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

[Mikehit]

but, this is oh so typical "marketing-differentiating",... Canon!

You make it seem like marketing is a bad thing, when in reality it is how companies strategize products (I.E. survive).

it is an entirely bad thing from customer's perspective. I am more focused on my wallet than having pity with poor Canon if they manage to make only 15% EBITDA instead of 25%.

Nerfing a mirrorless camera in one of its most VITAL capacities - number of shots on a battery charge - is something I consider very bad and stupid marketing differentiation. It will not save Canon's M5 from "cannibalization". But it weaken's their brand image and sales potential when Canon mirrorless is associated with "whimpy battery life".

Also, as I have indicated, I am willing to pay more for more functionality. I'd be happy to pay MORE for HIGHER capacity LiIon (rechargable) batteries.

On a related topic - "power for cameras" - I also find it "unwanted marketing differentiation" that Sony does not include separate chargers with their cameras but only sells them at high price as accessories. Turning around, I find it equally ridiculous, that Canon still does not enable in-camera charging via the USB connector - in addition to providing separate chargers with each camera.

From a consumer's rights and environmental protection perspective, I'm rallying for much more stringent, MANDATORY EU regulations on batteries for all CE products. Manufacturers should be allowed to sell only products with batteries in about 3 or 4 physical sizes and designs [external dimensions, connector layout/pin-out, charging procedure, etc.] to end the current consumer-unfriendly rip-off policies of 50-100 € different proprietary batteries for each and every single product.

Also, from an environmental perspective, a "cradle to cradle" approach should be compulsory (at least) for consumer product rechargable batteries. Should also be compulsory for e-car batteries, before it really takes off. Maximum standardization. Innovation more than welcome, but not "marketing differentiation" at the expense [literally!] of consumers.

tell me a manufacturer that does not 'nerf' their products to maintain product differentiation. Your comments are facile.
Who said they are 'nerfing' the M50 regards battery life (deliberately putting in lower spec products when they could pout in higher spec at the same price). A smaller body means a smaller batter means a shorter time between charges. It is simple physics and you are starting to sound whiney.

 

[Adelino]

but, this is oh so typical "marketing-differentiating",... Canon!

You make it seem like marketing is a bad thing, when in reality it is how companies strategize products (I.E. survive).

it is an entirely bad thing from customer's perspective. I am more focused on my wallet than having pity with poor Canon if they manage to make only 15% EBITDA instead of 25%.

Nerfing a mirrorless camera in one of its most VITAL capacities - number of shots on a battery charge - is something I consider very bad and stupid marketing differentiation. It will not save Canon's M5 from "cannibalization". But it weaken's their brand image and sales potential when Canon mirrorless is associated with "whimpy battery life".

Also, as I have indicated, I am willing to pay more for more functionality. I'd be happy to pay MORE for HIGHER capacity LiIon (rechargable) batteries.

On a related topic - "power for cameras" - I also find it "unwanted marketing differentiation" that Sony does not include separate chargers with their cameras but only sells them at high price as accessories. Turning around, I find it equally ridiculous, that Canon still does not enable in-camera charging via the USB connector - in addition to providing separate chargers with each camera.

From a consumer's rights and environmental protection perspective, I'm rallying for much more stringent, MANDATORY EU regulations on batteries for all CE products. Manufacturers should be allowed to sell only products with batteries in about 3 or 4 physical sizes and designs [external dimensions, connector layout/pin-out, charging procedure, etc.] to end the current consumer-unfriendly rip-off policies of 50-100 € different proprietary batteries for each and every single product.

Also, from an environmental perspective, a "cradle to cradle" approach should be compulsory (at least) for consumer product rechargable batteries. Should also be compulsory for e-car batteries, before it really takes off. Maximum standardization. Innovation more than welcome, but not "marketing differentiation" at the expense [literally!] of consumers.

There is a difference between "nerfing" and trying to meet a price point. You act as if these things are all free. Free is great but it usually doesn't happen in the real world.

 

[fullstop]

1.) no, I dont want everything for free. If you would care to read what i wrote: I'd pay MORE for better battery.

2.) @mikehit: LP-E17 is virtually same size as LP-E12 - just 1mm "thicker". It would have easily fit into newly designed EOS M50 body.
LP-E17: 1040mAh, W x H x D: 33 x 14 x 49mm, 45 grams
LP-E12: 875mAh, W x H x D: 33 x 13 x 49mm, 35 grams

3.) LP-E12 is only a few dollars [7 $] less than LP-E17 when bought separately in retail. Where i live in Europe they are basically same price.
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1116120-REG/canon_9967b002_lp_e17_battery_pack.html
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1116120-REG/canon_9967b002_lp_e12_battery_pack.html

Clear proof that use of old, seriously underpowered LP-E12 in EOS M50 is nothing but "Canon marketing nerfing". For less than 7 ridiculous dollars [cost to Canon < retail price], they *cheat their customers with an underpowered 2012 battery in a 599 USD 2018 camera*. Shameful, really. Lose-Lose for Canon and for their customers.

 

[bwud]

My perspective from an electronics product design background: it’s almost inconceivable that anyone from Canon’s marketing organization dictated what battery be used in anything. It’s far more likely that marketing organization would have proposed a camera with some generic specifications and price point, and that the BOM cost trades undergone to facilitate the price led to the part selection.

 

[unfocused]

My perspective from an electronics product design background: it’s almost inconceivable that anyone from Canon’s marketing organization dictated what battery be used in anything. It’s far more likely that marketing organization would have proposed a camera with some generic specifications and price point, and that the BOM cost trades undergone to facilitate the price led to the part selection.

But, it's so much more fun for forum dwellers to blame marketing departments, even though they have no clue how marketing departments work.

 

[fullstop]

to me it sounds extremely unlikely that an engineering/ product development team would voluntarily use an old, whimpy 2012 battery in a new 2018 camera design. especially when there is no or hardly any cost difference between the 2 batteries. it just runs totally against "engineering / product develoment mindsets".

for Canon marketing ("its an entry level camera, stick any old battery in it, the buyer n00bs won't even notice it") and beancounting departments ("we have this warehouse full of them old design whimpy batteries, just stick them into some new camera, before we have to write them off, will ya!") however, brainless nerfing of products and withholding new tech "for future use" apparently is a regular routine exercise.


all this said and despite being convinced tha M50 should have been powered by current LP-E17 battery, personally Canon's nerfing will save me some money this time: i do have a good supply of LP-E12 batteries (with my eos m 1st gen), whereas i would have had to buy a few spare LP-E17 batteries had the M50 used those. Canon's loss. they saved maybe 50 cent in cost per camera and lose ultra high margin spare battery sales of 150 €. Hehe ... a textbook example for "smart Canon business decisions".

 

[bwud]

to me it sounds extremely unlikely that an engineering/ product development team would voluntarily use an old, whimpy 2012 battery in a new 2018 camera design. especially when there is no or hardly any cost difference between the 2 batteries. it just runs totally against "engineering / product develoment mindsets".

Sure, if you have an engineering team operating in isolation, you might witness new batteries, sensors, bodies, motherboards, covers, buttons, toggles, screens, tripod mounts, file formats, etc engineered for every new model. And they likely wouldn’t make it out the door.

At a company like canon, engineering doesn’t work in isolation. There at inputs from many stakeholders, including supply chain and pricing. Product differentiation is certainly a real thing, but in this case I feel straws being grasped at.

Is it possible the markering team said to the engineering team: you shall use this specific battery or I won’t sell your widget? Sure, but it’s imminently more likely the marketing exec sat down with the cognizant product owner and said “if it does these high-level things for this much money, my predicted market is this. If it costs more, my predicted market is X-Y. Figure that into your budget and metrics.”

 

[fullstop]

Is it possible the markering team said to the engineering team: you shall use this specific battery or I won’t sell your widget? Sure, but it’s imminently more likely the marketing exec sat down with the cognizant product owner and said “if it does these high-level things for this much money, my predicted market is this. If it costs more, my predicted market is X-Y. Figure that into your budget and metrics.”

yes, sure, a few cents cost difference between LP-E12 and LP-E17 are what make a 599,- camera economically feasible or not.

A much more realistic explanation for that battery decision is Canon "marketing-nerfing".

 

[Talys]

1.) no, I dont want everything for free. If you would care to read what i wrote: I'd pay MORE for better battery.

2.) @mikehit: LP-E17 is virtually same size as LP-E12 - just 1mm "thicker". It would have easily fit into newly designed EOS M50 body.
LP-E17: 1040mAh, W x H x D: 33 x 14 x 49mm, 45 grams
LP-E12: 875mAh, W x H x D: 33 x 13 x 49mm, 35 grams

3.) LP-E12 is only a few dollars [7 $] less than LP-E17 when bought separately in retail. Where i live in Europe they are basically same price.
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1116120-REG/canon_9967b002_lp_e17_battery_pack.html
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1116120-REG/canon_9967b002_lp_e12_battery_pack.html

Clear proof that use of old, seriously underpowered LP-E12 in EOS M50 is nothing but "Canon marketing nerfing". For less than 7 ridiculous dollars [cost to Canon < retail price], they *cheat their customers with an underpowered 2012 battery in a 599 USD 2018 camera*. Shameful, really. Lose-Lose for Canon and for their customers.

Market differentiation of products is an important tool for manufacturers, though. I agree with you that it would be great for consumers if every manufacturer put the optimal component in every instance based on cost, to make that each product to "be its best" at its price point.

The problem is, that's just not how life works. I'd wager that the M50 isn't really that much cheaper to build than an M5. But at the end of the day, it's good for consumers, that there's a $750 and $1,000 option, and Canon shouldn't be punished by making its $1,000 option irrelevant by offering a lower priced one.

It isn't just cameras; that's how everything from refrigerators to microwaves to cars are priced, and to wish the world to be different won't make it so -- it'll just leave you disappointed.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Clear proof that use of old, seriously underpowered LP-E12 in EOS M50 is nothing but "Canon marketing nerfing". For less than 7 ridiculous dollars [cost to Canon < retail price], they *cheat their customers with an underpowered 2012 battery in a 599 USD 2018 camera*. Shameful, really. Lose-Lose for Canon and for their customers.

How many M50 buyers will be switching from a dSLR or upgrading from a MILC that uses an LP-E12? Neither of us knows, but Canon will have a good estimate of how many buyers would have a purchasing decision made easier by being able to use current batteries with a new camera. For those customers, it's a win.

Not that you've ever demonstrated any cognizance of viewpoints other than your own...

 

[fullstop]

ofc products need to positioned in a "model and pricing hierarchy" via all sorts of "marketing" actions. (Even) i don't expect a camera like Canon EOS M50 to come with a 50MP FF sensor at USD 599.

BUT nerfing a 2018 camera with a whimpy 2012 battery is absolutely unnecessary and not justifiable. It stinks. And it shows, what kind of a "cheap" company Canon really is and how little they really care about their customers having as good a user experience with their cameras as possible.

btw: M5 was always priced too high. No reason why that one should carry a higher price than say an EOS 77D. ofc I don't have numbers, but my gut tells me, M5 has and is not selling well. M6 is doing better, because of the big price differential and more compact size. Many first-time (younger) buyers also don't care for a viewfinder any longer. But they do care about price and size.

 

[ahsanford]

BUT nerfing a 2018 camera with a whimpy 2012 battery is absolutely unnecessary and not justifiable. It stinks. And it shows, what kind of a "cheap" company Canon really is and how little they really care about their customers having as good a user experience with their cameras as possible.

They said the same thing about the 6D2 getting ancient sensor technology (i.e. it didn't get the on-chip ADC setup most every other camera is now getting). But Canon ran the numbers. They number of units they'd sell X the profit margin for each unit was simply greater if the camera didn't get the new latest & greatest sensor architecture. Or, said differently, not enough people cared about on-chip ADC for it to command a higher market price or to stop a sale from happening if it wasn't there -- so we didn't get it.

As far as the highlighted bit above, that applies to all companies -- their job is to be profitable, not to delight us. Sony gives wonderful specs and features, but you could also indict them for their body designs, ergonomics, controls, etc. Why did Sony withhold a comfortable grip from their III line of A7 cameras? So they could recycle components from their whimpy 2015 cameras. It's the same problem. Companies hedge in specific areas to keep production costs down, to maximize profits, etc.

- A

 

[dak723]

BUT nerfing a 2018 camera with a whimpy 2012 battery is absolutely unnecessary and not justifiable. It stinks. And it shows, what kind of a "cheap" company Canon really is and how little they really care about their customers having as good a user experience with their cameras as possible.

They said the same thing about the 6D2 getting ancient sensor technology (i.e. it didn't get the on-chip ADC setup most every other camera is now getting). But Canon ran the numbers. They number of units they'd sell X the profit margin for each unit was simply greater if the camera didn't get the new latest & greatest sensor architecture. Or, said differently, not enough people cared about on-chip ADC for it to command a higher market price or to stop a sale from happening if it wasn't there -- so we didn't get it.

As far as the highlighted bit above, that applies to all companies -- their job is to be profitable, not to delight us. Sony gives wonderful specs and features, but you could also indict them for their body designs, ergonomics, controls, etc. Why did Sony withhold a comfortable grip from their III line of A7 cameras? So they could recycle components from their whimpy 2015 cameras. It's the same problem. Companies hedge in specific areas to keep production costs down, to maximize profits, etc.

- A

When I buy a new camera, pretty much the first thing I do is buy a 2nd battery. When the first battery runs out, I have a 2nd to put in. So, for all practical purposes, it doesn't matter much which battery is chosen.

When the M50 came out, I noticed that I still had an LP-12 battery from my old SL-1. So my reaction was, hey if I buy this camera, I already have my spare and I will save a few bucks. So not everyone will be unhappy!

All this forum proves is that some folks will whine about anything and everything. Are there really so many immature babies out there or would people grow up if they didn't have anonymous user names?

 

[fullstop]

When the M50 came out, I noticed that I still had an LP-12 battery from my old SL-1. So my reaction was, hey if I buy this camera, I already have my spare and I will save a few bucks. So not everyone will be unhappy!

as i wrote earlier: same her. I have 4x LP-E12 with my EOS M 1st gen.

But i still consider a whimpy 2012 battery in a new 2018 camera unnecessary marketing nerfing. Especially when a same-size, much higher capacity battery (LP-E17) is also available at same or very similar cost.


btw: fact based criticism is never whining.

 

[stevelee]

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.

 

[fullstop]

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.

 

[stevelee]

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.

Yes, I realize you would be shocked and appalled by my clumsy photos.

 

[fullstop]

I think being a pro means more than just the gear and sometimes more than the images.
Did you consider that if the client decided to mid-stream ask you to shoot something different and you brought a lower end camera, would you be able to deliver?
Can you handle ad hoc requests like same day edits, slideshows and other things that need assistants and staff (have you tested your workflows?)
Did you consider backups? Is it important that your camera can shoot 2 cards simultaneously?
Do you have redundant back-up equipment if you are on location?
Do you have insurance?
If you got sick, do you have a network of people you trust that can fill in for you?
Are you presentable, relatively articulate, and can gain rapport with people?
Even if a client wanted a dirt cheap shoot with smartphones and gopros, the above would still apply or you would try to mitigate whatever risks that may possibly come up. That is what defines you as a pro.

Yes. No. No. No. No. No. Yes!

A pro is somebody who gets paid for images. And the gear they use is "pro gear".

;D

 

[Mikehit]

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.

Of course you would...

 

[ahsanford]

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

Ah, so all the forum folks here who got a 6D2 were neophytes that had no idea what they were getting into, eh?

Or -- just a theory -- they saw the early tests, said 'shucks, we didn't get the 1DX2 / 5D4 / 80D sensor tech', and they bought one anyway.

1) Because its Canon's only tilty-flippy FF offering.
2) Because it's better than their 6D1 in areas other than the sensor (fps, resolution, RAW buffer, AF, etc.).
3) Because they are cash constrained and can't justify ponying up $3K+ for a 5-series camera.
4) Because the extra stop or two of base ISO DR would go wasted on their preferred form of photography, which requires an ISO level where on-chip ADC wouldn't do them much good.

You're right. They have no idea what they're doing. :

- A