# Canon to add 24p recording to the Canon EOS 90D, Canon EOS RP & Canon EOS M6 Mark II



## Viggo (Oct 9, 2019)

Hi!
Just wanted to share this;

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/News/News-Post.aspx?News=33626


----------



## SecureGSM (Oct 9, 2019)

Viggo said:


> Hi!
> Just wanted to share this;
> 
> https://www.the-digital-picture.com/News/News-Post.aspx?News=33626


Man...I nearly fell of the chair. I thought this post was related to Canon EOS R FPS in continuous mode. .. Holly Batman... R shooting 24 frames per second sports.


----------



## Sharlin (Oct 9, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> Man...I nearly fell of the chair. I thought this post was related to Canon EOS R FPS in continuous mode. .. Holly Batman... R shooting 24 frames per second sports.



It's actually about adding a 24 fps RAW burst mode to the M6 Mark II to complement the existing 30 fps mode. For those who want the special cinematic look on their RAW bursts.


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Oct 9, 2019)

> *From Canon:* In response to feedback from our customers about some of our recently launched EOS and PowerShot models, Canon plans to introduce 24p mode (23.98fps) for movie recording via a series of future firmware updates for select models. After the firmware updates are downloaded it will be possible to shoot 24p (23.98fps) in 4K and Full HD for the select models.
> The first models to benefit will be the EOS 90D and EOS RP at the end of October. The PowerShot G7X Mark III and G5X Mark II will follow at the end of 2019 and the EOS M6 Mark II during the first half of 2020.
> Canon is committed to providing a diverse and full line-up of products, listening to our customers and providing enhancements accordingly.
> 
> ...




[url=https://www.canonrumors.com/canon-to-add-24p-recording-to-the-canon-eos-90d-canon-eos-rp-canon-eos-m6-mark-ii/]Continue reading...


----------



## vjlex (Oct 9, 2019)

Always great to see Canon listen and respond to their customers (even if the change doesn't particularly affect me).


----------



## gzroxas (Oct 9, 2019)

Finally! I don’t have this kind of problems with my models but it was just incredibly stupid to cut some customers out for something that is not related to technical feasibility and that could be added so easily! I’m really liking that Canon is starting to work seriously on improving cameras via Software!


----------



## knight427 (Oct 9, 2019)

Now that these cameras offer the exact number of p’s everybody was crying over, I’m certain orders will go through the roof!

Or, the people complaining endlessly over this feature will simply point to another item missing on that holy spec sheet.


----------



## Ricardo_fon (Oct 9, 2019)

Brilliant, now we can stop all the whining about it. Wonder if all the big YouTube channels will cover the update like they did the new AF updates


----------



## LensFungus (Oct 9, 2019)

I hope they don't add a second card slot via firmware update to my EOS R. I already carved one in the EOS R with my knife.


----------



## PureClassA (Oct 9, 2019)

As silly as it was to shank so basic a feature that has been in Canon DSLRs for 10 years, it equally heartening to see Canon responding to legitimate desires by its user base. I know there are a lot of wish lists on this forum which we can all have debates over, but this one was an easy fix and really should have been there to begin with. Lots of other “upgrades” in video going from the RP to the R without having to downgrade the RP further by eliminating the most easily basic and widely used video frame rate.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 9, 2019)

PureClassA said:


> ...the most easily basic and widely used video frame rate.


Is it, though?


----------



## Drcampbellicu (Oct 9, 2019)

This is how it should work 
If the customer has a legit complaint then the company listens and makes a change 
Kudos to all the canon fans that gave this feedback and kudos to canon for listening and changing course.

I hope the canon trolls shut up and let genuine canon fans continue to give helpful feedback.
Now what are Canon’s plans for the 7d series?!


----------



## TPatS (Oct 9, 2019)

Now Canon, pretty please could we also get ALL-I back too. Probs won't happen for 4k but come on at least for 1080p.


----------



## slclick (Oct 9, 2019)

3rd thread!


----------



## Chaitanya (Oct 9, 2019)

So it was Canon intentionally castrating feature via firmware and not some "compromise" as claimed by their engineers. If it stops raining then finally I will be able go out and shoot macro with my 90D which is in drybox along with all mg glass.


----------



## Chaitanya (Oct 9, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Is it, though?


PAL country so never used 30fps.


----------



## RayValdez360 (Oct 9, 2019)

They thought they could get over on people by screwing them over. All the never feedback must have be damaging. But according to Canonrumors members, our feedback doesnt mean anything we should just let Canon make money by giving us whatever they feel like. No question asked.


----------



## HikeBike (Oct 9, 2019)

I know a lot of people will say this feature should have been present in these models to begin with, which I won't argue against. However, it's very nice to see that Canon is stepping up to add value to their existing products via firmware updates, based on customer feedback.


----------



## fox40phil (Oct 9, 2019)

They need around 6+ month for the M6 for this feature ...


----------



## J9canon (Oct 9, 2019)

This sequence of updates is all about money and manipulation. 90D must really be struggling. They want people to buy it even if they prefer the M6II. Why else would they put the M6II out to mid 2020? Technical difficulties? Please.


----------



## BillB (Oct 9, 2019)

Chaitanya said:


> So it was Canon intentionally castrating feature via firmware and not some "compromise" as claimed by their engineers. If it stops raining then finally I will be able go out and shoot macro with my 90D which is in drybox along with all mg glass.


As far as I know, Canon engineers didn't claim anything. It was all internet speculation. We really don't know why Canon did not put 24 fps in the original package, but we do know that Canon says it made a mistake and it is fixing it.


----------



## zonoskar (Oct 9, 2019)

I hope they'll add the 4K 1:1 crop mode of the 90D to the M6-II as well in that update.


----------



## magarity (Oct 9, 2019)

I suggest just having a slider so the user can select any frame rate from 1 to the max the hardware is capable of.


----------



## scottydog (Oct 9, 2019)

zonoskar said:


> I hope they'll add the 4K 1:1 crop mode of the 90D to the M6-II as well in that update.


Me too. I hope that's part of the reason why M6ii update is taking the longest (although I can't see why they wouldn't mention it now, if they are going to add it).


----------



## AlanF (Oct 9, 2019)

J9canon said:


> This sequence of updates is all about money and manipulation. 90D must really be struggling. They want people to buy it even if they prefer the M6II. Why else would they put the M6II out to mid 2020? Technical difficulties? Please.


You have got it completely wrong. Canon said it was in response to customer feedback. So, there must have been much more feedback from 90D buyers which means more 90Ds have been sold and the M6II must be the struggling one.


----------



## alexmatthewfilm (Oct 9, 2019)

So wait...the amount of feedback that Canon got for giving the EOS R 120fps in 720p and they're not even going to update the EOS R's 120fps to 1080p even though we all know it's capable of doing so?! Ugh...


----------



## Kit. (Oct 9, 2019)

magarity said:


> I suggest just having a slider so the user can select any frame rate from 1 to the max the hardware is capable of.


OK, if you want to implement and test anti-flicker for it for free.


----------



## PureClassA (Oct 9, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Is it, though?


Live news, sports, soap operas, sit coms... yeah they are running at 30. But your TV dramas a lot of times these days are being shot on Arris and Reds etc... running 24. Plus all the feature films. It’s still a dominant format and will be for a long time. I understand for the average joe it’s less of an issue. And sure, most casual users who pick up an ILC to video, dont know/care. But one thing recent history has shown is there is a real appetite out there from the smaller film maker / hobbiest who use ILCs. It’s what has made certain offerings from sony fuji panasonic more popular each product generation. No, they arent gonna destroy Canon. But it shows there is a growing market segment out there that Im glad Canon is getting back to. I really like my EOS R which I got for the video features.


----------



## Sharlin (Oct 9, 2019)

zonoskar said:


> I hope they'll add the 4K 1:1 crop mode of the 90D to the M6-II as well in that update.



There’s no 1:1 4K crop mode on the 90D. It’s 3:2. And the reason the M6II doesn’t have it is almost 100% certainly thermal concerns. According to Gordon Laing the 90D can shoot uncropped 4K about 6*30min without pausing to cool down, but cropped 4K only a bit over 30 min at a time. Meanwhile the M6II with its lesser heat rejection capacity could only record about 45 min of (uncropped) 4K before shutting down.


----------



## SteveC (Oct 9, 2019)

LensFungus said:


> I hope they don't add a second card slot via firmware update to my EOS R. I already carved one in the EOS R with my knife.



All you need to do is get the drop-in filter adapter. It's big enough for at least a dozen cards at the same time.


----------



## M. D. Vaden of Oregon (Oct 9, 2019)

Ricardo_fon said:


> Brilliant, now we can stop all the whining about it. Wonder if all the big YouTube channels will cover the update like they did the new AF updates


Actually, I can't recall seeing major reviewers covering the 1.4 firmware update. just rank and file photographers. I could have missed a review depending. One, Polin, commented, but he also said people have to dig in the menu to use eye AF, which means he lacks experience. Other photographers were replying how they can configure without needing to dig in the menu.


----------



## DBounce (Oct 9, 2019)

So what about the outcry for non-crippled non-cropped 4k on the EOS R? You know, Canon's current mirrorless flagship?


----------



## RayValdez360 (Oct 9, 2019)

alexmatthewfilm said:


> So wait...the amount of feedback that Canon got for giving the EOS R 120fps in 720p and they're not even going to update the EOS R's 120fps to 1080p even though we all know it's capable of doing so?! Ugh...


Only one canon stills camera has 120fps in 1080 and that is the 1DX MK II back when the EOS R was released. so that actually might be a hardware thing.


----------



## RayValdez360 (Oct 9, 2019)

BillB said:


> As far as I know, Canon engineers didn't claim anything. It was all internet speculation. We really don't know why Canon did not put 24 fps in the original package, but we do know that Canon says it made a mistake and it is fixing it.


We know why. It's called money.


----------



## alexmatthewfilm (Oct 9, 2019)

RayValdez360 said:


> ONly one canon stilsl camera has 120fps in 1080 and that is the 1DX. MK II. so that actually might be a hardware thing.



Canon 90D has 120fps in 1080p.


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 9, 2019)

RayValdez360 said:


> They thought they could get over on people by screwing them over. All the never feedback must have be damaging. But according to Canonrumors members, our feedback doesnt mean anything we should just let Canon make money by giving us whatever they feel like. No question asked.


Or, a much likelier possibility.... They didn't think anyone still used it or cared about it, and they were wrong so they put it back in.


----------



## Schmave (Oct 9, 2019)

So now there's really no reason to not get an M6 ii. I'm not really in the market for a new camera, but if I was the M6 ii (with the added EVF) looks very capable. The lack of 24p would be a good excuse to not get the camera, especially since most previous cameras would do 24p. I think the other thing that pissed people off was that this was obviously software/FW crippling, and not anything inherent to a technical limitation.


----------



## Etienne (Oct 9, 2019)

Good to see them listen to feedback. But still too little too late for me. I'm not investing any more in Canon gear, they are too slow and stingy with features. I'll use my M6 system as a pocket camera for a while longer. By the time the M6 II firmware is out, I'm betting the Sony A7s III will be ready.... which will be my next system. The EOS-R setup will take many years to catch up. Of course I'll watch the development, I have a soft spot in my heart for Canon after years using the 5D models (and analog Canon's before that). Unfortunately, Canon threw in the towel on the video side of small cameras after the 5D2, and Sony and Panasonic stole the show.


----------



## navastronia (Oct 9, 2019)

Don Haines said:


> Or, a much likelier possibility.... They didn't think anyone still used it or cared about it, and yhey were wrong so they put it back in.



There is no possibility this is true when 24p is such a popular framerate. I think Canon chose to skimp on features in order to coax people who wanted more video capture options to buy an R over an RP or 90D.

Also, shout out to all the guys _still_ bagging on 24p when even the great and powerful Canon decided they made a mistake by not including it


----------



## Sharlin (Oct 9, 2019)

DBounce said:


> So what about the outcry for non-crippled non-cropped 4k on the EOS R? You know, Canon's current mirrorless flagship?



You think that’s something you can just enable via firmware? The 90D and the M6II have full-sensor 4K because the new sensor and electronics can do it. The R hardware can’t. Simple.


----------



## Sharlin (Oct 9, 2019)

alexmatthewfilm said:


> So wait...the amount of feedback that Canon got for giving the EOS R 120fps in 720p and they're not even going to update the EOS R's 120fps to 1080p even though we all know it's capable of doing so?! Ugh...



How, exactly do ”we all” know that it’s capable of doing so?


----------



## RayValdez360 (Oct 9, 2019)

alexmatthewfilm said:


> Canon 90D has 120fps in 1080p.


 i meant to say back when the eos r came out.


----------



## RayValdez360 (Oct 9, 2019)

RayValdez360 said:


> i mean now in late 2019 i meant to say back when the eos r came out.





Don Haines said:


> Or, a much likelier possibility.... They didn't think anyone still used it or cared about it, and yhey were wrong so they put it back in.


Canon is too smart for that. Just like they dont put log in some cameras. They bank on not giving someone a camera with all the features. the framerate thing was just petty though. It is just a common feature that people use when they shoot video. Most professionals shoot 24 or 60 fps.


----------



## alexmatthewfilm (Oct 9, 2019)

Sharlin said:


> How, exactly do ”we all” know that it’s capable of doing so?


They both run DIGIC 8 Processors. So, yes, the R is capable of doing 120fps.


----------



## RayValdez360 (Oct 9, 2019)

alexmatthewfilm said:


> They both run DIGIC 8 Processors. So, yes, the R is capable of doing 120fps.


A lot of canon cameras have weird limitations when shooting in 120 though. like no sound or no AF. Even the c200 loses the ability to have AF in 120. the c300 mk ii crops in. I dont know if digics is the reason why or maybe other issues.


----------



## criscokkat (Oct 9, 2019)

Schmave said:


> So now there's really no reason to not get an M6 ii. I'm not really in the market for a new camera, but if I was the M6 ii (with the added EVF) looks very capable. The lack of 24p would be a good excuse to not get the camera, especially since most previous cameras would do 24p. I think the other thing that pissed people off was that this was obviously software/FW crippling, and not anything inherent to a technical limitation.


I would have already spent the money on a m6ii if it has a built in evf. I still want to use my flashes.


----------



## alexmatthewfilm (Oct 9, 2019)

RayValdez360 said:


> A lot of canon cameras have weird limitations when shooting in 120 though. like no sound or no AF. Even the c200 loses the ability to have AF in 120. the c300 mk ii crops in. I dont know if digics is the reason why or maybe other issues.


I think Canon purposely hinders limitations of certain cameras to not take away from others. I agree, the C200 SHOULD have AF in 120fps given that the 1DX Mark II has it, but they excluded it. I doubt hardware from a DSLR would be superior to hardware that's placed in a cinema camera.

Plus, we now know Canon hinders certain camera models with them updating these cameras with 24fps. Don't get me wrong though, I love my EOS R, but I do wish it at least had 120fps in 1080p. Oh well though. Just have to keep working with what I have and hopefully Canon will release a camera that really hits all my wants.


----------



## Schmave (Oct 9, 2019)

criscokkat said:


> I would have already spent the money on a m6ii if it has a built in evf. I still want to use my flashes.



Yes, that is a good point. I don't use external flashes that often but I agree, it is a drawback of the M6 ii design. It's likely a deal breaker for those who regularly use flashes.


----------



## PerKr (Oct 9, 2019)

RayValdez360 said:


> Most professionals shoot 24 or 60 fps.



Hence why they figured a camera aimed at amateurs didn't need it. These cameras aren't aimed at professionals and most people will just shoot at whatever resolution and framerate is the default setting.


----------



## Sharlin (Oct 9, 2019)

alexmatthewfilm said:


> They both run DIGIC 8 Processors. So, yes, the R is capable of doing 120fps.



First, three words: _sensor readout speed_. Second, "DIGIC 8" is a marketing term. DIGIC SoCs of the same generation share some commonalities, but there's little reason to assume that they're all exactly the same with regard to capabilities and performance. So no, it's not "we know", it's "you assume", and we all know what assumptions are worth.


----------



## RayValdez360 (Oct 9, 2019)

PerKr said:


> Hence why they figured a camera aimed at amateurs didn't need it. These cameras aren't aimed at professionals and most people will just shoot at whatever resolution and framerate is the default setting.


Just because a big company aims something towards a group doesnt mean that that is only group that will buy it. Professional is a broad term that meanspeople that make money from an activity. Stop making excuses for them. Taking away 24fps is like taking away raw. You are hendering the overall usefulness by taking away a standard that has been around for decades in cheaper to expensive products.


----------



## magarity (Oct 9, 2019)

Kit. said:


> OK, if you want to implement and test anti-flicker for it for free.


It would be the user's responsibility to select a rate appropriate to their playback device.


----------



## Joules (Oct 9, 2019)

alexmatthewfilm said:


> They both run DIGIC 8 Processors. So, yes, the R is capable of doing 120fps.


The M6 II and 90D clearly have a newer generation sensor that allows much more flexibility in terms of read out speed.

The 1D X II has a throughput of 320 MP/s. The M6 II does 455 MP/s and thereby beats the Canon flagship easily. The EOS R uses the 5D IV sensor and that's only capable of 210 MP/s apparently.

Video is probably not read at full Bitrate, so not quite comparable. But 1080 120p is 250 MP/s. It's likely that the Bottleneck on the R is the sensor, I think.


----------



## Dantana (Oct 9, 2019)

So, an omitted feature will be added to a series of bodies through a firmware update and at least half of the posts here are complaints. 

Maybe be happy Canon listened to feedback. Life is too short for all of the griping.


----------



## beegee (Oct 9, 2019)

Drcampbellicu said:


> This is how it should work
> If the customer has a legit complaint then the company listens and makes a change
> Kudos to all the canon fans that gave this feedback and kudos to canon for listening and changing course.
> 
> ...



Promptly responding to customer requests, at least those that can be delivered via F/W updates, is what Fuji has been really successful at. It has periodically released based on customer demands and asks. I have a Fuji setup, but my go to is still Canon and I am glad Canon is finally taking this approach to comply whenever possible. Thanks Canon (and obviously Fuji for showing that this is doable).


----------



## lawny13 (Oct 9, 2019)

gzroxas said:


> Finally! I don’t have this kind of problems with my models but it was just incredibly stupid to cut some customers out for something that is not related to technical feasibility and that could be added so easily! I’m really liking that Canon is starting to work seriously on improving cameras via Software!




Ah no. It costs them money to add this. It isn’t about being technically easy or not. But apparently they need to license it. So they probably excluded it cause they were willing to bet that people wouldn’t care enough for it to affect sales. Enough noise made and a rethink means they concluded it would cost them more to not implement it than the money saved because of reduced sales or bad publicity.

It is the same reasoning behind 5GHz frequencies in routers. It isn’t technically harder to have but they have to pay to use it.


----------



## Joaquim (Oct 9, 2019)

Since Canon and Controversy go together like two peas in a pod lately, I'd like to say, they did this just so that they could come back and say, 'look, we provide functionality improving firmware updates too.'


----------



## Ricardo_fon (Oct 9, 2019)

M. D. Vaden of Oregon said:


> Actually, I can't recall seeing major reviewers covering the 1.4 firmware update. just rank and file photographers. I could have missed a review depending. One, Polin, commented, but he also said people have to dig in the menu to use eye AF, which means he lacks experience. Other photographers were replying how they can configure without needing to dig in the menu.


was just being sarcastic. I've seen what you've seen


----------



## unfocused (Oct 9, 2019)

Don Haines said:


> Or, a much likelier possibility.... They didn't think anyone still used it or cared about it, and yhey were wrong so they put it back in.


I think you are exactly right.


----------



## mkabi (Oct 9, 2019)

Don Haines said:


> Or, a much likelier possibility.... They didn't think anyone still used it or cared about it, and yhey were wrong so they put it back in.



Uh huh... I bet their well paid market research team told them this too, huh???

Canon knows better... all other companies are so dumb, why aren’t they hiring market researchers to tell them not to include 24p.... so dumb of Fuji, Sony, etc.


----------



## Tom W (Oct 9, 2019)

Don Haines said:


> Or, a much likelier possibility.... They didn't think anyone still used it or cared about it, and yhey were wrong so they put it back in.



I tend to agree with this. Perhaps they shouldn't have missed it, but they did. I mean, 30 is better than 24, one would think. But that isn't the case in this circumstance.

As a non-video guy, I'd have missed this one entirely too.


----------



## [email protected] (Oct 9, 2019)

Good one Canon


----------



## navastronia (Oct 9, 2019)

Tom W said:


> I tend to agree with this. Perhaps they shouldn't have missed it, but they did. I mean, 30 is better than 24, one would think. But that isn't the case in this circumstance.
> 
> As a non-video guy, I'd have missed this one entirely too.



I don’t mean this harshly, and you’ve admitted you don’t do video, but 30 is better than 24 like wide angle is better than telephoto. They’re just used for different things - neither is superior, and both are essential to certain applications.


----------



## mkabi (Oct 9, 2019)

navastronia said:


> I don’t mean this harshly, and you’ve admitted you don’t do video, but 30 is better than 24 like wide angle is better than telephoto. They’re just used for different things - neither is superior, and both are essential to certain applications.



Actually a better example would be if Canon put out a statement saying nobody uses anything under f/5.6 so here on end all new lenses will be f/5.6+... now it sounds pretty dumb doesn’t it???


----------



## Jonathan Thill (Oct 9, 2019)

Cool that Canon plans to add this back. 

I have been happy with the video quality out of the RP but did miss 24fps when matching the 1080 footage from my R. I got around the 24fps issue by shooting both in 4k but not having DPAF in 4k on the RP limited it to a static shot camera only. 

Looking forward to seeing if I can match the footage on both cameras when up-scaling from 1080 to 4k.

This move should put the RP on the radar of all the vloggers that said the camera was dead to them without 24fps. Time will tell if that was just huffing and puffing. 

I am just happy to see Canon is committed to updating features and not just fixing "phenomenons"


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 9, 2019)

mkabi said:


> Actually a better example would be if Canon put out a statement saying nobody uses anything under f/5.6 so here on end all new lenses will be f/5.6+... now it sounds pretty dumb doesn’t it???


Other way around, actually.


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 9, 2019)

Just looked outside. The raining finally quit.


----------



## Architect1776 (Oct 9, 2019)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> [url=https://www.canonrumors.com/canon-to-add-24p-recording-to-the-canon-eos-90d-canon-eos-rp-canon-eos-m6-mark-ii/]Continue reading...



Guess all the crybabies can now complain about something else.


----------



## slclick (Oct 9, 2019)

criscokkat said:


> I would have already spent the money on a m6ii if it has a built in evf. I still want to use my flashes.


This is why many are anticipating the M52. There are many posts and quotes as to how it's not coming but none from Canon themselves, mostly just a misquote on DPR. I don't put it in the same situation as the 7D3.


----------



## SteveC (Oct 9, 2019)

slclick said:


> This is why many are anticipating the M52. There are many posts and quotes as to how it's not coming but none from Canon themselves, mostly just a misquote on DPR. I don't put it in the same situation as the 7D3.



That's why I'm waiting before buying the M6 II. I'm hoping for an M5 II with the viewfinder and flippy screen. If it doesn't happen soon enough, I'll MAKE it happen by giving up and buying an M6 II and keeping it one day past the return period (whatever it may be). At that point the M5 II will be announced.

(Of course nothing says an M5 II would have a flippy screen; if I am not mistaken the M5 (I) has a fixed screen. But it sure seems illogical for such a beastie not to have one when the M50 does have it.)


----------



## Kit. (Oct 9, 2019)

magarity said:


> It would be the user's responsibility to select a rate appropriate to their playback device.


Is it the user's responsibility to select a phase shift appropriate to their light source?


----------



## Kit. (Oct 9, 2019)

Etienne said:


> Good to see them listen to feedback. But still too little too late for me. I'm not investing any more in Canon gear, they are too slow and stingy with features. I'll use my M6 system as a pocket camera for a while longer. By the time the M6 II firmware is out, I'm betting the Sony A7s III will be ready.... which will be my next system. The EOS-R setup will take many years to catch up. Of course I'll watch the development, I have a soft spot in my heart for Canon after years using the 5D models (and analog Canon's before that). Unfortunately, Canon threw in the towel on the video side of small cameras after the 5D2, and Sony and Panasonic stole the show.


My condolences.


----------



## BillB (Oct 9, 2019)

SteveC said:


> That's why I'm waiting before buying the M6 II. I'm hoping for an M5 II with the viewfinder and flippy screen. If it doesn't happen soon enough, I'll MAKE it happen by giving up and buying an M6 II and keeping it one day past the return period (whatever it may be). At that point the M5 II will be announced.
> 
> (Of course nothing says an M5 II would have a flippy screen; if I am not mistaken the M5 (I) has a fixed screen. But it sure seems illogical for such a beastie not to have one when the M50 does have it.)



Maybe the reason for the delay in the 24 fps firmware fix for the M6II is to sync with the development of the M5 replacement. Grasping at straws, but....


----------



## RayValdez360 (Oct 9, 2019)

mkabi said:


> Actually a better example would be if Canon put out a statement saying nobody uses anything under f/5.6 so here on end all new lenses will be f/5.6+... now it sounds pretty dumb doesn’t it???


 not really.


Architect1776 said:


> Guess all the crybabies can now complain about something else.


Crying got something accomplished. Being a sheep, keeps you a sheep.


----------



## bitcars (Oct 9, 2019)

Canon has done this in the past. EOS 5D Mark II was first released with only 30p, and a year and half later Canon added the 24p through a firmware upgrade for "compatibility with film camera", and there was much rejoicing.

Now, almost a decade later, Canon is pulling the same trick again


----------



## Memirsbrunnr (Oct 9, 2019)

People and their 24 fps fetish...
I couldn't care less


----------



## Jonathan Thill (Oct 9, 2019)

Memirsbrunnr said:


> People and their 24 fps fetish...
> I couldn't care less


You cared enough to post a comment. Just saying


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 9, 2019)

Canon does people a solid that Canon didn't have to do. Then forum members jump up and down saying, "WE did it! We slew the dragon!" SMH. I guess if Canon produces a RF 70-135mm f/2 I can claim credit later. My internet ego fame will be complete. My self importance will be reinforced.


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 9, 2019)

Ramage said:


> You cared enough to post a comment. Just saying


No, you cared enough about him not caring to post a comment. Just sayin'.


----------



## Jonathan Thill (Oct 9, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> No, you cared enough about him not caring to post a comment. Just sayin'.



hehe, ok you are right dammit...


----------



## gzroxas (Oct 9, 2019)

lawny13 said:


> Ah no. It costs them money to add this. It isn’t about being technically easy or not. But apparently they need to license it. So they probably excluded it cause they were willing to bet that people wouldn’t care enough for it to affect sales. Enough noise made and a rethink means they concluded it would cost them more to not implement it than the money saved because of reduced sales or bad publicity.
> 
> It is the same reasoning behind 5GHz frequencies in routers. It isn’t technically harder to have but they have to pay to use it.


Oh, I really didn’t know about that! I remembered that the record limit is 29:59 because they get into a different product category and taxes are different, but I was unaware of 24p requiring some kind of licensing! thanks for the info!


----------



## stevelee (Oct 9, 2019)

magarity said:


> I suggest just having a slider so the user can select any frame rate from 1 to the max the hardware is capable of.


Yes, I’ve been complaining about lack of 16 or 18 FPS for silent black-and-white, but variable would be better and more authentic.


----------



## SecureGSM (Oct 9, 2019)

criscokkat said:


> I would have already spent the money on a m6ii if it has a built in evf. I still want to use my flashes.


This. not too worry though. Canon are listening now. Please expect the inbuilt EVF feature to be provided via a firmware update soon **

** -The service will be available from 1st April 2020 as a chargeable upgrade, exclusively via Canon authorised service-centres.


----------



## SecureGSM (Oct 9, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Other way around, actually.


It sounds dumb either way


----------



## Philrp (Oct 9, 2019)

I take this to mean that Canon has a high end APS-C mirrorless in the works for the beginning of 2020, and they don't want to canablise those potential sales.

This could be a 7D with APS-C and RF mount or a M5 II. I'll buy the former )

(crossing finger)


----------



## slclick (Oct 9, 2019)

Philrp said:


> I take this to mean that Canon has a high end APS-C mirrorless in the works for the beginning of 2020, and they don't want to canablise those potential sales.
> 
> This could be a 7D with APS-C and RF mount or a M5 II. I'll buy the former )
> 
> (crossing finger)


I'd like that as well but as for nomenclature, if it's RF mount, it will not be a 7D. 

Now, as for the M5mk2, that would be a sweet travel body/silent shooter for solemn events etc. I liked my M5 but I'd rather have a Mk2 that I love.


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 9, 2019)

mkabi said:


> Uh huh... I bet their well paid market research team told them this too, huh???
> 
> Canon knows better... all other companies are so dumb, why aren’t they hiring market researchers to tell them not to include 24p.... so dumb of Fuji, Sony, etc.


They are on the top of the sales charts, and have been there for many years. This means that they are usually right. That said, it looks like this time they were wrong, and then took steps to correct the issue.


----------



## TrubadorPhotography (Oct 9, 2019)

Although this particular feature wasn't a dealbreaker for me, it _did_ put my friend and work colleague on the fence re: updating his 70D (since he uses kit mainly for video, and for him 25p was important and necessary as an option). This definitely swayed him to go ahead with the upgrade.

For myself, I'm finally ordering my 90D this coming weekend, as well as the 100mm Macro and the Tamron 18-400mm (to go along with my 70-200mm f/2.8 L, my Nifty-50, the kit lenses from my old Rebel (EF-S 18-55 and EF-S 55-250), and a used 16-35mm f/4 L that I'm buying used from a fellow pro photographer this coming Saturday.

I'll then take my new gear for a spin at Aussie Nationals (the huge, annual dog competition: agility, herding, obedience, conformation, etc.) in Bakersfield, CA the first weekend of November.

I'm stoked! 

As an aside... I'm debating whether it's worthwhile to upgrade my 50mm to the 85mm. Also, the guy I'm buying the used 16-35 is thinking about also selling his 24-105 F/4 L IS. Any thoughts on either of those two lenses, and whether they should be a necessary part of my arsenal?


----------



## Davidarmenphoto (Oct 9, 2019)

Sharlin said:


> There’s no 1:1 4K crop mode on the 90D. It’s 3:2. And the reason the M6II doesn’t have it is almost 100% certainly thermal concerns. According to Gordon Laing the 90D can shoot uncropped 4K about 6*30min without pausing to cool down, but cropped 4K only a bit over 30 min at a time. Meanwhile the M6II with its lesser heat rejection capacity could only record about 45 min of (uncropped) 4K before shutting down.


Can you give me the math as to how the crop mode is not 1:1 and is 3:2? Because I am veryyyyy interested you see how you came to that conclusion. I mean you did do your own calculations right? you didn’t just hear that off some random forum?


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Oct 9, 2019)

Philrp said:


> I take this to mean that Canon has a high end APS-C mirrorless in the works for the beginning of 2020, and they don't want to canablise those potential sales.


Yeah. Adding 24p via firmware update definitely means Canon had a high-end mirrorless crop camera for the beginning of 2020, no later than the 2nd of February. Irrefutable logical conclusion it is.


----------



## navastronia (Oct 9, 2019)

TrubadorPhotography said:


> Although this particular feature wasn't a dealbreaker for me, it _did_ put my friend and work colleague on the fence re: updating his 70D (since he uses kit mainly for video, and for him 25p was important and necessary as an option). This definitely swayed him to go ahead with the upgrade.
> 
> For myself, I'm finally ordering my 90D this coming weekend, as well as the 100mm Macro and the Tamron 18-400mm (to go along with my 70-200mm f/2.8 L, my Nifty-50, the kit lenses from my old Rebel (EF-S 18-55 and EF-S 55-250), and a used 16-35mm f/4 L that I'm buying used from a fellow pro photographer this coming Saturday.
> 
> ...



Gotta say how much I hope you return and post photos of all those dogs.


----------



## TrubadorPhotography (Oct 9, 2019)

navastronia said:


> Gotta say how much I hope you return and post photos of all those dogs.


There are a few still on my old Flickr page. Just go to the link in my signature (below), click on the "Portfolio" album and scroll through. That gives you a general idea of what I've been shooting over the last 5-½ years with the T3i (including some agility dogs, as well as shots of my own dogs).


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 9, 2019)

RayValdez360 said:


> Crying got something accomplished. Being a sheep, keeps you a sheep.


Did it? How do you know that this is a response to the “crybabies” and not a response to internal auditing and sales estimating wrapped up in a ‘look what we are doing for our customers’ pitch?

You have absolutely no first hand knowledge on why Canon have made this move, just marketing one way or another.

Nothing wrong with being a sheep either...


----------



## Cryhavoc (Oct 9, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Is it, though?



personally I know of no one using 24p when 30 and 60 are available.
Not everyone is after the "cinematic" look of stuttering 24p.


----------



## BillB (Oct 10, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> Did it? How do you know that this is a response to the “crybabies” and not a response to internal auditing and sales estimating wrapped up in a ‘look what we are doing for our customers’ pitch?
> 
> You have absolutely no first hand knowledge on why Canon have made this move, just marketing one way or another.
> 
> Nothing wrong with being a sheep either...


Well, Canon explains in its announcement why it is doing firmware upgrades to put 24fps in the new cameras. They did it because customers made it clear that they wanted it and were unhappy that the new cameras didn't have it. Canon told the world why it made this move. Seems like pretty convincing evidence of why to me.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 10, 2019)

BillB said:


> Well, Canon explains in its announcement why it is doing firmware upgrades to put 24fps in the new cameras. They did it because customers made it clear that they wanted it and were unhappy that the new cameras didn't have it. Canon told the world why it made this move. Seems like pretty convincing evidence of why to me.


Oh dear, really? What makes you think for one second the marketing department, who put that out, are telling the truth?

If they were doing it because it is having to big a negative impact on sales do you think they would say “yes we screwed up and underestimated the cost in sales this would cause so we are biting the bullet and putting it in. We realize if we didn't do it to the cameras already sold but did it for the new cameras to be sold we would cause irreparable harm to our reputation” ?

Personally as a sign of benevolence to the customers who’s money they already have I find it unbelievable. As a way of driving new sales whilst coincidentally making people feel good about their previous purchase I find much more plausible.


----------



## ++k (Oct 10, 2019)

It was so unbearable to watch Jordan mourn that Canon just had to do something about it. So is he going to make another video now?


----------



## YuengLinger (Oct 10, 2019)

All I can say is, "Thank you, Canon Rumors. Without this forum and its endless flow of wisdom, Canon wouldn't know it's aperture from a hole in the ground."


----------



## jolyonralph (Oct 10, 2019)

gzroxas said:


> Oh, I really didn’t know about that! I remembered that the record limit is 29:59 because they get into a different product category and taxes are different, but I was unaware of 24p requiring some kind of licensing! thanks for the info!



I don't know who started this rumor, but there's no way that 24p requires any specific licencing. There's lots of things in a camera that need licencing in order to record video, but reducing your framerate from 25p to 24p isn't one of them.


----------



## jolyonralph (Oct 10, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> Oh dear, really? What makes you think for one second the marketing department, who put that out, are telling the truth?
> 
> If they were doing it because it is having to big a negative impact on sales do you think they would say “yes we screwed up and underestimated the cost in sales this would cause so we are biting the bullet and putting it in. We realize if we didn't do it to the cameras already sold but did it for the new cameras to be sold we would cause irreparable harm to our reputation” ?
> 
> Personally as a sign of benevolence to the customers who’s money they already have I find it unbelievable. As a way of driving new sales whilst coincidentally making people feel good about their previous purchase I find much more plausible.



I think it's far more likely that they genuinely thought no-one would ever use 24p on a low end camera. And I'm still convinced 90% of the people complaining about the lack of 24p would never use it anyway (or would never have bought one of the affected cameras.)

Having said that - if the 90D is truly meant to be a 7D II replacement then I can understand people being upset about no 24p. But on a Powershot? Really???


----------



## preppyak (Oct 10, 2019)

knight427 said:


> Now that these cameras offer the exact number of p’s everybody was crying over, I’m certain orders will go through the roof!
> 
> Or, the people complaining endlessly over this feature will simply point to another item missing on that holy spec sheet.


Nah, I actually liked most of the updates in the camera overall; but negating the biggest reason to move from an 80D to a 90D for me (4k recording) definitely made me upset with the decision. Especially since the only viable option Canon had in 4k was the EOS-R (which is still an APS-C level crop in 4k), which neccesitates me moving to RF lenses to maximize it, at which point its price wise comparable to just go with an A7III.

I'm glad they added this, as Canon's DPAF is still the best video AF I've seen, and Ive consistently found the xxD models to be the best price/feature ratio in the whole canon lineup


----------



## preppyak (Oct 10, 2019)

jolyonralph said:


> I think it's far more likely that they genuinely thought no-one would ever use 24p on a low end camera. And I'm still convinced 90% of the people complaining about the lack of 24p would never use it anyway (or would never have bought one of the affected cameras.)


This shows a woeful lack of understanding on your part; or, if you truly believe that's Canon's approach, a comical lack of market research for a major company. 

editing systems have advanced quite a bit lately, so interlacing 24p and 30p footage isnt the end of the world, but for someone like myself whose entire catalog is shot in 24p, I'd change cameras WAY before I'd switch to 30p just because Canon didnt want to include it.

I also think you're mistaking "low-end" camera. This thing is $1k. Major hollywood productions are using similar cameras as crash cams and b-cams. You've almost certainly seen stuff in the cinema shot on a GH4/GH5, which is in a similar price range. It would also show a comical lack of market research if Canon didnt know a lot of people are making money shooting on the xxD line.


----------



## PureClassA (Oct 10, 2019)

RayValdez360 said:


> Only one canon stills camera has 120fps in 1080 and that is the 1DX MK II back when the EOS R was released. so that actually might be a hardware thing.


Its not a hardware thing. At all.


----------



## PureClassA (Oct 10, 2019)

Sharlin said:


> You think that’s something you can just enable via firmware? The 90D and the M6II have full-sensor 4K because the new sensor and electronics can do it. The R hardware can’t. Simple.


Same Digic Processor. Same everything. Crop sensor vs full frame. Thats it.


----------



## raptor3x (Oct 10, 2019)

PureClassA said:


> Same Digic Processor. Same everything. Crop sensor vs full frame. Thats it.



Sensors have a readout speed that is independent of the image processor being used. You can't predict what the camera will be capable of without knowing the details of the sensor capabilities.


----------



## Sharlin (Oct 10, 2019)

PureClassA said:


> Same Digic Processor. Same everything. Crop sensor vs full frame. Thats it.



You seem very sure of yourself for being so uninformed. To quote myself:



Sharlin said:


> First, three words: _sensor readout speed_. Second, "DIGIC 8" is a marketing term. DIGIC SoCs of the same generation share some commonalities, but there's little reason to assume that they're all exactly the same with regard to capabilities and performance. So no, it's not "we know", it's "you assume", and we all know what assumptions are worth.


----------



## Sharlin (Oct 10, 2019)

Davidarmenphoto said:


> Can you give me the math as to how the crop mode is not 1:1 and is 3:2? Because I am veryyyyy interested you see how you came to that conclusion. I mean you did do your own calculations right? you didn’t just hear that off some random forum?



The crop factor in 90D 4K crop mode is about 1.2. That, certainly not by coincidence, means about 6K resolution, and likely _exactly_ 6K. The camera then downsamples that to 4K. So 3:2, or 9:4 if you want to think in terms of area. The theory is that this produces better quality at the expense of generating more heat than full-sensor 4K, and this is exactly what real-world tests show.

(BTW, we can probably expect a similar implementation on the 1DX Mark III, except that the flagship body might also be able to record straight 1:1 6K!)


----------



## preppyak (Oct 10, 2019)

Sharlin said:


> The crop factor in 90D 4K crop mode is about 1.2. That, certainly not by coincidence, *means about 6K resolution, and likely exactly 6K. The camera then downsamples that to 4K*. So 3:2, or 9:4 if you want to think in terms of area. The theory is that this produces better quality at the expense of generating more heat than full-sensor 4K, and this is exactly what real-world tests show.
> 
> (BTW, we can probably expect a similar implementation on the 1DX Mark III, except that the flagship body might also be able to record straight 1:1 6K!)


And of course, this is what the a7III does as well. At base ISO, this is generally a good thing (especially for Canon who has generally had the kind of resolution that argues they are sampling 900px and scaling up to 1080, let alone producing 6k and scaling to 4k.) Every early test I've seen says that Canon 4k video is pretty good...which means one read is that they intentionally tried to limit the RP and 90D......in some weird hope people would buy a C200 over a 90D I guess?


PureClassA said:


> Its not a hardware thing. At all.


This. If ever there was proof that Canon will cripple things bcause they literally can, its that 4k/24 was left off...just because. In the same way that 1080/24 isnt on the RP....just because. If they cant produce it via engineering, well, fire all your damn engineers and beg Sony, Panasonic, Olympus, Fuji, Nikon, Blackmagic, GoPro, and about 50 companies who barely even produce real cameras to give you their expertise, because they're all doing it in spades. I had 1080/24 a decade ago.

If your camera can do 4k30, it can do 4k24. If your camera can do 4k24, it can do absolutely do 1080/24. Leaving them off is Canons way of saying they dont see their market.


----------



## Joules (Oct 10, 2019)

PureClassA said:


> Its not a hardware thing. At all.


It certainly is a hardware limitation for the R.

Did you read my reply to an earlier post: https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/i...eos-rp-canon-eos-m6-mark-ii.37707/post-797542

Canon had a very low read out speed for long time. The 1D X II was the only camera with a lot of throughout for a while. With the 90D and M6 II we're finally seeing Canon introducing a new generation of sensors with drastically higher read out speed.


----------



## mb66energy (Oct 10, 2019)

jolyonralph said:


> I think it's far more likely that they *genuinely thought no-one would ever use 24p on a low end camera*. And I'm still convinced 90% of the people complaining about the lack of 24p would never use it anyway (or would never have bought one of the affected cameras.)
> 
> Having said that - if the 90D is truly meant to be a 7D II replacement then I can understand people being upset about no 24p. But on a Powershot? Really???



My thought was that they do not want to disturb users with too many options. I myself are often annoyed by those crowded options everywhere (super markets, web pages (not canonrumors , camera menus) but ... while Canon does a good job to cram all the options onto the screen:

Maybe it is time to create a Canon DYM application (design your menues) where you can choose between standard menu and e.g. up to five Custom Menus. This should include the viewfinder info (what and where). Running the design up on a PC or tablet is convenient and flexible ... but that is just my dream of a fully configurable camera with maybe one HW button to switch between menues to have access to the standard menu!


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 10, 2019)

Joules said:


> It certainly is a hardware limitation for the R.
> 
> Did you read my reply to an earlier post: https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/i...eos-rp-canon-eos-m6-mark-ii.37707/post-797542
> 
> Canon had a very low read out speed for long time. The 1D X II was the only camera with a lot of throughout for a while. With the 90D and M6 II we're finally seeing Canon introducing a new generation of sensors with drastically higher read out speed.


The R has always had 4k 24p:
MP4/H.264 UHD 4K (3840 x 2160) at 23.976p/24.00p/25p/29.97p Full HD (1920 x 1080) at 23.976p/24.00p/25p/29.97p/50p/59.94p HD (1280 x 720) at 25p/29.97p/50p/59.94p/100p/119.88p


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 10, 2019)

Joaquim said:


> Since Canon and Controversy go together like two peas in a pod lately, I'd like to say, they did this just so that they could come back and say, 'look, we provide functionality improving firmware updates too.'


Yeah, and no other company does it.


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 10, 2019)

Dantana said:


> So, an omitted feature will be added to a series of bodies through a firmware update and at least half of the posts here are complaints.
> 
> Maybe be happy Canon listened to feedback. Life is too short for all of the griping.


I have to agree with you, Dantana. Bitching and moaning at a gift.  Most of them won't be buying in the first place.


----------



## Joules (Oct 10, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> The R has always had 4k 24p:
> MP4/H.264 UHD 4K (3840 x 2160) at 23.976p/24.00p/25p/29.97p Full HD (1920 x 1080) at 23.976p/24.00p/25p/29.97p/50p/59.94p HD (1280 x 720) at 25p/29.97p/50p/59.94p/100p/119.88p


The comment chain I was replying to was about 1080 120p. The R doesn't have it, the newer cameras do. I think that the R can't do 1080 120p because the hardware doesn't have the throughput, and not because Canon withholds it.


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 10, 2019)

Joules said:


> The comment chain I was replying to was about 1080 120p. The R doesn't have it, the newer cameras do. I think that the R can't do 1080 120p because the hardware doesn't have the throughput, and not because Canon withholds it.


I understand that and deleted my post, though obviously not quick enough.  Still, for most of us, not a big deal. For people it matters to, buy something else. Video is extremely low on my list. Slow mo even less.


----------



## Kit. (Oct 10, 2019)

preppyak said:


> Every early test I've seen says that Canon 4k video is pretty good...which means one read is that they intentionally tried to limit the RP and 90D......in some weird hope people would buy a C200 over a 90D I guess?


Dunno. I better have not the best 4k video than a cooling fan in my stills camera.


----------



## freejay (Oct 10, 2019)

zonoskar said:


> I hope they'll add the 4K 1:1 crop mode of the 90D to the M6-II as well in that update.


I guess not: In a video (I don't remember which) it was suggested that that 1:1 crop creates more heat and since the M6 II body is so much smaller than the 90D's it seems unlikely. The 90D seems to overheat some times...


----------



## freejay (Oct 10, 2019)

alexmatthewfilm said:


> So wait...the amount of feedback that Canon got for giving the EOS R 120fps in 720p and they're not even going to update the EOS R's 120fps to 1080p even though we all know it's capable of doing so?! Ugh...


The R has a fairly old sensor and is probably not capable of 120fps in Full HD.


----------



## padam (Oct 10, 2019)

they may take our codes, Log profile and AF modes,
but they'll never take... our framerates!


----------



## Sharlin (Oct 10, 2019)

freejay said:


> I guess not: In a video (I don't remember which) it was suggested that that 1:1 crop creates more heat and since the M6 II body is so much smaller than the 90D's it seems unlikely. The 90D seems to overheat some times...



It is not 1:1 crop. It is 3:2 oversampling which is why it generates more heat. And the camera itself warns the user about this when the crop mode is selected. 1:1 crop is what earlier Canon bodies did exactly because it needs less throughput and processing power.


----------



## freejay (Oct 10, 2019)

I really think that for Canon there are only two types of users: Occasional shooters (let's call them "consumers" for now) and the so called "professionals" (= press & famous photographers). They totally forget about the "enthusiasts".
"Consumers" only need mid-quality video features, certainly no 24p and no high end 4K and the like. There's also no need for good primes on a system made for "Consumers" - that is the EOS-M.
"Professionals" will buy or rent a decent (Cinema EOS) camera if the need one. So: No need for exceptional video features in higher end photo cameras as well.
But the "Enthusiasts", the wedding photographers, music video people and all who want one camera for everything (due to cost and size reasons) are still left alone by Canon's decisions.

But the FW update with enhanced eye-AF and the re-introduction of 24p makes me hope that there is a change going on at Canon headquarters. *fingerscrossed*


----------



## freejay (Oct 10, 2019)

Sharlin said:


> It is not 1:1 crop. It is 3:2 oversampling which is why it generates more heat. And the camera itself warns the user about this when the crop mode is selected. 1:1 crop is what earlier Canon bodies did exactly because it needs less throughput and processing power.


You are probably right.


----------



## slclick (Oct 10, 2019)

freejay said:


> The R has a fairly old sensor and is probably not capable of 120fps in Full HD.


Fairly old. Is that this years fairly old (I need new sensor tech, no matter how bad the color looks, every six months old) or the R&D started within the last 3 years old? (sensible and solid manufacturing)


----------



## koenkooi (Oct 10, 2019)

slclick said:


> Fairly old. Is that this years fairly old (I need new sensor tech, no matter how bad the color looks, every six months old) or the R&D started within the last 3 years old? (sensible and solid manufacturing)



It's basically the 5D4 sensor with microlenses adjusted for the more extreme angles at the edges caused by the shorter distance between lens and sensor. IIRC that meant it was 4 years old when the R launched.


----------



## Quirkz (Oct 10, 2019)

mkabi said:


> Uh huh... I bet their well paid market research team told them this too, huh???
> 
> Canon knows better... all other companies are so dumb, why aren’t they hiring market researchers to tell them not to include 24p.... so dumb of Fuji, Sony, etc.



Their market research team must be doing something right. I refer you to the September BCN figures. 

Most people don’t even know the difference, and seeing all those options is confusing. I had to explain this setting to someone who was literally stressed out about getting it wrong.


----------



## Architect1776 (Oct 10, 2019)

freejay said:


> I really think that for Canon there are only two types of users: Occasional shooters (let's call them "consumers" for now) and the so called "professionals" (= press & famous photographers). They totally forget about the "enthusiasts".
> "Consumers" only need mid-quality video features, certainly no 24p and no high end 4K and the like. There's also no need for good primes on a system made for "Consumers" - that is the EOS-M.
> "Professionals" will buy or rent a decent (Cinema EOS) camera if the need one. So: No need for exceptional video features in higher end photo cameras as well.
> But the "Enthusiasts", the wedding photographers, music video people and all who want one camera for everything (due to cost and size reasons) are still left alone by Canon's decisions.
> ...



  
So with 24p how many of you rushed out to buy the Canon cameras with it?
"Crickets"  It was done so where is the avalanch of action to get the 24p cameras?


----------



## Architect1776 (Oct 10, 2019)

freejay said:


> The R has a fairly old sensor and is probably not capable of 120fps in Full HD.



Let us see.
Sony recycles the same old and worn out sensor for the a9II and that is wonderful because Sony calls it "Proven" or in another way of saying it we are just adding some bells and whistles for suckers and they get the same old worn out tech. Yet I never hear a complaint about this.


----------



## C Tographer (Oct 10, 2019)

24p is not 23.98fps. They are two different and incompatible formats, and should not be used interchangeably.


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 10, 2019)

freejay said:


> I really think that for Canon there are only two types of users: Occasional shooters (let's call them "consumers" for now) and the so called "professionals" (= press & famous photographers). They totally forget about the "enthusiasts".
> "Consumers" only need mid-quality video features, certainly no 24p and no high end 4K and the like. There's also no need for good primes on a system made for "Consumers" - that is the EOS-M.
> "Professionals" will buy or rent a decent (Cinema EOS) camera if the need one. So: No need for exceptional video features in higher end photo cameras as well.
> But the "Enthusiasts", the wedding photographers, music video people and all who want one camera for everything (due to cost and size reasons) are still left alone by Canon's decisions.
> ...


Except that the real money is in the enthusiast market. Professionals are a small group by comparison. This enthusiast doesn't care one single bit about video. Zero. Others might, but this one doesn't.


----------



## victorshikhman (Oct 11, 2019)

Product segmentation should only be hardware based. Give your customers the most functionality the hardware they purchase is capable of. Yes, $2k cameras today are doing things only dedicated $50k rigs could do a decade ago, but there are hundreds of times the number of people creating content now, and production quality (and demand for ever higher production quality) keeps going up. As people make money on cheaper gear, they'll naturally gravitate towards the more advanced hardware and customization options of more expensive gear. Canon's mission and business strategy should be to lower the barriers to creating content, not to squeeze every last dollar they can.


----------



## syder (Oct 11, 2019)

koenkooi said:


> It's basically the 5D4 sensor with microlenses adjusted for the more extreme angles at the edges caused by the shorter distance between lens and sensor. IIRC that meant it was 4 years old when the R launched.



The 5d4 launched in September 2016. So I guess the R with the 4 year old sensor at launch must be coming out in late 2020...


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 11, 2019)

syder said:


> The 5d4 launched in September 2016. So I guess the R with the 4 year old sensor at launch must be coming out in late 2020...


Don't confuse people with the maths.  The real question is: What could they do better with a brand new sensor than with an old worn out model. Photographers or tech collectors/fetishists? There are a lot of fetishists around here. I have a brother in law that buys a Harley now and then. He customizes the heck out of them, then sells them at a loss. He never rides them. Ever. They might get dirty. To me, he's a fetishist. He knows every spec. He uses none of them.

Same story with a lot of lens collectors. They are always showing photos of their latest thrift store find. Nothing else.


----------



## Bahrd (Oct 11, 2019)

RayValdez360 said:


> We know why. It's called money.


You are all the full-time charity volunteers with no loan/family obligations, aren’t you?


----------



## navastronia (Oct 11, 2019)

victorshikhman said:


> Product segmentation should only be hardware based. Give your customers the most functionality the hardware they purchase is capable of. Yes, $2k cameras today are doing things only dedicated $50k rigs could do a decade ago, but there are hundreds of times the number of people creating content now, and production quality (and demand for ever higher production quality) keeps going up. As people make money on cheaper gear, they'll naturally gravitate towards the more advanced hardware and customization options of more expensive gear. Canon's mission and business strategy should be to lower the barriers to creating content, not to squeeze every last dollar they can.


Damn, that made a lot of sense. Bravo!


----------



## Del Paso (Oct 11, 2019)

freejay said:


> I really think that for Canon there are only two types of users: Occasional shooters (let's call them "consumers" for now) and the so called "professionals" (= press & famous photographers). They totally forget about the "enthusiasts".
> "Consumers" only need mid-quality video features, certainly no 24p and no high end 4K and the like. There's also no need for good primes on a system made for "Consumers" - that is the EOS-M.
> "Professionals" will buy or rent a decent (Cinema EOS) camera if the need one. So: No need for exceptional video features in higher end photo cameras as well.
> But the "Enthusiasts", the wedding photographers, music video people and all who want one camera for everything (due to cost and size reasons) are still left alone by Canon's decisions.
> ...



I definitely don' t feel left alone, but I think you have a tendency to negatively oversimplify your opinion of big bad Canon...


----------



## Kit. (Oct 11, 2019)

victorshikhman said:


> Product segmentation should only be hardware based.


Should Adobe discontinue Photoshop Elements?


----------



## Bahrd (Oct 11, 2019)

navastronia said:


> Damn, that made a lot of sense. Bravo!


Does it? Sounds as if producing software (or other non-material intellectual property) doesn't require involving time, money and people. 
Anyway, what we have now (on the market) is a result of a subtle balance between what we want, what we are going to eventually pay for, and what the producers have to and want to offer (like a _rope pulling_). In this context, I don't think a greedy approach (♫_I want it all, I want it all, I want it all, and I want it now _♫) is sustainable for both, the consumers and producers.


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 11, 2019)

Bahrd said:


> Does it? Sounds as if producing software (or other non-material intellectual property) doesn't require involving time, money and people.
> Anyway, what we have now (on the market) is a result of a subtle balance between what we want, what we are going to eventually pay for, and what the producers have to and want to offer (like a _rope pulling_). In this context, I don't think a greedy approach (♫_I want it all, I want it all, I want it all, and I want it now _♫) is sustainable for both, the consumers and producers.


"I want" is what makes the world go 'round.


----------



## Quirkz (Oct 11, 2019)

victorshikhman said:


> Product segmentation should only be hardware based.



Not when it can actually be more expensive to create a different sku. Sometimes you do it in software, because it’s cheaper that way - benefits of scale.


----------



## peters (Oct 11, 2019)

Honest question, why is this a big deal? I heard many people complain about the missing 24p....
I produce everything in 50 or 25fps (usualy filming in 4k 50 with the 1dx II and delivering in 25fps).
This feels like the norm in europe. What is so special about 24fps over 25fps?


----------



## Sharlin (Oct 11, 2019)

peters said:


> Honest question, why is this a big deal? I heard many people complain about the missing 24p....
> I produce everything in 50 or 25fps (usualy filming in 4k 50 with the 1dx II and delivering in 25fps).
> This feels like the norm in europe. What is so special about 24fps over 25fps?



Nothing much. Many US people probably don't even realize that their cameras can do 25/50 fps as well. Then there's the argument that you can show 24p footage on 60 Hz screens by alternating 2 and 3 vsyncs per frame (called "3:2 pulldown) and it adds up, while 25p and 60 Hz don't play together that nicely. In Europe though we've been watching 24p movies at 25 fps for ages and I doubt anybody has noticed that they're slightly sped up. Apparently another argument is that 25p is more prone to flickering when filmed under 60 Hz AC lighting. And if you do serious multi-cam 24p production then it's of course easier to match footage when everything is shot at same frame rate.


----------



## Dantana (Oct 11, 2019)

peters said:


> Honest question, why is this a big deal? I heard many people complain about the missing 24p....
> I produce everything in 50 or 25fps (usualy filming in 4k 50 with the 1dx II and delivering in 25fps).
> This feels like the norm in europe. What is so special about 24fps over 25fps?


25/50 is a PAL/SECAM standard. 24p and 30/60 are NTSC (mostly North American) standards, to oversimplify. Shooting 25 fps here makes very little sense unless it is for a majority PAL/SECAM audience.


----------



## RayValdez360 (Oct 11, 2019)

Bahrd said:


> You are all the full-time charity volunteers with no loan/family obligations, aren’t you?


So not shitting on loyal customers is now called charity. No wonder the rich keeps setting richer the poor gets poorer.


----------



## Sharlin (Oct 11, 2019)

Dantana said:


> 25/50 is a PAL/SECAM standard. 24p and 30/60 are NTSC (mostly North American) standards, to oversimplify. Shooting 25 fps here makes very little sense unless it is for a majority PAL/SECAM audience.



PAL and NTSC are pretty much obsolete artifacts of the analog era. Digital displays have their own refresh rates (typically 60 Hz) and it's a media player's job to figure out how to best reproduce whatever frame rate it is given.


----------



## unfocused (Oct 11, 2019)

navastronia said:


> Damn, that made a lot of sense. Bravo!


Actually it makes no sense. I would not be surprised to learn that the embedded costs of software development and implementation are higher than that of the hardware.


----------



## navastronia (Oct 11, 2019)

unfocused said:


> Actually it makes no sense. I would not be surprised to learn that the embedded costs of software development and implementation are higher than that of the hardware.



Well, this comment seems to have touched a nerve! The other brands do it. No one at Sony or Fuji is leaving major software features out of a camera for any of the reasons you and others suggest.

People make excuses for Canon and pretend they know how a host of things work, from software development to sales, when the evidence is right in front of us. If it were actually infeasible to cram as many software features as possible into a camera, then Canon wouldn’t be the outlier — but they are.


----------



## navastronia (Oct 11, 2019)

Bahrd said:


> Does it? Sounds as if producing software (or other non-material intellectual property) doesn't require involving time, money and people.
> Anyway, what we have now (on the market) is a result of a subtle balance between what we want, what we are going to eventually pay for, and what the producers have to and want to offer (like a _rope pulling_). In this context, I don't think a greedy approach (♫_I want it all, I want it all, I want it all, and I want it now _♫) is sustainable for both, the consumers and producers.


Only on Canon Rumors do consumers bend over backwards to justify the actions of a multinational corporation looking for ways to take more of their money. Rest assured, this unholy blend of capitalist apologism and religious devotion to a brand looks as insane to anyone watching as it is invisible to those participating.


----------



## Kit. (Oct 11, 2019)

navastronia said:


> No one at Sony


How about PlayMemories Camera Apps?


----------



## navastronia (Oct 11, 2019)

Kit. said:


> How about PlayMemories Camera Apps?



PlayMemories was succeeded by Imaging Edge Mobile this year, which runs on all Sony e-mount cameras.






Imaging Edge Mobile List of Supported Cameras


Sony Camera Imaging Edge Mobile Information




support.d-imaging.sony.co.jp


----------



## Kit. (Oct 11, 2019)

navastronia said:


> PlayMemories was succeeded by Imaging Edge Mobile this year, which runs on all Sony e-mount cameras.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You are confusing PlayMemories Camera Apps with PlayMemories Mobile.


----------



## Bahrd (Oct 11, 2019)

navastronia said:


> Only on Canon Rumors do consumers bend over backwards to justify the actions of a multinational corporation looking for ways to take more of their money. Rest assured, this unholy blend of capitalist apologism and religious devotion to a brand looks as insane to anyone watching as it is invisible to those participating.



You can't be serious...


----------



## navastronia (Oct 11, 2019)

Kit. said:


> You are confusing PlayMemories Camera Apps with PlayMemories Mobile.



I may be, but this aside, what’s your point? You’re talking about Sony’s camera apps store?


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 11, 2019)

navastronia said:


> No one at Sony or Fuji is leaving major software features out of a camera for any of the reasons you and others suggest.


Just how would you know what Sony or Fuji are holding back on? Hmmmm????? Fact is, you don't. You just assume the whole bag of tricks is already there and not being held back for the next model.


----------



## Quirkz (Oct 11, 2019)

navastronia said:


> Well, this comment seems to have touched a nerve! The other brands do it. No one at Sony or Fuji is leaving major software features out of a camera for any of the reasons you and others suggest.
> 
> People make excuses for Canon and pretend they know how a host of things work, from software development to sales, when the evidence is right in front of us. If it were actually infeasible to cram as many software features as possible into a camera, then Canon wouldn’t be the outlier — but they are.



But I *do* know how hardware, software, product development (and even a little bit of the sales process) work.


----------



## Kit. (Oct 11, 2019)

navastronia said:


> I may be, but this aside, what’s your point? You’re talking about Sony’s camera apps store?


Yeah, about Sony selling _parts of their camera software functionality_ through their "apps store".


----------



## navastronia (Oct 12, 2019)

Kit. said:


> Yeah, about Sony selling _parts of their camera software functionality_ through their "apps store".


You’re right, that sucks. I’m obviously in favor of software functionality being free to consumers who have already sunk thousands of dollars into a camera body.


----------



## Kit. (Oct 12, 2019)

navastronia said:


> You’re right, that sucks. I’m obviously in favor of software functionality being free to consumers who have already sunk thousands of dollars into a camera body.


It's quite possible that with content-aware autofocus we will soon see a subscription-based model. If you want your autofocus to not lag behind your neighbor's, you will need to pay monthly.


----------



## SteveC (Oct 12, 2019)

Kit. said:


> It's quite possible that with content-aware autofocus we will soon see a subscription-based model. If you want your autofocus to not lag behind your neighbor's, you will need to pay monthly.



I should hope the main question in most peoples' mind is "is this autofocus good enough for what I want to do with it?" rather than "Is it better than my neighbor's?"

I can hope that all I want but I know its rarely true.


----------



## transpo1 (Oct 12, 2019)

PureClassA said:


> As silly as it was to shank so basic a feature that has been in Canon DSLRs for 10 years, it equally heartening to see Canon responding to legitimate desires by its user base. I know there are a lot of wish lists on this forum which we can all have debates over, but this one was an easy fix and really should have been there to begin with. Lots of other “upgrades” in video going from the RP to the R without having to downgrade the RP further by eliminating the most easily basic and widely used video frame rate.



Absolutely. Credit where credit is due. They must have heard an earful from customers about it.


----------



## transpo1 (Oct 12, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Just how would you know what Sony or Fuji are holding back on? Hmmmm????? Fact is, you don't. You just assume the whole bag of tricks is already there and not being held back for the next model.



I won't speak to Sony, but Fuji adds new features all the time with their "Kaizen" firmware updates. So, yeah-- they're really not holding that much back. And they certainly are not intentionally leaving out a cinema frame rate that's been in all their cameras for years.


----------



## navastronia (Oct 12, 2019)

Kit. said:


> It's quite possible that with content-aware autofocus we will soon see a subscription-based model. If you want your autofocus to not lag behind your neighbor's, you will need to pay monthly.



Boy, that would be awful.


----------



## WoodyWindy (Oct 12, 2019)

alexmatthewfilm said:


> So wait...the amount of feedback that Canon got for giving the EOS R 120fps in 720p and they're not even going to update the EOS R's 120fps to 1080p even though we all know it's capable of doing so?! Ugh...


We don't know either of those things to be true. (that they aren't updating the capture, or that it is capable of handling it even if they wanted to). Granted, since they didn't announce it, chances are they aren't doing it is a fair statement, if a bit speculative. However, there is no indication that the higher frame rate at the higher resolution is even possible with the tech in the camera (raw data transfer rates or CPU power does not equal the ability to do anything you want).


----------



## freejay (Oct 12, 2019)

Del Paso said:


> I definitely don' t feel left alone, but I think you have a tendency to negatively oversimplify your opinion of big bad Canon...


That's what you read from my post? Interesting. I'm a fan of Canon products - just that you know it...


----------



## Scenes (Oct 12, 2019)

Sharlin said:


> There’s no 1:1 4K crop mode on the 90D. It’s 3:2. And the reason the M6II doesn’t have it is almost 100% certainly thermal concerns. According to Gordon Laing the 90D can shoot uncropped 4K about 6*30min without pausing to cool down, but cropped 4K only a bit over 30 min at a time. Meanwhile the M6II with its lesser heat rejection capacity could only record about 45 min of (uncropped) 4K before shutting down.



I’ve seen No evidence of recording 4K footage Uncropped and having to stop to cool down and recorded plenty of clips 20-25mins.


----------



## Dantana (Oct 13, 2019)

Sharlin said:


> PAL and NTSC are pretty much obsolete artifacts of the analog era. Digital displays have their own refresh rates (typically 60 Hz) and it's a media player's job to figure out how to best reproduce whatever frame rate it is given.


So, you’re saying that digital displays tun at 60Hz in countries that have 50Hz electrical service? That’s news to me.


----------



## Kit. (Oct 13, 2019)

Dantana said:


> So, you’re saying that digital displays tun at 60Hz in countries that have 50Hz electrical service? That’s news to me.


I believe most notebook displays have no other option than 60Hz.

However, I doubt that a human eye can detect a sub-10ms jitter in video frames shown on LCDs.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 13, 2019)

Dantana said:


> So, you’re saying that digital displays tun at 60Hz in countries that have 50Hz electrical service? That’s news to me.


Look at any Apple store worldwide, standard display frequency and support is always listed at 60Hz.

Just goes to show how ridiculous the 24p meme is. It is impossible to display true 24 fps unless you are using very specialized equipment or you have an old film projector. Everything else is cadenced to make it fit in 60Hz, 2:2, 3:2 blah blah blah....


----------



## dog8food (Oct 13, 2019)

Wait, why no mention of the m200, that doesn't shoot 24p in 1080p?


----------



## stevelee (Oct 13, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> Look at any Apple store worldwide, standard display frequency and support is always listed at 60Hz.
> 
> Just goes to show how ridiculous the 24p meme is. It is impossible to display true 24 fps unless you are using very specialized equipment or you have an old film projector. Everything else is cadenced to make it fit in 60Hz, 2:2, 3:2 blah blah blah....


But we are used to seeing 24fps movies shown on 60fps screens. That is what looks “cinematic“ to us. I watched old movies on what amounted to 30i starting by 1954.


----------



## cpreston (Oct 14, 2019)

C Tographer said:


> 24p is not 23.98fps. They are two different and incompatible formats, and should not be used interchangeably.


This isn't even a semantic pet peeve. This is a dangerous misunderstanding and it is surprising how few people seem to understand this. When a client asks me for 24p, I make sure to note that I will be giving them 23.98p. I mean, I can give them 24p, but they will probably be very unhappy about it. Even the EOS R can shoot actual 24p. I'm assuming this headline actually means 23.98p, but it would be funny if Canon was only supplying 24p like everybody keeps demanding.


----------



## Dantana (Oct 14, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> Look at any Apple store worldwide, standard display frequency and support is always listed at 60Hz.
> 
> Just goes to show how ridiculous the 24p meme is. It is impossible to display true 24 fps unless you are using very specialized equipment or you have an old film projector. Everything else is cadenced to make it fit in 60Hz, 2:2, 3:2 blah blah blah....


That's interesting. I thought it was tied to the mains. Thanks for the bit of knowledge.

The point of my original reply wasn't really tied to Hz or old video standards, but trying to tell someone who sounded like they were in Europe why people in North America might want to shoot 24 vs 25. I see that I could have been much better at answering that. For film (since the sound era) 24 fps has been the standard projection format in North America, 25 fps in Europe. That has trickled down into different parts of film and video production. In analog days, that seemed to have also been tied to the mains of the region of production, but it seems that now it's not the case.

I'm not advocating for shooting at any particular frame-rate, or even criticizing whatever camera company for including or not including a particular frame-rate on their cameras (especially their consumer oriented cameras). People have their reasons (valid or not) for shooting at a preferred frame-rate.

Times change, formats change, mediums change.


----------



## stevelee (Oct 14, 2019)

cpreston said:


> This isn't even a semantic pet peeve. This is a dangerous misunderstanding and it is surprising how few people seem to understand this. When a client asks me for 24p, I make sure to note that I will be giving them 23.98p. I mean, I can give them 24p, but they will probably be very unhappy about it. Even the EOS R can shoot actual 24p. I'm assuming this headline actually means 23.98p, but it would be funny if Canon was only supplying 24p like everybody keeps demanding.


OK, I understand why adding color information for NTSC made them slow down 30 fps to 29 point something. The black-and-white sets could just ignore the color signal and it would be compatible. But I have no clue why 23.98 ever was a thing. It’s not like anybody had 24 Hz house current In the TV era as best I’ve heard.

Also my TV says it has a 120 Hz refresh rate, or maybe 240. Are those specs right, or are those really just multiples of the NTSC slowdown rate?


----------



## Ricardo_fon (Oct 15, 2019)

stevelee said:


> OK, I understand why adding color information for NTSC made them slow down 30 fps to 29 point something. The black-and-white sets could just ignore the color signal and it would be compatible. But I have no clue why 23.98 ever was a thing. It’s not like anybody had 24 Hz house current In the TV era as best I’ve heard.
> 
> Also my TV says it has a 120 Hz refresh rate, or maybe 240. Are those specs right, or are those really just multiples of the NTSC slowdown rate?


I don't know exactly how it all works. But my TV gives a notification on the bottom of the screen when the frame rate changes. As far as I can tell it matches the frame rate of the content. Sometimes it shows 24, sometimes 25, 30, 60, etc. That's off my Apple TV. I think it's playing back as per content, so the tv can play anything up the rating... But stand to be corrected.


----------



## Memirsbrunnr (Oct 15, 2019)

Ramage said:


> You cared enough to post a comment. Just saying


I am getting so tired listening to this endless whine, about no 24p especially in those cases where there is 25 fps. NO one will see the difference


----------



## cpreston (Oct 15, 2019)

stevelee said:


> OK, I understand why adding color information for NTSC made them slow down 30 fps to 29 point something. The black-and-white sets could just ignore the color signal and it would be compatible. But I have no clue why 23.98 ever was a thing. It’s not like anybody had 24 Hz house current In the TV era as best I’ve heard.
> 
> Also my TV says it has a 120 Hz refresh rate, or maybe 240. Are those specs right, or are those really just multiples of the NTSC slowdown rate?



The 23.976 is for the pull down to fit into the 59.94 hz / 29.97 NTSC standard. It was the way to fit a 24p movie onto a TV. My guess is that the newer TV's can actually show a 24p movie without any pull down. Heck, maybe TV's will start showing blank frames to mimic an actual movie projector so you can really get that 24p effect that people insist is the best.

In any case, professional audio and video equipment can do both 23.98 and 24p, but way too many people shorten 23.98p to 24p without realizing the complete mess that can occur if sound and the various cameras are all recording at different rates due to a misunderstanding.


----------



## stevelee (Oct 15, 2019)

cpreston said:


> The 23.976 is for the pull down to fit into the 59.94 hz / 29.97 NTSC standard. It was the way to fit a 24p movie onto a TV. My guess is that the newer TV's can actually show a 24p movie without any pull down. Heck, maybe TV's will start showing blank frames to mimic an actual movie projector so you can really get that 24p effect that people insist is the best.
> 
> In any case, professional audio and video equipment can do both 23.98 and 24p, but way too many people shorten 23.98p to 24p without realizing the complete mess that can occur if sound and the various cameras are all recording at different rates due to a misunderstanding.


Thanks. That makes sense. I assume that my TV just shows each frame 5 times when it is given 24p material from the Blu-Ray/DVD player.


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 16, 2019)

Del Paso said:


> I definitely don' t feel left alone, but I think you have a tendency to negatively oversimplify your opinion of big bad Canon...


I have to agree with you Del Paso. 1. Everyone, including professionals, are consumers. 2. The idea that any consumer only buys what he "needs" is wrong headed. I buy what I "want". Personally, I couldn't care less about video. 3. The idea that "professionals" are out spending big bucks just because they are "professionals" is the silliest thing I have ever heard. Most professionals are eating hand to mouth. What makes them (some of them) unique is that their work is *good enough* to draw customers. My young cousin makes her living on senior pictures, engagement photos, and family portraits. However, she has to turn a large volume of customers to make a living at it. She shoots with a 70D and only pop-up flash, no "L" glass... but by definition she is a professional. The vast majority of them don't make much money at all. 4. Some "consumers" and "enthusiasts" put many professionals to shame with their work.

I am no pro. I try to get a paid gig now and then to support my photography habit. I was recently asked to quote senior photos for a young model I have gotten published twice. My quote was $350 for 4 hours, and then extra if I sent off for prints. Needless to say, they went with a lady that did the job for $75 including prints. The photos were horrid. So the competition is cut throat. The pressure is down on prices.

Canon does a great job in my opinion for what I do. Freejay is oversimplifying big time, and yes, negatively. Not all pro consumers are running around with top line gear. Not all amateur consumers are running around with low end gear. I happen to be an enthusiast consumer. Canon has not forgotten about me, which is what freejay said. In fact, I would wager that the enthusiasts are Canon's biggest market. Canon is producing exactly what I want.


----------



## Di Torres (Oct 29, 2019)

Memirsbrunnr said:


> I am getting so tired listening to this endless whine, about no 24p especially in those cases where there is 25 fps. NO one will see the difference


My coworkers from the editing and marketing departments would whine all day to me if I ever deliver a 25fps for them to work with, since this format is a nightmare to blend with any 24fps content without introducing very noticeable frame skipping or time demaning tasks to fix it.


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 30, 2019)

This is nothing more than Canon trolling the trolls.


----------



## Sharlin (Oct 31, 2019)

Dantana said:


> So, you’re saying that digital displays tun at 60Hz in countries that have 50Hz electrical service? That’s news to me.



Even old _analog_ CRT computer displays almost never had vertical refresh synchronized with the mains frequency. A CRT at 60Hz flickers very noticeably and irritatingly, never mind at 50Hz! 75Hz was widely seen as the minimum reasonable frequency for long-term usage, and high-end monitors would refresh at 90 or 100Hz.

Digital LCD displays would basically standardize at 60Hz because unlike with CRTs, flicker is not that big of a big problem, and getting LCDs to refresh even that quickly without ghosting or reduction in contrast was a fairly difficult engineering challenge. They're fundamentally DC semiconductor devices anyway, so mains frequency does not matter at all.


----------



## Sharlin (Oct 31, 2019)

Firmware adding 1080p24 and 4K24 is now available.


----------



## Dantana (Oct 31, 2019)

Sharlin said:


> Even old _analog_ CRT computer displays almost never had vertical refresh synchronized with the mains frequency. A CRT at 60Hz flickers very noticeably and irritatingly, never mind at 50Hz! 75Hz was widely seen as the minimum reasonable frequency for long-term usage, and high-end monitors would refresh at 90 or 100Hz.
> 
> Digital LCD displays would basically standardize at 60Hz because unlike with CRTs, flicker is not that big of a big problem, and getting LCDs to refresh even that quickly without ghosting or reduction in contrast was a fairly difficult engineering challenge. They're fundamentally DC semiconductor devices anyway, so mains frequency does not matter at all.


What do analog CRT computer displays have to do with this?


----------



## Memirsbrunnr (Nov 1, 2019)

Di Torres said:


> My coworkers from the editing and marketing departments would whine all day to me if I ever deliver a 25fps for them to work with, since this format is a nightmare to blend with any 24fps content without introducing very noticeable frame skipping or time demaning tasks to fix it.


Then get a professional film camera and not a consumer camera. I hardly shoot film at all and refuse to pay extra for something I will never use in a CONSUMER camera. Buy a professional film camera like Canon wants you to do it.. Whine about a 5D not having it but stop whining about consumer cameras not having it, as most people will only film family outings without ever doing advanced editing in a PROFESSIONAL setting


----------



## Don Haines (Nov 1, 2019)

Sharlin said:


> Even old _analog_ CRT computer displays almost never had vertical refresh synchronized with the mains frequency. A CRT at 60Hz flickers very noticeably and irritatingly, never mind at 50Hz! 75Hz was widely seen as the minimum reasonable frequency for long-term usage, and high-end monitors would refresh at 90 or 100Hz.
> 
> Digital LCD displays would basically standardize at 60Hz because unlike with CRTs, flicker is not that big of a big problem, and getting LCDs to refresh even that quickly without ghosting or reduction in contrast was a fairly difficult engineering challenge. They're fundamentally DC semiconductor devices anyway, so mains frequency does not matter at all.


Many smaller displays have the power fed to it by a DC adapter (often 12VDC), and the same adapter works on 50 or 60 hz, and from 95 to 250 volts.


----------



## Don Haines (Nov 1, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> The idea that "professionals" are out spending big bucks just because they are "professionals" is the silliest thing I have ever heard. Most professionals are eating hand to mouth. .


there is a very good reason why the phrase “starving artist” exists....


----------

