were really inexpensive it might make a little bit of sense, but they are asking you to pay the Same price as a 650D. 
The puzzle is - What is Canon trying to achieve with the EOS-M ?  I really can't figure it out at all. I can understand  that maybe they are trying to make something that puts them in the MILC tent but won't steal sales from their own DSLR line. The problem, it seems to me, is that it is unlikely to steal sales from anywhere.

The EOS M2 was a mild upgrade of the M with faster autofocus.

The EOS M and M2 sold so poorly they were withdrawn from sale in many countries. But apparently they are reasonably popular in Japan.

This raises the possibility of different products for global regions.

My work with ergonomics suggests strongly that for world wide success with a MILC, Canon needs to produce a Proper Camera.  One with an anatomical handle and thumb support, built in EVF of good quality, fully articulated monitor, built in flash and a full suite of controls to satisfy an expert user. It needs good picture quality and good all round performance.  

The camera could  be operated perfectly well by a snapshooter in fully automatic mode.

It seems bizarre to me that I should be urging Canon, of all manufacturers, to make a proper camera.

In the event, two and a half years after the EOS M they have come up with the EOS M3.

This is, basically,  an M with small handle and thumb support.  And a flip up monitor.

No built in EVF, no fully articulated monitor.

With this  they want to conquer the mirrorless world ????????

All they really needed to do  was copy the Sony A6000.  Move the lens axis over to the left (as viewed by the operator) to make room for a decent handle and stick a good EVF top left on the body. How difficult could that be ??

What on earth  is happening at Canon ?

They have recently released a series of half baked cameras which will endear the brand to only a few rusted on Canon loyalists and their number is declining every year as indicated by sales charts.

The EOS 7D (2) was 4 years late and has a sensor DXO mark score no better than the (Sony) sensor in the G7X compact.

The G7X was presumably intended to compete with the Sony RX100 (3) but they forgot the EVF.

Similarly there is no EVF in the Powershot G16, just the antiquated, inaccurate, uninformative OVF from G cams of years passed.

The Powershot SX60 superzoom has decent ergonomics including, lo and behold, a good enough EVF but there are many reports of poor image quality.

The Powershot  G1X(2) failed to fix many of the numerous problems which burdened the original G1X. The Mk2 has a low DXO mark score for the sensor size, just a vestigial handle, no  built in EVF and some ergonomic issues with the various user interface modules. If you want a reasonably decent handle and an EVF these have to be purchased separately and when fitted the camera is no longer compact.

Canon’s DSLRs stick to a design formula which has been endorsed by the market for several years. But Canon’s DSLR ergonomics could easily be improved yet that is not happening. Neither is their image performance improving much.  They are stuck in a rut, releasing ‘new’ models which look and operate just like the old models. That might be fine if the old models were incapable of improvement. In fact they could be improved but Canon is not doing it.

Today Canon announced that it intends to make a new fixed zoom lens camera (FZLC) to be named G3X (maybe). Canon’s strategy here is a bit strange. They are announcing a product for which, it seems, there is just a prototype. Apparently it will use the same Sony 15.9mm sensor as that found in several cameras (RX100/3, RX10, G7X, FZ1000) and will have an E24-600mm lens and will somehow (probably a very small aperture at the long end), given the 25x zoom lens, be very compact, but from the promotional (? mockup) product photos appears to have no EVF. 

So apart from  a few outliers like the Powershot SX50/60 line which does have a built in EVF, Canon appears to be offering

either the DSLR line, with optical viewfinder

or all the rest including most Powershots and the MILC EOS M2/3 without a built in viewfinder.  

Presumably Canon hopes the selling point for these cameras is ‘smallness’.

‘Smallness’ as a camera attribute is most useful when one is not using it. In other words it makes the device a bit easier to carry.

But it also often makes the thing less user friendly especially if the price of ‘smallness’ is an important ergonomic feature such as the inbuilt EVF or a proper handle.

My view  is that Canon’s product development people need to stop dithering around with half  baked products and drive into the MILC market with force majeur.

They did this in 1987 with the first EOS autofocus SLR and again in 2000 with their first digital SLR the D30. Both bold strategies led to major market success and Canon’s still high, but waning,  brand recognition  in the market.

They need to fully embrace the inevitable which is that  MILCs are a much better option for the entry/upper entry and mid range ILC market than DSLRs.  They need to make full featured MILCs which are  proper cameras. 

They need to apply the same ‘all in’ approach to their (Powershot) fixed zoom lens cameras (FZLC), stop messing about with underdone products like the G1X and  proposed G3X  and go the full featured way with real cameras which people will be proud to own and enjoy using.

It looks to me very much as though Canon is making the products which Canon wants to make with little regard for their customers or for the requirements of good ergonomic design.

In due course the market will deliver its verdict.

But wait:  that verdict has already been given on the EOS M1/2. Many countries outside East Asia did not buy it in commercially viable numbers.

I am not a marketing person but I suspect that if I was trying to sell a product and found that whole global regions elected not to buy it, I might regard this as a hint or clue that there might, just possibly, be something wrong with the product.










No comments:

Post a Comment