Hint about what to expect from Canon's step into full frame mirrorless?

[fullstop]

not even Ford would equip a 2018 model with a 2012 engine. And Samsung will not stick a 2012 battery into a 2018 smartphone. Especially not, when a significantly better unit is available at same or only marginally higher cost.

Had Canon NOT developed the much better LP-E17 battery in the meantime, and all EOS M models would still only use LP-E12, i would state that "it is sub-par in 2018 compared to competitors" - and would likely get attacked in this forum for it, because maybe there is 1 competitive MILC out there with as weak a battery. ;D

But I would not flog Canon for glaring, evident marketing nerfing. The way it is, 2018, new camera model in a newly designed shell, using a sub-par 2012 part for one of the most critical components in a mirrorless camera. Well, I find no "reasonable, acceptable" excuse for it.

Look, how Fuji has handled battery on their competetive USD 599 "entry level mirrorless camera" X-T100.
1260 mAH, 430 shots [CIPA]
https://www.apotelyt.com/camera-power/fujifilm-x-t100-battery

Fuji is using the same battery type NP-W126S in all its X cameras since introduction in 2016. From lowest "entry level" all the way up to flagship X-T2. And speaking of customer-friendly, the preceding battery type remains usable in new cameras as well. But the newer battery type holds charge better, allowing for more shots. [As Canon commendably did with LP-E6 and LP-E6N.]

"The Fujifilm NP-W126S was preceded as a battery pack for digital cameras by the NP-W126. Both types operate at a similar voltage and are fully interchangeable, so that the NP-W126 can also be used with the Fujifilm X-T2."


Canon? EOS M50: LP-E12, 875mAh, 230 shots [CIPA]

My opinion (which I am fully entitled to express): Shame on you, Canon!


PS: not to be accused of "one-sided blindness": Fuji (like Sony) has in-cam charging of batteries. External chargers are available, but only as an extra at additional cost. I don't consider that totally user-friendly either. But it is transparent, not hidden and not "marketing nerfing".

 

[neuroanatomist]

My opinion: shame on you, Canon!

My opinion: if I was interested in an M50, having three compatible LP-E12 batteries would make that purchase more likely.

Personal fact: when my original EOS M died and the repair cost was equivalent to replacing it with a newer model, one of the reasons I chose the M2 over the M3 was that I already had two LP-E12 batteries compatible with the M2.

 

[fullstop]

personally I take the 4 units LP-E12 I already have as "consolation prize". Would still very much prefer and pay for it(!) if M50 had come with LP-E17.

Ideally, Canon would have handled batteries for EOS M line as they did on (higher level) DLSR side with LP-E6 and LP-E6N. Batteries, chargers, cameras interchangeable. No marketing nerfing on that one.

 

[rrcphoto]

My opinion: shame on you, Canon!

My opinion: if I was interested in an M50, having three compatible LP-E12 batteries would make that purchase more likely.

Personal fact: when my original EOS M died and the repair cost was equivalent to replacing it with a newer model, one of the reasons I chose the M2 over the M3 was that I already had two LP-E12 batteries compatible with the M2.

The LP-E12 were also of the lower intelligence battery, and not the current generation battery. I would imagine the electronics in both the battery, charger and camera make it a less expensive option, and then there's who they expect to use the camera and what they may be upgrading from or to.

It would be good if Canon moved up the entire line to LP-E17's or even a higher capacity battery such as what Sony did with theirs, however, the M1, M2, M10, M100, M50 all use LP-E12's so it's not as if the M50 stands alone.

 

[rrcphoto]

No marketing nerfing on that one.

you have zero information at hand to say this is simply a marketing "nerf".

you've gotten push back from your responses, and then cried about it, and yet you continue.

It is what it is - you complaining isn't going to change the fact that the lowest tier M's get the E12's and have done so since the M10 in 2015.

 

[neuroanatomist]

...however, the M1, M2, M10, M100, M50 all use LP-E12's so it's not as if the M50 stands alone.

Indeed, the LP-E12 is a logical choice (even if some people are unable comprehend logic).

 

[jayphotoworks]

personally I take the 4 units LP-E12 I already have as "consolation prize". Would still very much prefer and pay for it(!) if M50 had come with LP-E17.

Ideally, Canon would have handled batteries for EOS M line as they did on (higher level) DLSR side with LP-E6 and LP-E6N. Batteries, chargers, cameras interchangeable. No marketing nerfing on that one.

I don't always agree with Canon's decisions, but I don't think I can fault their battery system decisions. I find for the most part, Canon is one of the most consistent with battery systems.

The M10, M50 and M100 all use the LP-E12 battery. These are Canon's entry level mirrorless bodies. People upgrading within this line can keep their existing batteries. From there, the M3-M6 which are Canon's higher specced mirrorless bodies have all used the LP-E17 battery. This same battery allows people shooting with an M3-M6 an easy upgrade path to move to a DSLR in the Rebel series without a new battery.

Outside of that the LP-E6/E6N have been in play for 10 years now since the 5D2. Equally so is the LP-E19 used in the current 1DX2. That battery still works in a 1D3 body from the same era as the 5D2.

That's pretty consistent.

 

[rrcphoto]

...however, the M1, M2, M10, M100, M50 all use LP-E12's so it's not as if the M50 stands alone.

Indeed, the LP-E12 is a logical choice (even if some people are unable comprehend logic).

logic would be to upgrade them all to E17's. but only Canon knows that if a wholesale battery switch causes upgrade adaptation problems, or increases the cost, or slightly increases the size of the camera,etc. I haven't the foggiest clue.

since CIPA battery ratings aren't even real life, it's not as if that's used for a marketing nerf on it's own. the 235 shots per charge that the M50 gets greatly exceeds that of the M1 and M2's 200-230 shots per charge.

 

[neuroanatomist]

And then some people feel terribly offended and insulted, when I use the term n00bs. ;D ;D ;D

I wonder why...

[quote author=dictionary.com]
noob or n00b [noob] noun Slang: Usually Disparaging
a newbie, especially a person who is new to an online community and whose online participation and interactions display a lack of skill or knowledge
[/quote]

But then, you've previously and unapologetically displayed discriminatory behavior, so this comes as no surprise.

 

[neuroanatomist]

...however, the M1, M2, M10, M100, M50 all use LP-E12's so it's not as if the M50 stands alone.

Indeed, the LP-E12 is a logical choice (even if some people are unable comprehend logic).

logic would be to upgrade them all to E17's.

Why?

Being able to buy a new camera and use currently-owned batteries is logical (to customers). A lower production cost is logical (to Canon). A lower shots-per-battery rating resulting in a perceived need for customers to buy extra (possibly high margin) batteries is logical (to Canon).

 

[ahsanford]

The criticism herein has nothing do with allegiance to canon - the subject could have been Samsung or Nikon or Ford or LEGO - and everything to do with the ludicrousness of the claims made. Take out the “marketing nerfing” as the fundamental basis upon which you base your complaints, and it becomes reasonable.

The term of nerfing is a dog whistle to some folks, in fairness. Goodness knows I've gotten dinged on that here.

I've learned it's easier to extol the virtues of 'production cost control by feature omission' / more clearly segmenting the portfolio, etc. : than bemoan any deliberate attempts by Canon to save a buck, protect the pricier item above it, etc.

Also, it's really only nerfing when there's zero reason they didn't include something in the design for the same price. As others have said in this instance, keeping the battery the same allows folks to keep using their older batteries and chargers.

- A

 

[rrcphoto]

...however, the M1, M2, M10, M100, M50 all use LP-E12's so it's not as if the M50 stands alone.

Indeed, the LP-E12 is a logical choice (even if some people are unable comprehend logic).

logic would be to upgrade them all to E17's.

Why?

Being able to buy a new camera and use currently-owned batteries is logical (to customers). A lower production cost is logical (to Canon). A lower shots-per-battery rating resulting in a perceived need for customers to buy extra (possibly high margin) batteries is logical (to Canon).

because the rest of canon's lineup has migrated from the E12's including the rebels. The SL1 was the only EOS camera to use the E12's and that was replaced by the SL2 that uses the E17.

a beginner user is going to feel the pain sooner or later, but you also chopped off the rest of my sentence which is important. I don't know what engineering either cost, heat, size or human engineering plays a role in canon's decision, and they know better than I or anyone here knows.

I can logically assume that the E17's are more complex and/or expensive to produce because it took ages for after market E17's to appear in the market.

with the M10/M100 and I imagine the m50 follows suit, cost even in the pennies is important.

Canon Japan gets around half the value of these cameras, that's what they have to use to recoup R&D, legal, patent, manufacturing, tooling, assembly,etc with. That's not alot of money to go around every single dime makes a difference.

I used to work at IBM, and they used to award the first year's savings to plant improvement suggestions. Someone was awarded 100,000 that way simply by suggesting the removal of a sticker from a motherboard. Yes I'm dating myself here, but the fact remains, sometimes even what we think is simply a few cents worth can make a huge difference over time to a company's bottom line when producing an item.

 

[BillB]

well just look at this thread. Starting with my statement that EOS M50 is marketing nerfed with regards to use of subpar battery. the usual "Canon fanbois" in this forum could not handle that. They could not argue with facts, because the facts I presented were clear. And every time they cannot challenge the facts i present, they go into a foaming thrashing frenzy of personal attacks ... what i write is "nothing but my self-important whining" and/or "all conjecture" and/or "Canon sells most cameras" and/or "Canon knows absolutely everything better than you", etc. etc. -

Maybe i will put together a list of the 10 most frequently used braindead personal attack lines around here and label them like
#1 "Canon sells most, Canon knows best"
#2 "all conjecture and ASSumptions"
#3 "your usual self-important whining"
...
etc.

just to make our forum bullies days a little easier and their postings with nothing but personal attacks shorter. ;D 8)

Thank you for your efforts to streamline your response to what you call braindead personal attacks. As near as I can tell, your main point seems to be to express your disappointment with Canon's decision to stick with a battery with about 15% less capacity than the one that you think they should have used. You regard the practical effect of using this lower capacity battery as a serious deficiency worthy of repeated comment, especially since Canon's obvious reason for using the lower capacity battery was to save an inconsequential amount of money in making the M50.

The practical importance of Canon's using the lower capacity battery would seem to be a matter of opinion and individual preference, while Canon's reason for doing so would seem to rest on speculation and conjecture.

 

[3kramd5]

So far no one, upon seeing pictures I've made with my 6D2, has said to me how much better the picture would have been if I had had an on-chip ADC.

I consider people who bought the 6D2 basically n00bs who have little idea of what sensor and camera performance to expect in 2018.

And I would consider people who don't understand that an actual photo from the 6D II will be virtually identical to any photo taken with any other FF camera on the market today to be complete idiots. Go read your spec sheets and ignore reality!

Playing devils advocate here, but what does that mean for the Canon colour then? That it's actually virtually identical to the other brand colours?

With calibrated workflow, yes, output is pretty much indistinguishable. When I got my 1Dx and before I sold my a7r2, I took some shots using the same lenses in the same light on both bodies, including my color checker passport in the scene. After profiling, normalizing exposure, and printing at equal size, I can not tell you which is from which. I imagine most people would probably assume they’re two copies of the same print.

This one I find quite interesting : I've seen a few comments around the web in which people have said they can always see a difference? I personally don't myself when comparing, at least not reliably one vs another but that's just me

If you have to let the camera dictate the end colors (jpeg and or unable to profile), there are often visible differences. Canon tends to favor red, Sony tends to favor green, etc.

I can’t go stick a color calibration reference on some bird’s back, or some singer’s head, however I have a library of profiles which allow me to correct in most instances.

If you have the ability to profile raws, the camera engine becomes irrelevant as it pertains to color.

 

[3kramd5]

The criticism herein has nothing do with allegiance to canon - the subject could have been Samsung or Nikon or Ford or LEGO - and everything to do with the ludicrousness of the claims made. Take out the “marketing nerfing” as the fundamental basis upon which you base your complaints, and it becomes reasonable.

The term of nerfing is a dog whistle to some folks, in fairness. Goodness knows I've gotten dinged on that here.

I've learned it's easier to extol the virtues of 'production cost control by feature omission' / more clearly segmenting the portfolio, etc. : than bemoan any deliberate attempts by Canon to save a buck, protect the pricier item above it, etc.

Also, it's really only nerfing when there's zero reason they didn't include something in the design for the same price. As others have said in this instance, keeping the battery the same allows folks to keep using their older batteries and chargers.

- A

Also, poor NERF, man. The trademark has become an insult.

 

[neuroanatomist]

...however, the M1, M2, M10, M100, M50 all use LP-E12's so it's not as if the M50 stands alone.

Indeed, the LP-E12 is a logical choice (even if some people are unable comprehend logic).

logic would be to upgrade them all to E17's.

Why?

Being able to buy a new camera and use currently-owned batteries is logical (to customers). A lower production cost is logical (to Canon). A lower shots-per-battery rating resulting in a perceived need for customers to buy extra (possibly high margin) batteries is logical (to Canon).

because the rest of canon's lineup has migrated from the E12's including the rebels. The SL1 was the only EOS camera to use the E12's and that was replaced by the SL2 that uses the E17.

But as you point out, the majority of M-series bodies use the LP-E12. So, the LP-E17 is not the exclusively logical choice (you implied that it is).

 

[fullstop]

Customer-friendly and logical is LOGIC is what Fujifilm does:

1 type of battery in all X cameras from entry level to flagship until 2016. Then switch to new, improved version battery for all X-models onwards. They did NOT stick the old, wekaer battery in entry level X-T100.

Both battery types are interchangeable. So any batteries existing users may have in their possession already can also be used in newer cameras. Charging is also interchangeable - in-camera (USB) and in optional external charger.

Totally transparent. Totally logical. Clean cut. No nerfing. No cheating buyers of 2018 entry level cameras with whimpy, outdated 2012 batteries. Fuji customers get best available power source at a time with any camera.

430 shots, instead of puny 230. CIPA vs. CIPA standard test, logically. Real-life use will give varying number of shots, in many situations / usage patterns more shots are possible - but Fuji battery will always be massively ahead.

To be not nerfing and as customer-friendly as Fuji in this regard, Canon would - logically! - have had to put LP-E17 batteries in all EOS models from 2015 on wards - starting with M3.

And IF Canon is considered to be at least as innovative and technically capable as Fujifilm is - then they should have sourced an LP-E17 with 1275mAh instead of only 1040mAh.

How about that for logic?

 

[Talys]

Customer-friendly and logical is LOGIC ....

The most logical battery system is the LPE6. The format has been around for a long time, and some pros have dozens of those things.

By the way, modern batteries don't have much black magic voodoo in them. They're limited by physical size; and the battery type constrains the voltage provided (not physically, but practically, because you wouldn't want to supply the wrong voltage). Other than that, manufacturers can cram more maH into them as the size permits. So unless a manufacturer needs more or wants less voltage for a new camera, or has an physical requirement due to a new camera body, they don't NEED to change the battery format, right?

I realize the practice is common, simply to re-chip them and prevent knockoffs from siphoning revenue.

 

[fullstop]

But as you point out, the majority of M-series bodies use the LP-E12. So, the LP-E17 is not the exclusively logical choice (you implied that it is).

LP-E17 would be the sole choice since February 2015 when it first appeared. Not only implied. Real logic. Instead of marketing nerfing and "Canon aopologist's attempts at logic".


Canon has cut a corner here they definitely should not have cut. Nerfing power supply, a component so vital in any mirrorless camera, when a much better solution is available. It is so OBVIOUSLY "marketing differentiation" in an attempt to somehow justify EOS M5 significantly higher price.

 

[ahsanford]

Wow, even I would have given up a '7 fps on the 5D4 was a disastrous call for 6D2 / future 5DS2 segmentation reasons' by now.

This is some epic ranty staying power, folks. I'm slow-clapping not for the train wreck that this has become, but for the fact that the train still hasn't ground to a halt yet.

- A