# Canon EOS M6 Mark II full specifications



## Canon Rumors Guy (Aug 20, 2019)

> Here are the full specifications for the Canon EOS M6 Mark II, this camera will be announced next week.
> The EOS M6 Mark II is a stylish, compact and lightweight mirrorless camera that doesn’t compromise on speed or quality whether you’re shooting stills or movies. The EOS M6 Mark II features the option to add on an Electronic Viewfinder so you can shoot the way that feels most comfortable to you. Enjoy a high image quality with the camera’s 32.5 megapixel APS-C sensor. Ensure you never miss the shot with a maximum continuous shooting speed of approximately 14 fps and a maximum RAW burst mode of approximately 30fps.
> 
> 
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## genriquez (Aug 20, 2019)

_High-speed + (one-shot and Servo): 14 
High-speed (one-shot and Servo): 7 
Low-speed (one-shot and Servo): 3 _

Huh?


----------



## koenkooi (Aug 20, 2019)

genriquez said:


> _High-speed + (one-shot and Servo): 14
> High-speed (one-shot and Servo): 7
> Low-speed (one-shot and Servo): 3 _
> 
> Huh?



One mode might be 12bit instead of 14bit, like the M50 where single shot is 14bit, but faster modes are all 12bit.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 20, 2019)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Effective Pixels
> Approx. 32.5 megapixels
> 
> Total Pixels
> Approx. 25.8 megapixels


Something fishy there.


----------



## koenkooi (Aug 20, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Something fishy there.



A bit later they claim 47MPix, the resolution is listed as 6900x6900


----------



## zonoskar (Aug 20, 2019)

genriquez said:


> _High-speed + (one-shot and Servo): 14
> High-speed (one-shot and Servo): 7
> Low-speed (one-shot and Servo): 3 _
> 
> Huh?


Different speed settings? Maybe for when you don't need 14 fps. I know that when my DSLR had 5+ fps (I forgot if it was the 40D or 50D), I always used the 3 fps setting in continuous shooting mode since the faster mode gave me too many pictures.


----------



## andrei1989 (Aug 20, 2019)

there are some typos/mistakes/copy-paste errors from M6 i think...
RAW: (3:2) 6960 x 4640, (4:3) 6960 x 4640, (16:9) 6960 x


4640, (1:1) 6960 x 6960

*Transmission*Hi-Speed USB (2.0) (Micro USB connector)*Terminal Type*USB Type-C

also
In-camera battery pack charging with USB Power Adapter PD-E1 
USB charging yey!


----------



## genriquez (Aug 20, 2019)

zonoskar said:


> Different speed settings? Maybe for when you don't need 14 fps. I know that when my DSLR had 5+ fps (I forgot if it was the 40D or 50D), I always used the 3 fps setting in continuous shooting mode since the faster mode gave me too many pictures.



Hope so. If it's true it's pretty nice. I also don't need and can't stand too high fps. But if they have 7 fps with tracking priority that's nice.

On another note there's no 24fps and 60fps in full HD so the internet is gonna have a field day with this one.

Edit: Yay UHS II


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 20, 2019)

genriquez said:


> _High-speed + (one-shot and Servo): 14
> High-speed (one-shot and Servo): 7
> Low-speed (one-shot and Servo): 3 _
> 
> Huh?


Most cameras have settings for hi and low frame rates. On some you can customize the setting for the low frame rate. The extra frames per second (above high) come with a trade off, e.g. my 1D X is 12 fps, or 14 fps with mirror lockup shooting jpg. In this case, it’s probably 7 fps with focusing between each frame, or 14 fps with the focus locked at the first frame.


----------



## Mark D5 TEAM II (Aug 20, 2019)

> 4K – 2840 x 2160 (NTSC: 29.97 PAL: 25 fps) Full HD – 1920 x 1080 (NTSC:29.97 PAL: 25 fps)/QUOTE]
> 
> Haha, it still retained the typos from the earlier leaked info sheet...


----------



## LSXPhotog (Aug 20, 2019)

After seeing this, I think it's totally fake or Canon has some extremely incompetent employees writing it.

The PD-E1 is mighty powerful for an LP-E17 battery....

Not a single mention of 24p or any other frame rate options for video.

Lots of typos...


----------



## Mark D5 TEAM II (Aug 20, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Most cameras have settings for hi and low frame rates. On some you can customize the setting for the low frame rate. The extra frames per second (above high) come with a trade off, e.g. my 1D X is 12 fps, or 14 fps with mirror lockup shooting jpg. In this case, it’s probably 7 fps with focusing between each frame, or 14 fps with the focus locked at the first frame.


But the High Speed + option still has the One-Shot / Servo AF option.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 20, 2019)

LSXPhotog said:


> After seeing this, I think it's totally fake...


The leak came from Australia, which is in the southern hemisphere. Maybe it’s April 1 down there.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 20, 2019)

Mark D5 TEAM II said:


> But the High Speed + option still has the One-Shot / Servo AF option.


 Good point, but in reality the whole list is filled with errors and typos. As I noted above, effective pixels exceed total pixels, and that’s plain wrong.


----------



## PureClassA (Aug 20, 2019)

No 24fps in either 1080 or 4k? Or are there perhaps just non-US specs? Seems rather odd


----------



## Diltiazem (Aug 20, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Good point, but in reality the whole list is filled with errors and typos. As I noted above, effective pixels exceed total pixels, and that’s plain wrong.


Yeah, there are some errors. On the other hand, 90D spec list appears to be accurate. 









EOS 90D Tech Sheet.pdf







drive.google.com


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Aug 20, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Something fishy there.


Probably just a typo. Had to be 35 not 25.


----------



## Quackator (Aug 20, 2019)

Max x-sync speed?


----------



## Diltiazem (Aug 20, 2019)

genriquez said:


> _High-speed + (one-shot and Servo): 14
> High-speed (one-shot and Servo): 7
> Low-speed (one-shot and Servo): 3 _
> 
> Huh?


 I think High speed 7 is for silent shutter.


----------



## Chaitanya (Aug 20, 2019)

Yay no 24fps or 48fps options for video.
Micro USB != Type C


----------



## Deleted member 378664 (Aug 20, 2019)

*External Flash Compatibility:EL series Speedlites

no EX Speedlites compatibility?
Is there more than the EL100 spedlite currently available?

Another step back in Features? Aren't the current EOS M are all compatible with EX Speedlites?

I tend to agree that this leak is totally fake.*


----------



## Diltiazem (Aug 20, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> Probably just a typo. Had to be 35 not 25.


----------



## koenkooi (Aug 20, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Good point, but in reality the whole list is filled with errors and typos. As I noted above, effective pixels exceed total pixels, and that’s plain wrong.



It also lists a "panning" drive mode, any speculation on what that actually does?


----------



## niraj_photo (Aug 20, 2019)

the list doesnt mention the 120fps FULL HD either..


----------



## codynpatterson (Aug 20, 2019)

Lol. In America only 30fps in both 4k and 1080. That's crap.


----------



## genriquez (Aug 20, 2019)

codynpatterson said:


> Lol. In America only 30fps in both 4k and 1080. That's crap.



Yeah it's weird. If the 90D can do it why can't the M6II? Same with 1/8000 shutter speed. We shall see soon the official details.


----------



## Etienne (Aug 20, 2019)

genriquez said:


> Yeah it's weird. If the 90D can do it why can't the M6II? Same with 1/8000 shutter speed. We shall see soon the official details.


Canon has a long history of finding ways to unnecessarily frustrate its users


----------



## Karlbug (Aug 20, 2019)

I don't see anything about the silent shutter. I hoped M6II would be THE Canon camera for street photography, because right now Canon does not really cover this niche. M50 and RP do not have manual mode with silent shutter, R is little too big and has slow sensor readout, so hopefully either M5II will have it or the specs are not complete.


----------



## codynpatterson (Aug 20, 2019)

angrykarl said:


> I don't see anything about the silent shutter. I hoped M6II would be THE Canon camera for street photography, because right now Canon does not really cover this niche. M50 and RP do not have manual mode with silent shutter, R is little too big and has slow sensor readout, so hopefully either M5II will have it or the specs are not complete.



This!

I'm hoping the R pro that comes out has a full manual fast silent shutter. I bought the RP before anyone reviewed it and returned it the next day after seeing silent shutter was only allowed in creative mode within the settings and didn't allow manual .


----------



## Sharlin (Aug 20, 2019)

LSXPhotog said:


> After seeing this, I think it's totally fake or Canon has some extremely incompetent employees writing it.
> 
> The PD-E1 is mighty powerful for an LP-E17 battery....
> 
> ...



Given that this is still leaked info, not surprising if it lacks a proofreading step or two.


----------



## [email protected] (Aug 20, 2019)

Looking very good Canon to bolster their excellent EOS M line and on par with Fuji and Sony.


----------



## illadvisedhammer (Aug 20, 2019)

Sample-size-of-one-guy here, i'm disappointed I don't see any mention of focus-bracketing, which the RP has, and was also hoping for IBIS. Those were my two make-me-buy features. My current cameras are often delightful and amazing, hope I have the self control to stay with them.


----------



## LSXPhotog (Aug 20, 2019)

illadvisedhammer said:


> Sample-size-of-one-guy here, i'm disappointed I don't see any mention of focus-bracketing, which the RP has, and was also hoping for IBIS. Those were my two make-me-buy features. My current cameras are often delightful and amazing, hope I have the self control to stay with them.


I think that there is still a chance that the M5 Mark II has some tricks up its sleeve. I didn't expect to see the M cameras ever come with a magnesium alloy body, but the M6 Mark II (if we take these leaks seriously) has it. So maybe there is a chance the M5 moves up market. There is still that IBIS patent we will likely see in an APS-C model before a mirrorless full-frame flagship.


----------



## koenkooi (Aug 20, 2019)

illadvisedhammer said:


> Sample-size-of-one-guy here, i'm disappointed I don't see any mention of focus-bracketing, which the RP has, and was also hoping for IBIS. Those were my two make-me-buy features. My current cameras are often delightful and amazing, hope I have the self control to stay with them.



What are you expecting from the focus bracketing? In the RP it's electronic shutter only, with flash disabled. That combined with focus breathing in my 100mm macro makes it pretty useless for me.


----------



## Stereodude (Aug 20, 2019)

genriquez said:


> Yeah it's weird. If the 90D can do it why can't the M6II? Same with 1/8000 shutter speed. We shall see soon the official details.


The 90D can't do p24 either. It's the Canon cripple hammer at work. They're protecting their Cinema cameras. They're not going to let their ILC cameras shoot 4K footage that's competitive with their Cinema cameras or shoot p24. Market demands/expectations have basically dictated that Canon can't sell 4K with a crop anymore or just omit 4K so they're offering full frame 4K but crippling it in different ways. Prior models have omitted it, disabled dual pixel AF in 4K, had a substantial 4K crop, had horrible rolling shutter in 4K, or had other ways to keep a clear distinction in 4K footage quality and usability between the ILCs and their Cinema cameras.

Canon operates in a delusional fantasy land where you will either buy a Cinema camera from them if they don't offer good 4K and/or p24 in their P&S cameras or ILCs or just buy them anyway and just accept the limitations. In reality you will likely buy a camera from someone other than Canon instead if you want competent video.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 20, 2019)

Apparently it has a 30FPS RAW burst mode!

And remember, this is an alleged leak that has probably been translated (poorly) several times and is obviously full of errors. Don't take anything seriously until you see something official.


----------



## navastronia (Aug 20, 2019)

codynpatterson said:


> This!
> 
> I'm hoping the R pro that comes out has a full manual fast silent shutter. I bought the RP before anyone reviewed it and returned it the next day after seeing silent shutter was only allowed in creative mode within the settings and didn't allow manual .



Same. But IMO, the key to a good silent mode is a fast-scanning electronic shutter of the kind no Canon stills camera has yet offered. An electronic shutter is no good with a slow readout because then rolling shutter and banding issues abound. The A9's electronic shutter scans at 1/160, which is fast enough to be usable in most conditions (i.e., one rarely needs to take the camera out of silent mode unless using strobes or shooting sports, and in that case, why would you need to be silent, anyway?).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 20, 2019)

Stereodude said:


> Canon operates in a delusional fantasy land where you will either buy a Cinema camera from them if they don't offer good 4K and/or p24 in their P&S cameras or ILCs or just buy them anyway and just accept the limitations. In reality you will likely buy a camera from someone other than Canon instead if you want competent video.


Canon operates in reality where the decision to exclude certain video resolution/frame rate combinations has had no meaningful impact on their sales.

You operate in a delusional fantasy land where the features you personally want represent the desires of most buyers.


----------



## amorse (Aug 20, 2019)

Don Haines said:


> Apparently it has a 30FPS RAW burst mode!
> 
> And remember, this is an alleged leak that has probably been translated (poorly) several times and is obviously full of errors. Don't take anything seriously until you see something official.


I think we can be pretty confident that the 30fps burst is in there. It's demonstrated in the leaked video, and that seems like a lot of work for a fake video that ended up on Canon Australia's YouTube. It does note that there's a crop, but using a rolling buffer to capture images before you even press the trigger means you will capture the action you're after. I know it exists on other cameras, but I always thought that it would be a killer feature if used correctly.


----------



## -pekr- (Aug 20, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Canon operates in reality where the decision to exclude certain video resolution/frame rate combinations has had no meaningful impact on their sales.
> 
> You operate in a delusional fantasy land where the features you personally want represent the desires of most buyers.



Neuro - once again you are answering the question noone asked, whereas the question is rather simple - why the there is 24p missing again (if true)? Noone needing the feature cares, if it influences Canon's sales or not. Ppl might be well invested into the Canon system already. Playing on their nerves does not win them loyalty. If theirs and your message is - who cares about such users, it's a completly different story.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 20, 2019)

amorse said:


> I think we can be pretty confident that the 30fps burst is in there. It's demonstrated in the leaked video, and that seems like a lot of work for a fake video that ended up on Canon Australia's YouTube. It does note that there's a crop, but using a rolling buffer to capture images before you even press the trigger means you will capture the action you're after. I know it exists on other cameras, but I always thought that it would be a killer feature if used correctly.


I have used the feature on an Oly. I like it! Great for getting that proper instant of action. Right now, the best I have on an ILC is firing off a burst on a 7D2. This gives me 3X the speed!


----------



## allanP (Aug 20, 2019)

Chaitanya said:


> Yay no 24fps or 48fps options for video.
> Micro USB != Type C


Type C - charge
Micro USB (2.0) - transfer ...

We have 2019
What the hell is USB 2.0 doing here?
With a large number of images and huge files?
Miserable


----------



## LSXPhotog (Aug 20, 2019)

koenkooi said:


> What are you expecting from the focus bracketing? In the RP it's electronic shutter only, with flash disabled. That combined with focus breathing in my 100mm macro makes it pretty useless for me.


I didn't know it was only E-shutter! Damn. Yeah, the only time I would want to use it was for product photography and I already knew it was a gimmick feature more than anything else. For me to use the feature it would need to capture RAW, mechanical shutter so it can


navastronia said:


> Same. But IMO, the key to a good silent mode is a fast-scanning electronic shutter of the kind no Canon stills camera has yet offered. An electronic shutter is no good with a slow readout because then rolling shutter and banding issues abound. The A9's electronic shutter scans at 1/160, which is fast enough to be usable in most conditions (i.e., one rarely needs to take the camera out of silent mode unless using strobes or shooting sports, and in that case, why would you need to be silent, anyway?).


The A9 shoots at 5fps with mechanical shutter. It is probably the biggest or most obvious blunder with that camera.


----------



## illadvisedhammer (Aug 20, 2019)

koenkooi said:


> What are you expecting from the focus bracketing? In the RP it's electronic shutter only, with flash disabled. That combined with focus breathing in my 100mm macro makes it pretty useless for me.


Thanks for the feedback, I don’t know anyone with an RP and was wondering if low power flash could keep up or be used. Perhaps similar to you I use flash in almost all of my insect macro, which is either in the field or inside for a few minutes before releasing them, utterly dependent on the flash to freeze camera and subject motion. Nevertheless, if I had the feature I’d take a battery powered LED light outside and try some 10-20 frame brackets on immobile subjects. Sounds like I should borrow or rent a camera with bracketing before thinking about buying one, but I won’t be borrowing or renting one of these. Some day the same technology that phones use to take multiple shots to reduce noise will be in our ILC cameras to focus stack, right?


----------



## Stereodude (Aug 20, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Canon operates in reality where the decision to exclude certain video resolution/frame rate combinations has had no meaningful impact on their sales.


You have data to support this? You love to brag that Canon has the #1 marketshare and that their marketshare is growing very slowly. Of course this is not causation. It's not even correlation. The majority of the cameras Canon does sell have p24. It's mostly just the newly released ones that don't. Maybe the lack of p24 in their new models is going to meaningfully impact their sales. When they sell less cameras in 2019 vs. 2018 will that be proof that p24 mattered to potential buyers?

Further, borrowing your game of twisting things out of context as argument support... Canon's best selling camera, the Rebel T7, has 1080p24. So clearly the feature is important to buyers and has driven the Rebel T7 to the top of Canon's sales chart.



> You operate in a delusional fantasy land where the features you personally want represent the desires of most buyers.


As usual, your argument makes no sense. People who really want p24 aren't going to buy it, so they wouldn't be buyers. As such talking about desires of buyers of the model makes no sense in the context of a feature that's missing. It would be more useful to talk about a survey of potential buyers on what caused them to not buy it. I'm sure you don't have that data though, so just more opinionating by you that you try to disguise as a "fact" behind incredibly poorly reasoned arguments.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 20, 2019)

Stereodude said:


> When they sell less cameras in 2019 vs. 2018 will that be proof that p24 mattered to potential buyers?



No, everybody expects to sell less cameras in 2019 than 2018.


----------



## Stereodude (Aug 20, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> No, everybody expects to sell less cameras in 2019 than 2018.


And the joke went right over your head...


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 20, 2019)

Stereodude said:


> And the joke went right over your head...


Q: Whats the difference between a Canon bashers comments and a joke?
A:

Forgive me for not picking up the non existent difference.


----------



## koenkooi (Aug 20, 2019)

illadvisedhammer said:


> Thanks for the feedback, I don’t know anyone with an RP and was wondering if low power flash could keep up or be used. Perhaps similar to you I use flash in almost all of my insect macro, which is either in the field or inside for a few minutes before releasing them, utterly dependent on the flash to freeze camera and subject motion. Nevertheless, if I had the feature I’d take a battery powered LED light outside and try some 10-20 frame brackets on immobile subjects. Sounds like I should borrow or rent a camera with bracketing before thinking about buying one, but I won’t be borrowing or renting one of these. Some day the same technology that phones use to take multiple shots to reduce noise will be in our ILC cameras to focus stack, right?



The EL-100 flash has a 'stroboscopic' feature, which is meant to be used for multiple-exposure shots. It would be nice if that could be used for bracketing as well. Bracketing is really fast, when set to 100 shots it's done before you realize. 
Most of my macro shots (flickr page) is done with flash in my backyard in positions where a tripod isn't useable. Which means I'd need a serious light source for focus stacking.


----------



## Stereodude (Aug 20, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> Q: Whats the difference between a Canon bashers comments and a joke?
> A:
> 
> Forgive me for not picking up the non existent difference.


I just like the hypocrisy that sales number and marketshare are frequently used to bolster the argument that Canon can do no wrong, but apparently can't be used to show the inverse.

Call me a basher all you want, but some years down the road people will look back and note that Canon had loyal customers who tried to persuade them to making the adjustments they needed to adapt to the changing market, but that they resisted and reaped the consequences.

Every camera I own except for two are Canon. I have numerous SLR, DSLRs, Powershots, etc. I'm not "investing" any more money into any Canon system and haven't for several years because I think they've lost their way and am waiting to see if they find their way back or if I should move to another system. So far it's not looking good for Canon.


----------



## stevelee (Aug 20, 2019)

For believable silent films, we need to shoot 16fps in black-and-white. 15.984 frames per second is no substitute. I will not be buying this camera.


----------



## espressino (Aug 20, 2019)

koenkooi said:


> It also lists a "panning" drive mode, any speculation on what that actually does?


The G7XII and the M6 have that mode too. When you take a photo of a moving object it's supposed to keep the car/bike/moving thingy in focus while blurring the background as you move the camera along when tracking the object.


----------



## digitalride (Aug 20, 2019)

allkar said:


> 2019
> What the hell is USB 2.0 doing here?
> With a large number of images and huge files?



USB 2.0 instead of 3.0 probably saved them $5 on a $1000 camera. I agree its ridiculous, and probably done so some future model has something to lure users to upgrade. As for transferring files, I haven't connected a camera to a computer in 15 years since most cameras stopped supporting USB mass storage mode ( where the storage operated just like files on an external drive). A card reader is much more convenient these days.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Aug 20, 2019)

allkar said:


> Type C - charge
> Micro USB (2.0) - transfer ...
> 
> We have 2019
> ...



At least it's not mini USB like on the M100. I agree that USB 2.0 is ridiculous but i only ever used the USB for tethering and now can use Wifi for that, so don't really care.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 20, 2019)

Stereodude said:


> You have data to support this? You love to brag that Canon has the #1 marketshare and that their marketshare is growing very slowly. Of course this is not causation. It's not even correlation.


Canon makes cameras. Canon picks the features to put or not put in their cameras. Canon has sold far more cameras than anyone else every year for many years. Canon has shown they are good at picking features that result in people buying their cameras. 

I hope the small words and short sentences made it possible for you to understand the logic this time around.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 20, 2019)

digitalride said:


> USB 2.0 instead of 3.0 probably saved them $5 on a $1000 camera. I agree its ridiculous, and probably done so some future model has something to lure users to upgrade. As for transferring files, I haven't connected a camera to a computer in 15 years since most cameras stopped supporting USB mass storage mode ( where the storage operated just like files on an external drive). A card reader is much more convenient these days.


First, I really doubt that it saved them $5..... with the quantities they buy, I really doubt it saved them 1$

Second, there are so many errors in that spec sheet that I don’t trust anything


----------



## Stereodude (Aug 20, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Canon makes cameras. Canon picks the features to put or not put in their cameras. Canon has sold far more cameras than anyone else every year for many years. Canon has shown they are good at picking features that result in people buying their cameras.
> 
> I hope the small words and short sentences made it possible for you to understand the logic this time around.


Sorry, but your argument tries to draw connections that just aren't there and can't be substantiated.

Their best selling model has the very feature you claim is unimportant. The majority of their models have the feature you claim is unimportant. Yet, you use their sales to suggest that the feature being omitted from new models hasn't impacted sales. That's quite the logical leap you've made there. It's totally flawed and has no absolutely evidence to support it. But, by your own logic and argument their declining sales after removing said feature will prove that removing it was the wrong decision.

See how easy this is?


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 20, 2019)

Stereodude said:


> I just like the hypocrisy that sales number and marketshare are frequently used to bolster the argument that Canon can do no wrong, but apparently can't be used to show the inverse.
> 
> Call me a basher all you want, but some years down the road people will look back and note that Canon had loyal customers who tried to persuade them to making the adjustments they needed to adapt to the changing market, but that they resisted and reaped the consequences.
> 
> Every camera I own except for two are Canon. I have numerous SLR, DSLRs, Powershots, etc. I'm not "investing" any more money into any Canon system and haven't for several years because I think they've lost their way and am waiting to see if they find their way back or if I should move to another system. So far it's not looking good for Canon.


Thats not the point, the point is people constantly say Canon is ******* yet their continued domination of the market proves exactly the opposite. For me it doesn't have anything to do with agreeing with what Canon do, what they offer, or anything else, it is simply presenting a fact that contradicts uninformed posters opinion.

Yes you might think they have lost their way, but, yet again, sales numbers illustrate you are an outlier, for people deciding to buy a camera Canon are the most popular choice, you can reason that any way you want, the people that point that out are not saying Canon can do no wrong, they are just saying your opinion is not the same as the largest percentage of actual purchasers.


----------



## Stereodude (Aug 21, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> ...they are just saying your opinion is not the same as the largest percentage of actual purchasers.


You're the second person to try to use this logic on me today. People who aren't happy with the direction Canon is taking and the products they're making aren't purchasers. They're fence sitters or switchers. More people aren't buying than are, so there's no way you can conclude that based on the market share of a dwindling market that they're making the right decisions. Conversely, I can't prove that they are making the wrong decisions from sales data either. These camera systems have a lot of inertia to them in sales. At this point you'd learn far more by asking the people who aren't making the purchases of Canon gear why they're not buying than trying to look at sales numbers.

For example If Canon had stayed with manual focus FD lenses and not switched to the EOS AF system Canon's sales wouldn't have dropped to 0 in a year. Their sales still would have been good for some time. However, that decision would have eventually caught up with them and years later it'd be easy to point to that decision as a bad one that cost them. We're too close to the inflection point to know for sure how it's going to pan out. But this same cycle has played out for many companies in the past, some corrected before it was too late. Others didn't.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 21, 2019)

Stereodude said:


> You're the second person to try to use this logic on me today. People who aren't happy with the direction Canon is taking and the products they're making aren't purchasers. They're fence sitters or switchers. More people aren't buying than are, so there's no way you can conclude that based on the market share of a dwindling market that they're making the right decisions. Conversely, I can't prove that they are making the wrong decisions from sales data either. These camera systems have a lot of inertia to them in sales. At this point you'd learn far more by asking the people who aren't making the purchases of Canon gear why they're not buying than trying to look at sales numbers.
> 
> For example If Canon had stayed with manual focus FD lenses and not switched to the EOS AF system Canon's sales wouldn't have dropped to 0 in a year. Their sales still would have been good for some time. However, that decision would have eventually caught up with them and years later it'd be easy to point to that decision as a bad one that cost them. We're too close to the inflection point to know for sure how it's going to pan out. But this same cycle has played out for many companies in the past, some corrected before it was too late. Others didn't.


But they didn't, they evolved, they came out with EF, and EF-s, and M, and RF, they released the best selling range of MILC's in predominantly MILC markets (they provided what those markets wanted), they diversified into medical imaging, a cinema range of cameras, security cameras etc etc. You think you can say they haven't changed, they have, just not in the way you want, you say they are ******* yet they are maintaining market share in a contracting market.

You feel they are failing to provide what your market wants, we are just saying maybe they know what they are doing and your market isn't worth the cost to them and the last 50 years of data has shown them to be good judges.


----------



## canonnews (Aug 21, 2019)

digitalride said:


> USB 2.0 instead of 3.0 probably saved them $5 on a $1000 camera.



or the USB controller is in DIGIC and that requires a new USB controller on the SoC. that may take more time.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 21, 2019)

Stereodude said:


> You're the second person to try to use this logic on me today.


Yes, and you’re still not getting it despite multiple attempts. 



Stereodude said:


> Sorry, but your argument tries to draw connections that just aren't there and can't be substantiated.
> 
> Their best selling model has the very feature you claim is unimportant. The majority of their models have the feature you claim is unimportant. Yet, you use their sales to suggest that the feature being omitted from new models hasn't impacted sales. That's quite the logical leap you've made there. It's totally flawed and has no absolutely evidence to support it. But, by your own logic and argument their declining sales after removing said feature will prove that removing it was the wrong decision.


The current best-selling camera has it. The best-selling camera didn’t for most of the 16 years Canon has dominated the ILC market. 

I’d try again to explain that Canon has always used feature inclusion/exclusion to differentiate models, and that they’ve certainly done so for the last 16 years, and remained dominant. I tried an erudite explanation, and I tried really dumbing it down for you, but you just don’t get it. It’s painfully obvious that simple logic and abstraction are beyond your mental grasp.


----------



## Mr Majestyk (Aug 21, 2019)

digitalride said:


> USB 2.0 instead of 3.0 probably saved them $5 on a $1000 camera. I agree its ridiculous, and probably done so some future model has something to lure users to upgrade. As for transferring files, I haven't connected a camera to a computer in 15 years since most cameras stopped supporting USB mass storage mode ( where the storage operated just like files on an external drive). A card reader is much more convenient these days.



I once read that the problem Canon had with moving to new connection types, was that Digic is (was?) fabbed by Texas Instruments and that it was their tech that was was the problem. I'm not sure if they still do the digic, but it seems digic is way behind the times in the last 4-5 years. They no longer have the throughput of their competitors, or the cpu grunt. EXPEED and BionZ seem much more advanced nowadays, a complete turnaround.


----------



## Stereodude (Aug 21, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Yes, and you’re still not getting it despite multiple attempts.


Yes, it's amazing that no matter how many times you post the same wrong information it's still wrong isn't it?



> The current best-selling camera has it. The best-selling camera didn’t for most of the 16 years Canon has dominated the ILC market.


And markets aren't static. 16 years ago no one had it. You've made quite the concession from claiming that lack of the features hasn't hurt their sales when nearly all the models have had the feature.



> I’d try again to explain that Canon has always used feature inclusion/exclusion to differentiate models, and that they’ve certainly done so for the last 16 years, and remained dominant. I tried an erudite explanation, and I tried really dumbing it down for you, but you just don’t get it. It’s painfully obvious that simple logic and abstraction are beyond your mental grasp.


Yes, it's rather intriquing how you just can't convince some people of things that aren't true no matter how you explain them.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 21, 2019)

Stereodude said:


> And markets aren't static. 16 years ago no one had it. You've made quite the concession from claiming that lack of the features hasn't hurt their sales when nearly all the models have had the feature.


I guess you have “1080p24” tattooed across your butt, because clearly you want to keep that one feature _on your mind_. Literally. 

Try to broaden your mind, really stretch, and consider camera features. In general. Canon puts some features n some models and not in others. The 1-series bodies have AF point-linked spot metering, other cameras don’t. The 1-series bodies don’t have in-camera HDR, other cameras do (including some P&S). Canon has been making these decisions for years. They’ve remained dominant in the ILC market for years. Logically, they’re good at making those decisions in a way that keeps people buying more Canon ILCs than other manufacturers (who offer many features Canon doesn’t in comparable models). 

You don’t make cameras. You don’t conduct and/or pay for ILC market research. Canon does. But you claim to know more about which features in which cameras will drive majority buying decisions that the company that dominates the ILC market. Sure, that’s logical.


----------



## David - Sydney (Aug 21, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> The leak came from Australia, which is in the southern hemisphere. Maybe it’s April 1 down there.


currently 12/8/19... but would you believe me? Fake news perhaps


----------



## AlexV (Aug 21, 2019)

Photorex said:


> *External Flash Compatibility:EL series Speedlites
> 
> no EX Speedlites compatibility?
> Is there more than the EL100 spedlite currently available?
> ...



*ACCESSORIES**All*Optional Electronic Viewfinder EVF-DC1, EVF-DC2 External Flash: EX and EL series Speedlites Speedlite Transmitter: ST-E3-RT/ ST-E2


----------



## AlexV (Aug 21, 2019)

allkar said:


> Type C - charge
> Micro USB (2.0) - transfer ...
> 
> We have 2019
> ...


Leaving space for an upgrade M5 mk II, just a hope that Canon could release with some better spec !!!!


----------



## AlexV (Aug 21, 2019)

Hope an M5 mk II with USB 3.x, IBIS, 24p no crop, weather seal, full articulated screen ... and good battery life


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 21, 2019)

AlexV said:


> Hope an M5 mk II with USB 3.x, IBIS, 24p no crop, weather seal, full articulated screen ... and good battery life


Its funny, I absolutely don't want full articulating screen, I much refer the various angle and noticed the M6 MkII seems to have a very basic hinge. I also don't care for IBIS.


----------



## Tyroop (Aug 21, 2019)

Presumably EX and not EL series Speedlites. The effects and filters are still a little disappointing. My old Powershot S90 had some really useful features - Color Swap, Stitch Assist and others. I've never found the toy camera effect, miniature effect, etc on EOS M cameras to be very useful. Not a big issue, but it's something that could have been improved. The focus bracketing that was previously rumored doesn't seem to have made it. That's a shame. Nonetheless, it should be a really nice camera even though I am still satisfied with my M6 Mk1.


----------



## AlexV (Aug 21, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> Its funny, I absolutely don't want full articulating screen, I much refer the various angle and noticed the M6 MkII seems to have a very basic hinge. I also don't care for IBIS.


I agree with you that probably the customer type of M6 aren't concerned by these features, and this is why I mentionned M5 mk II, for some photographers their style didn't request these features, but many others like to take old lens non-IS and convert them in IS, often these lens are more sharper than the IS version. Very useful for video also. This is a standard for Olympus, Panasonic, Sony and Nikon, just missing Canon which promise to give us it in near future. For the screen, this is useful for many type of photography (macro in the grass, over the water and hard to reach place, and of course video). M6 is not a popular option for video as the M50 is, and I will not be surprised that M5 mk II will pick up some feature on the new version.


----------



## dcm (Aug 21, 2019)

canonnews said:


> or the USB controller is in DIGIC and that requires a new USB controller on the SoC. that may take more time.



And the controller must process more inputs/outputs (9 vs 4) on the cable at 10 times the rate (5Gbps vs 480Mbps) and provide nearly twice as much power (900mA vs 500mA). While USB 2 is a one way communication (send or receive, not both), USB3 supports both simultaneously. It isn't a trivial change to integrate all of this with the other functions on chip or in the firmware while not affecting other high bandwidth functions.


----------



## degos (Aug 21, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> You feel they are failing to provide what your market wants, we are just saying maybe they know what they are doing and your market isn't worth the cost to them and the last 50 years of data has shown them to be good judges.



You can't really say that without knowing what would have happened in alternative universes, though. For example, in Universe #2281 they introduced the 7D3 in early 2019 and sold more cameras in that quarter than any previous.

All we can say is that 50 years of data shows that Canon can keep selling. But it doesn't show that they achieved all the sales they could have done, with a little more effort.


----------



## hne (Aug 21, 2019)

David - Sydney said:


> currently 12/8/19... but would you believe me? Fake news perhaps



2012? I think you've overslept a few years!


----------



## koketso (Aug 21, 2019)

Promotional video says 120fps, spec sheet says nothing about this


----------



## -pekr- (Aug 21, 2019)

AlexV said:


> Hope an M5 mk II with USB 3.x, IBIS, 24p no crop, weather seal, full articulated screen ... and good battery life



It would really piss me off, if M5 II would have IBIS and USB 3, whereas M6 not. Those are two different body types and I see no reason for such a feature differentiation ....


----------



## Tugela (Aug 21, 2019)

canonnews said:


> or the USB controller is in DIGIC and that requires a new USB controller on the SoC. that may take more time.



Nope. Digic 8 is used in the EOS-R and that has USB 3.1


----------



## Tugela (Aug 21, 2019)

degos said:


> You can't really say that without knowing what would have happened in alternative universes, though. For example, in Universe #2281 they introduced the 7D3 in early 2019 and sold more cameras in that quarter than any previous.
> 
> All we can say is that 50 years of data shows that Canon can keep selling. But it doesn't show that they achieved all the sales they could have done, with a little more effort.



It isn't about maximizing sales, it is about maximizing profit. They can add all sorts of features for relatively little cost, but if those features only appeal to a very small segment of the market then adding them will result in the company likely losing profit. The reason is that the extra revenue from additional sales due to the feature may be less than what it costs to implement them, resulting in a net loss as a result of the feature being added.


----------



## Tugela (Aug 21, 2019)

Stereodude said:


> You have data to support this? You love to brag that Canon has the #1 marketshare and that their marketshare is growing very slowly. Of course this is not causation. It's not even correlation. The majority of the cameras Canon does sell have p24. It's mostly just the newly released ones that don't. Maybe the lack of p24 in their new models is going to meaningfully impact their sales. When they sell less cameras in 2019 vs. 2018 will that be proof that p24 mattered to potential buyers?
> 
> Further, borrowing your game of twisting things out of context as argument support... Canon's best selling camera, the Rebel T7, has 1080p24. So clearly the feature is important to buyers and has driven the Rebel T7 to the top of Canon's sales chart.
> 
> ...



There are costs associated with every feature in the camera, it costs development resources, it will require some specific hardware capability to implement (which adds to manufacturing cost) and it will require a license. The fact that older cameras have 24p is irrelevant, it does not mean that newer models have to have it as well. Old features few people use are prime candidates for the chopping block when it comes time reduce costs for a low margin product. The market segment that buys cameras like this by and large never use 24p. Canon almost certainly knows this and have left it out to save money. Sure, they may lose a few hundred sales as a result, but the cost of implementing the feature is likely more than the profit those sales would generate, hence Canon actually loses money by including it.

By not having 24p in the camera they don't have to spend development resources in implementing it, they can minimize the hardware they need to make the camera thus saving a few cents in manufacturing costs, and they likely have negotiated a reduced license fee for the H.264 codec as a result of leaving the framerate out of the spec. It is not a big sum of money spread out over all of the cameras they may sell, but because it very few people actually want it, they make more money as a result of that small increase in margin in the individual camera times 500,000 (or however many copies they sell). 

All of the little compromises you see in cameras like this may be a few cents here, a few cents there, which may seem trivial to you but it all adds up and can contribute a lot of money to their bottom line when all is said and done.


----------



## Tugela (Aug 21, 2019)

Stereodude said:


> The 90D can't do p24 either. It's the Canon cripple hammer at work. They're protecting their Cinema cameras. They're not going to let their ILC cameras shoot 4K footage that's competitive with their Cinema cameras or shoot p24. Market demands/expectations have basically dictated that Canon can't sell 4K with a crop anymore or just omit 4K so they're offering full frame 4K but crippling it in different ways. Prior models have omitted it, disabled dual pixel AF in 4K, had a substantial 4K crop, had horrible rolling shutter in 4K, or had other ways to keep a clear distinction in 4K footage quality and usability between the ILCs and their Cinema cameras.
> 
> Canon operates in a delusional fantasy land where you will either buy a Cinema camera from them if they don't offer good 4K and/or p24 in their P&S cameras or ILCs or just buy them anyway and just accept the limitations. In reality you will likely buy a camera from someone other than Canon instead if you want competent video.



It has nothing to do with protecting anything. People who would buy a cinema camera would not buy these cameras irrespective of whether 24p was included or not. 

All of the things you mention are actually hardware limitations which result from cost saving measures necessary to make an affordable consumer camera with the technology available to Canon, not "crippling". The hardware in Canon's cinema cameras is a lot more sophisticated than that included in consumer cameras, so of course there are going to be compromises. EOS-C cameras have specialized processors and sensors, both optimized for video, plus a lot of other dedicated hardware intended to facilitate video. Consumer stills cameras are far less capable in that respect. It is not just a case of flipping a switch, the cheaper cameras are literally missing a whole bunch of hardware required to implement those things.


----------



## Otara (Aug 21, 2019)

Im wondering if its something to do with research on what framerate phone users prefer to use for 4k video or the like.

I find the cinema camera protection idea unlikely, Im more inclined to think its about 24p being less vital than some people might think for the intended user base.


----------



## Proscribo (Aug 21, 2019)

Tugela said:


> Nope. Digic 8 is used in the EOS-R and that has USB 3.1


But it could technically use a separate chip for that.

Or maybe all Digic 8s are not the same? Do we actually know a Digic 8 in camera A is the same as in camera B?


----------



## Stereodude (Aug 21, 2019)

Tugela said:


> There are costs associated with every feature in the camera, it costs development resources, it will require some specific hardware capability to implement (which adds to manufacturing cost) and it will require a license. The fact that older cameras have 24p is irrelevant, it does not mean that newer models have to have it as well. Old features few people use are prime candidates for the chopping block when it comes time reduce costs for a low margin product. The market segment that buys cameras like this by and large never use 24p. Canon almost certainly knows this and have left it out to save money. Sure, they may lose a few hundred sales as a result, but the cost of implementing the feature is likely more than the profit those sales would generate, hence Canon actually loses money by including it.


I didn't say it was free. I said it was as close to free as any feature could be. Which is it. How do you know that the market segment that buys camera like the M6 II / 90D don't use p24? If true, why did Canon only come to this conclusion after putting p24 in virtually every ILC they made for 9 years? They're just really slow learners?



> By not having 24p in the camera they don't have to spend development resources in implementing it, they can minimize the hardware they need to make the camera thus saving a few cents in manufacturing costs, and they likely have negotiated a reduced license fee for the H.264 codec as a result of leaving the framerate out of the spec. It is not a big sum of money spread out over all of the cameras they may sell, but because it very few people actually want it, they make more money as a result of that small increase in margin in the individual camera times 500,000 (or however many copies they sell).


Except that's not how H.264 license fees work. Removing p24 doesn't reduce licensing fees.



Tugela said:


> It has nothing to do with protecting anything.


Of course it does. They made the decision because they think it will make them more profit. The only way it makes them more profit is resulting in more sales of higher profit cameras that more than offset the loss of sales of the 6D II / 90D by excluding it. The cost of the feature is insignificant, so excluding it doesn't change the BoM cost of the camera. It doesn't make the 90D / M6 II more profitable in any statistically significant way. So, the only way Canon makes more profit by removing a "free" feature is if they have some sort of analysis that shows including that feature will cost them more profit in reduced sales of a higher profit margin camera than will be offset by additional profit in additional the sales of the 90D & M6 II. That's the very definition of protecting higher end models.



> People who would buy a cinema camera would not buy these cameras irrespective of whether 24p was included or not.


I completely agree on this. Which is why I've repeated mocked Canon for doing so. But they have a multi year history of slow-rolling video features into their ILCs to protect their Cinema cameras. They went from market leaders of video in ILCs with the 5D II and the 7D to market laggers. The only significant thing that changed during the span was the introduction of their Cinema camera line-up. We know it's not technical because the Cinema cameras have the features that are missing from the ILCs.



> All of the things you mention are actually hardware limitations which result from cost saving measures necessary to make an affordable consumer camera with the technology available to Canon, not "crippling". The hardware in Canon's cinema cameras is a lot more sophisticated than that included in consumer cameras, so of course there are going to be compromises. EOS-C cameras have specialized processors and sensors, both optimized for video, plus a lot of other dedicated hardware intended to facilitate video. Consumer stills cameras are far less capable in that respect. It is not just a case of flipping a switch, the cheaper cameras are literally missing a whole bunch of hardware required to implement those things.


So how come their competitors can offer those features in similarly priced cameras? Are you saying that the company with the largest marketshare selling the most cameras and thereby having the largest base to spread development costs across can't afford to include them? How can their competitors who have smaller marketshare and are at a distinct disadvantage do so then?


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 21, 2019)

degos said:


> You can't really say that without knowing what would have happened in alternative universes, though. For example, in Universe #2281 they introduced the 7D3 in early 2019 and sold more cameras in that quarter than any previous.
> 
> All we can say is that 50 years of data shows that Canon can keep selling. But it doesn't show that they achieved all the sales they could have done, with a little more effort.


It also shows that for the last 15+ years they did a better job than any other camera company, so it does show that the mistakes they inevitably made were less severe than anybody else's.


----------



## canonnews (Aug 21, 2019)

Tugela said:


> Nope. Digic 8 is used in the EOS-R and that has USB 3.1


good call.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 21, 2019)

Stereodude said:


> Canon's best selling camera, the Rebel T7, has 1080p24. So clearly the feature is important to buyers and has driven the Rebel T7 to the top of Canon's sales chart.


It is a Rumour, not a release.

This so-called spec sheet is full of omissions and errors.

They have the image size wrong in the 1 to 1 aspect ratio
They don’t list the 120 video
They don’t mention flicker detection
And that’s just a few.....

I don’t understand how you (and others) can get so worked up about this? Right now, the odds are heavy on that it is in the camera, but they missed it in the partial spec sheet. 1080p120 is much more in consumer demand and despite it being in the video, they missed it in the partial spec sheet. Be patient and wait for the real release info.

It is a rumour that is rife with errors and omissions!


----------



## melgross (Aug 21, 2019)

Stereodude said:


> You have data to support this? You love to brag that Canon has the #1 marketshare and that their marketshare is growing very slowly. Of course this is not causation. It's not even correlation. The majority of the cameras Canon does sell have p24. It's mostly just the newly released ones that don't. Maybe the lack of p24 in their new models is going to meaningfully impact their sales. When they sell less cameras in 2019 vs. 2018 will that be proof that p24 mattered to potential buyers?
> 
> Further, borrowing your game of twisting things out of context as argument support... Canon's best selling camera, the Rebel T7, has 1080p24. So clearly the feature is important to buyers and has driven the Rebel T7 to the top of Canon's sales chart.
> 
> ...


You’re making some pretty big assumptions yourself. You have no idea if anyone who buys a T7 cares in the least about 24fps. They care about a lightweight, small, inexpensive camera with pretty good IQ. That’s why they buy it. 24fps? I doubt it very much. People buying a small, inexpensive camera are most likely shooting for computer display at 30 to 60fps. Even TVs will display at that. No need for 24 for most people.


----------



## Etienne (Aug 21, 2019)

dcm said:


> And the controller must process more inputs/outputs (9 vs 4) on the cable at 10 times the rate (5Gbps vs 480Mbps) and provide nearly twice as much power (900mA vs 500mA). While USB 2 is a one way communication (send or receive, not both), USB3 supports both simultaneously. It isn't a trivial change to integrate all of this with the other functions on chip or in the firmware while not affecting other high bandwidth functions.


If you want USB-C you'll have to buy a Sony, because, you know, "it isn't trivial" to add USB-C. Apparently Canon can't handle that


----------



## AlexV (Aug 21, 2019)

-pekr- said:


> It would really piss me off, if M5 II would have IBIS and USB 3, whereas M6 not. Those are two different body types and I see no reason for such a feature differentiation ....


Agree that some earlier buyer of M6 could have some deception, but if only form factor was the only differentiation, we could expect the press release annoucement at the same time, which could not be the case. Since Canon adopt mk II version, we could expect that some caracteristic not share between line and M5 was the top line until recently. AS the M50 was a little bit lower in the line but some new feature (DIGIC 8, screen variangle, ...) but don't have the control of the M5, this should not be a great surprise to see these feature and other on the new M5 mk II. Also since Canon seem operate a cost separation on these line, recent rumors on this website mentionned a M70 (M50 mk II) and a lower grade new coming M700 (M500) could support the fact the M5 mk II could have some interesting feature not available for the M6. If these features aren't present on the M5 mk II, I expect this should be the case for the mk II, because Canon has to close the gap with the competition in the mirorless area, a quick move sending a strong message over a classic marketing strategy iteration.


----------



## serhatakbal (Aug 21, 2019)

Yönetici Lütfen, 1dxmk2'de herhangi bir haber olup olmadığını bize bildirin. teşekkür ederim <3


----------



## allanP (Aug 21, 2019)

canonnews said:


> or the USB controller is in DIGIC and that requires a new USB controller on the SoC. that may take more time.


More time?
Even the old 7D2 anno 2014 offered USB 3.0


----------



## Danglin52 (Aug 21, 2019)

As others have pointed out, this "spec sheet" is full of errors and there is a lot of angst over details that may change by next week. I wouldn't assume anything until you see an official announcement WITH spec sheet from Canon. I will not be purchasing the M6 II because I do not use a rear screen (bad eyesight), but if the M5 II has even this spec sheet I will be placing an order. I think if most of this early spec sheet is true, I will be a killer camera for travel and place my pre-order once the M5 II is announced. I would like in body IBIS, but most of the lenses I shoot already have IS. I have never bought a camera for the video, so I don't really care about 24p as long as I can get good output to share. My advice is if you can't handle the stress of the unknown, enjoy shooting what you have and stay off of rumor sites - or go to another brand. You never know, the USB & frame rate may not be an issue when the final spec sheet is published.


----------



## Yakodzun (Aug 21, 2019)

What about Dynamic Range? Is it the same egg from another angle?


----------



## Tugela (Aug 22, 2019)

Don Haines said:


> It is a Rumour, not a release.
> 
> This so-called spec sheet is full of omissions and errors.
> 
> ...



The overall specs with respect to video appear similar to the G5XM2 and G7XM3, and those have very basic options when it comes to video frame rates. There is no 24p in those cameras, just 30 fps in 4K and 30/60 fps in 1080p. That reduced video option set appears to be the new consumer grade video for Canon.

Right now there is no reason to think that 24p will be in these latest cameras.


----------



## Act444 (Aug 22, 2019)

Interesting, although as a legacy M6 owner, I see nothing to warrant an upgrade. I certainly don't need more MP (24 is already stretching it on a crop-sensor).


----------



## koenkooi (Aug 22, 2019)

Act444 said:


> Interesting, although as a legacy M6 owner, I see nothing to warrant an upgrade. I certainly don't need more MP (24 is already stretching it on a crop-sensor).



This summer I've attempted to do some more action macro shots, like solitary bees emerging from their burrow and taking off. The RP is comfortable to hold for a long time, but lacks the FPS, the M50 has more FPS and crop-factor advantage. The M6II with the cropped 30FPS RAW burst would likely increase my odds of capturing the right moment.

The M6II might finally be a worthy upgrade of my original M


----------



## scottsworld (Aug 22, 2019)

it was looking fantastic, right up until the end - when the screen flipped UP (only)! 
#bloodycanon I guess they need to sell another model number, later, with a reticulating screen?  

So I dunno, do I wait for the M50 mk II?


----------



## koenkooi (Aug 22, 2019)

scottsworld said:


> it was looking fantastic, right up until the end - when the screen flipped UP (only)!
> #bloodycanon I guess they need to sell another model number, later, with a reticulating screen?
> 
> So I dunno, do I wait for the M50 mk II?



I really like the flip-out screen for macro, so the tilt-only screen in the video is the only let-down for me. And no IBIS, but I hadn't really expected that yet, I think that will debut in high MP R variant first.


----------



## ashmadux (Aug 22, 2019)

-pekr- said:


> Neuro - once again you are answering the question noone asked, whereas the question is rather simple - why the there is 24p missing again (if true)? No one needing the feature cares, if it influences Canon's sales or not. Ppl might be well invested into the Canon system already. Playing on their nerves does not win them loyalty. If theirs and your message is - who cares about such users, it's a completly different story.



This, this, this.

No one's buying a camera then magically goes "ooh ohh, gotta get that cinema cam nexT becasue no 24p" 

Canon The Crippler just be cripplin'


----------



## ashmadux (Aug 22, 2019)

allkar said:


> Type C - charge
> Micro USB (2.0) - transfer ...
> 
> We have 2019
> ...




All hail the crippler


----------



## ashmadux (Aug 22, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> Thats not the point, the point is people constantly say Canon is ******* yet their continued domination of the market proves exactly the opposite. For me it doesn't have anything to do with agreeing with what Canon do, what they offer, or anything else, it is simply presenting a fact that contradicts uninformed posters opinion.
> 
> Yes you might think they have lost their way, but, yet again, sales numbers illustrate you are an outlier, for people deciding to buy a camera Canon are the most popular choice, you can reason that any way you want, the people that point that out are not saying Canon can do no wrong, they are just saying your opinion is not the same as the largest percentage of actual purchasers.



You guys are an interesting bunch.

*"..but they are selling.."*

Well i just bought an m50 and now will likely have to get rid of it. because the no ibis +cheap plastic (too light) + hard shutter shock body truly impacts my shots.

So tell us, wtf does it matter if it hasn't impacted their sales? The rest of the lil body is aces, and ya market share  aint goint to get this thing working better. The scenarios i need to use this for, right now it's not working. But hey, I can look at market share data and evetything will be alright....riiiiiiiiight.

ATEOTD, customers need hardware that correlates with their actual shooting. How do you actually say no 24p 4k or other great features 'has no impact on sales'. Sounds utterly ridiculous.

Silly, silly argument. Almost even stupid.


----------



## SecureGSM (Aug 22, 2019)

ashmadux said:


> You guys are an interesting bunch.
> 
> *"..but they are selling.."*
> 
> ...


hopefully all goes to your plan: you sell M50 and from there onwards dweil on Sonyrumors forum instead surrounded by a bunch of like minded digital identities.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 22, 2019)

ashmadux said:


> You guys are an interesting bunch.
> 
> *"..but they are selling.."*
> 
> ...


Not at all, separation, there are two points being made and an illogical conclusion is drawn from one. People then point out the absurdity of drawing that false conclusion.

Point one, Canon don't make a camera 'I' am happy with.
Point two, Canon still sell more cameras than any other camera company.
Conclusion, Canon are *******.

Those two points are not connected and haven no bearing on each other yet people that say point one consistently say_ "Canon are ******* because they don't have IBIS/eye focus/GPS/WiFi/24p etc etc"_, point two tends to contradict that conclusion.

That does not mean people who point out the absurdity of the conclusion are happy with Canon's offerings, they are just pointing out the fallaciousness of drawing the conclusion when verified independent data contradicts that conclusion. 

If Canon don't make a camera that suits your needs buy a different brand, nobody cares, just don't say Canon are ******* because the M50 doesn't have IBIS because the sales numbers clearly illustrate that is not the case.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 22, 2019)

-pekr- said:


> Neuro - once again you are answering the question noone asked, whereas the question is rather simple - why the there is 24p missing again (if true)? Noone needing the feature cares, if it influences Canon's sales or not. Ppl might be well invested into the Canon system already. Playing on their nerves does not win them loyalty. If theirs and your message is - who cares about such users, it's a completly different story.


If omitting p24 is true, it was a declarative decision Canon made. Every feature comes at a cost. Every cost, no matter how small, has an incremental impact on profit. They don’t really care about their customers, no corporation does. They care about profits (but granted, if their business requires them to appear to care for customers, they will appear to do so...but make no mistake, profit is the underlying motive).

Canon cares about profit, and sales to drive that profit. If they removed the feature, it’s because they determined that doing so will benefit their bottom line. It’s not personal, it’s business. Some people obviously take it very personally, here.


----------



## melgross (Aug 22, 2019)

ashmadux said:


> You guys are an interesting bunch.
> 
> *"..but they are selling.."*
> 
> ...


So you bought the wrong camera for yourself. So e things about it you should have known before buying. That’s totally on you though. Maybe a different model would have been better. At be not. That’s the way it goes. But whether you like it or not, Canon’s M line is growing at a good pace, and is the number one mirrorless line out there in several big jurisdictions, and number two most everywhere else.

so, like it or not, Canon is doing something right with it. That doesn’t mean they’re going to satisfy everyone. That would be pretty stupid to think. You do t think that they could, do you?


----------



## ashmadux (Aug 22, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> Not at all, separation, there are two points being made and an illogical conclusion is drawn from one. People then point out the absurdity of drawing that false conclusion.
> 
> Point one, Canon don't make a camera 'I' am happy with.
> Point two, Canon still sell more cameras than any other camera company.
> ...



Personally I dont care much if canon is *******...i care about hardware that is not intentionally borked (no 24p, lol thats just dumb) and that it simply does what I need it to do. The cameras will last years....if/when canon wraps up its camera business, there will be something else to move on to.

My old bodies will be able to shoot for years and years to come further.


----------



## ashmadux (Aug 22, 2019)

melgross said:


> So you bought the wrong camera for yourself. So e things about it you should have known before buying. That’s totally on you though. Maybe a different model would have been better. At be not. That’s the way it goes. But whether you like it or not, Canon’s M line is growing at a good pace, and is the number one mirrorless line out there in several big jurisdictions, and number two most everywhere else.
> 
> so, like it or not, Canon is doing something right with it. That doesn’t mean they’re going to satisfy everyone. That would be pretty stupid to think. You do t think that they could, do you?



I don't think you read my post proper. I've been using an M for years.

*So you bought the wrong camera for yourself. So e things about it you should have known before buying. That’s totally on you though.*

I'm calling BS on this one. Rental shops don't carry these, so how are you going to test it proper? It had all the specs i wanted, but then and only having it in hand, you get to see what the issues are.

All i need is images in focus...not too much to ask from a camera....T hat's the killer for me. Otherwise the body is nice, albeit super cheapo plastic (too light!).

I'm going to send in my M50 to see if theres any issues going on. But if this OOF ratio keeps up, gotta dump it.

PS- no such problems on my M1. It's been a champ. Luv it.


----------



## stevelee (Aug 22, 2019)

melgross said:


> So you bought the wrong camera for yourself. So e things about it you should have known before buying. That’s totally on you though. Maybe a different model would have been better. At be not. That’s the way it goes. But whether you like it or not, Canon’s M line is growing at a good pace, and is the number one mirrorless line out there in several big jurisdictions, and number two most everywhere else.
> 
> so, like it or not, Canon is doing something right with it. That doesn’t mean they’re going to satisfy everyone. That would be pretty stupid to think. You do t think that they could, do you?


I started to reply to his message, but decided that it was completely bogus, so I didn’t bother. We were supposed to believe that the camera when he bought it had IBIS and was larger and heavier, but not it lost that feature and transformed into plastic? Or the salesman convinced him it had IBIS and was made of a heavy metal, and he was later disillusioned? Or what?

Occam might suggest that none of that happened, and he just made up a story. Not my problem either way.


----------



## melgross (Aug 22, 2019)

ashmadux said:


> I don't think you read my post proper. I've been using an M for years.
> 
> *So you bought the wrong camera for yourself. So e things about it you should have known before buying. That’s totally on you though.*
> 
> ...


The basic specs you talked about were available to you before you bought the camera. No excuse there. Apparently these cameras focus pretty well.


----------



## melgross (Aug 22, 2019)

stevelee said:


> I started to reply to his message, but decided that it was completely bogus, so I didn’t bother. We were supposed to believe that the camera when he bought it had IBIS and was larger and heavier, but not it lost that feature and transformed into plastic? Or the salesman convinced him it had IBIS and was made of a heavy metal, and he was later disillusioned? Or what?
> 
> Occam might suggest that none of that happened, and he just made up a story. Not my problem either way.


Possible. But just as likely he just isn’t happy because he didn’t know what he was getting, then decided it wasn’t his fault. I see that happen all the time.

I read consumer reviews of products where the reviewer knocks several stars off because it didn’t do something that the description of the device said it didn’t do. You can’t account for people like that.


----------



## ashmadux (Aug 22, 2019)

melgross said:


> The basic specs you talked about were available to you before you bought the camera. No excuse there. Apparently these cameras focus pretty well.



Ah, i get it.

You just told me you have no idea what you're even discussing...just some made up shoulda coulda woulda. No point in this exchange. I own the bodies, I have the experience. You...

*You Got Nothing*  

_~P. Griffin, Guy of The Family_


----------



## stevelee (Aug 22, 2019)

ashmadux said:


> I own the bodies, I have the experience.


That must have been a shocking experience, for the camera to have IBIS when you bought it and then no more. Did it go away all of a sudden or just fade away?


----------



## ashmadux (Aug 22, 2019)

stevelee said:


> I started to reply to his message, but decided that it was completely bogus, so I didn’t bother. We were supposed to believe that the camera when he bought it had IBIS and was larger and heavier, but not it lost that feature and transformed into plastic? Or the salesman convinced him it had IBIS and was made of a heavy metal, and he was later disillusioned? Or what?
> 
> Occam might suggest that none of that happened, and he just made up a story. Not my problem either way.



You + the other person are in here discussing things you don't know anything about. You saw some articles, watched a youtube video... OH...now you're in here telling someone with actual experience with the potential gotchas of these newer bodies that they are just making it up. So foolish. You're own commentary says it all.

Put your money where your forum mouth is and go use the cameras...then come back in here and tell us/me what the real deal is. I'm looking forward to reading your grand insight, seeing your samples, shooting info (shutter speed, isos, variety of subject matter).

Otherwise, your useless chatter is clogging up the discussion. 

PS- not being personal at all, in case y'all wanna get all butthurt.


----------



## ashmadux (Aug 22, 2019)

stevelee said:


> That must have been a shocking experience, for the camera to have IBIS when you bought it and then no more. Did it go away all of a sudden or just fade away?



I thought a canon body had IBIS? That's what i wrote?


Shame on you. Making a fool of yourself.


----------



## stevelee (Aug 23, 2019)

ashmadux said:


> I thought a canon body had IBIS? That's what i wrote?
> 
> 
> Shame on you. Making a fool of yourself.


Making a fool of *my*self? I didn't buy a camera, but now have to get ride of it because it doesn't have IBIS. Either you knew it didn't have it and bought it anyway, or you thought it did, or somehow it had IBIS when you bought it, but that quit working.


----------



## Mark D5 TEAM II (Aug 23, 2019)

> Well i just bought an m50 and now will likely have to get rid of it. because the no ibis +cheap plastic (too light) + hard shutter shock body truly impacts my shots.



What does this mean? Is this rhetorical?


----------



## ashmadux (Aug 23, 2019)

Mark D5 TEAM II said:


> What does this mean? Is this rhetorical?




Let me make it as plain as possible. It's all related to why Ibis is important for these small lightweight cameras. I've used an M1 professionally for 5 years, in many situations. So mirrorless is not new to me.

Anyways, here's my points in a simple fleshed out list.

1- I have several month old M50. The body itself is nice and functions well. Good shape, and controls.

2- THAT BEING SAID, the plastic feels cheap and it feels very fragile.

3- I'm encountering trivial shooting situations where Im getting oof images of the subject. A model in front of the camera, not moving for example. This is the main problem.

4- It's well documented that with higher density sensors, you will likely have to double your shutter speed (say, compared to 18/20mp sensors of old) to get sharp photos as he sensors are more sensitive to slight movements.

5- No one talks about the shutter shock with these cameras, so I bring it up so that it can go on fellow camera buyers radar. Combined with the above characteristics, AND no Ibis, it's basically a recipe for many blurry images. That is exactly what I'm experiencing..right now.

6 - The added weight of adapting heavier EF lenses hasn't helped, which I find strange. The EF 35IS is usually attached to it, however the blurry images persist.

7 - Many mirror less cameras use electronic first curtain shutters that can eliminate the affects of hardware shutter shock. However, this body doesn't have that function in manual.modes. Thanks Canon

6- So that's the situation I'm in now. I love the body. But the combination of being very lightweight and all of the above make it very challenging to consistently get well focused images. And that's a HUGE problem, obviously. I do want to keep it but if I cant find a way to resolve this critical issue, it will have to go.


That's all I've been trying to say here. I'm just sharing my experience, take it as you will.


----------



## melgross (Aug 23, 2019)

ashmadux said:


> Ah, i get it.
> 
> You just told me you have no idea what you're even discussing...just some made up shoulda coulda woulda. No point in this exchange. I own the bodies, I have the experience. You...
> 
> ...


You complained about plastic and lack of IBIS. Perhaps you don’t remember your complaints?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 23, 2019)

Today:


ashmadux said:


> But the combination of being very lightweight and all of the above make it very challenging to consistently get well focused images. And that's a HUGE problem, obviously. I do want to keep it but if I cant find a way to resolve this critical issue, it will have to go.



3.5 years ago:


ashmadux said:


> Great. This M3 is going back to the shop tomorrow.
> 
> Super disappointing. Takes extra effort to get sharp photos, i haven't seen this nonsense since the 7D AF debacle i went through. Overwhelming majority of images are not sharp, and the heavy shutter slap is the main suspect.



IIRC, your 70D also failed to give you sharp images, and there were probably other ‘debacles’ in the meantime. Sounds like you are either an eternal optimist who keeps buying Canon (think Charlie Brown as Lucy keeps pulling the football away), a slow learner, or something about your technique is causing a problem for you.


----------



## raptor3x (Aug 23, 2019)

ashmadux said:


> Well i just bought an m50 and now will likely have to get rid of it. because the no ibis +cheap plastic (too light) + hard shutter shock body truly impacts my shots.



FWIW IBIS doesn't really help at all with shutter shock. The high end Olympus bodies have had the best IBIS in the industry for quite some time and are made of a cast magnesium shell, yet they still had major issues with shutter shock until they switched to a new shutter mechanism.


----------



## ashmadux (Aug 23, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Today:
> 
> 
> 3.5 years ago:
> ...



Thanks for going through my forum history 

Never had a 70d..I think you meant 7d. It was utterly great until the focus went bad, Canon couldn't fix it after 4 tries. Yes, 4.

I got rid of the M3. It was junk. POS.

I've also had focus fails on 3 of this bodies, all eventually fixed by Canon. CPS knows me well.

I have 5 other Canon bodies that work fine with no issues. I'm invested in Canon. That's why Im on these forums, maybe you're slow to notice or understand that . Touche.


----------



## ashmadux (Aug 23, 2019)

raptor3x said:


> FWIW IBIS doesn't really help at all with shutter shock. The high end Olympus bodies have had the best IBIS in the industry for quite some time and are made of a cast magnesium shell, yet they still had major issues with shutter shock until they switched to a new shutter mechanism.




Agreed, and hey, I'd take anything that helps. The shutter shock is so noticable, it's a wonder why not a single review mentions it. Maybe because they are too busy counting the sponsorship dollars. ()

My M1 turned much more reliable when I added a metal grip from fotodiox. The body was already metal(magnesium?). Unfortunately, only one person/entity has tried to make a grip for the M50....for a best selling camera, there's nothing out there. I'm going to try a smallcage instead and see if it's feasible. Trying my best to make it reliable...I'm shooting tomorrow and I can't bring it with me. All portraits


----------



## Tugela (Aug 23, 2019)

Proscribo said:


> But it could technically use a separate chip for that.
> 
> Or maybe all Digic 8s are not the same? Do we actually know a Digic 8 in camera A is the same as in camera B?



All Digic 8s are the same. That said, high end Canons usually have an additional older Digic processor that is not mentioned in the spec sheets to handle some specialized functions, especially focussing/exposure, but those are not used for data communication. Their absence on lower end cameras may have an impact in that the main processor has to handle that additional workload, and that may affect the data communication speed it can reasonable handle at the same time.


----------



## Tugela (Aug 23, 2019)

ashmadux said:


> Agreed, and hey, I'd take anything that helps. The shutter shock is so noticable, it's a wonder why not a single review mentions it. Maybe because they are too busy counting the sponsorship dollars. ()
> 
> My M1 turned much more reliable when I added a metal grip from fotodiox. The body was already metal(magnesium?). Unfortunately, only one person/entity has tried to make a grip for the M50....for a best selling camera, there's nothing out there. I'm going to try a smallcage instead and see if it's feasible. Trying my best to make it reliable...I'm shooting tomorrow and I can't bring it with me. All portraits



Are you sure that it is shutter shock and not just the lens stabilization making a micro adjustment while you are taking a picture?

Shutter shock would be evident in every picture you took, not just some.


----------



## koenkooi (Aug 24, 2019)

Tugela said:


> All Digic 8s are the same. That said, high end Canons usually have an additional older Digic processor that is not mentioned in the spec sheets to handle some specialized functions, especially focussing/exposure, but those are not used for data communication. Their absence on lower end cameras may have an impact in that the main processor has to handle that additional workload, and that may affect the data communication speed it can reasonable handle at the same time.



The Canon marketing materials mention things like "Dual Digic 4" and "Digic 5+" to show a particular camera has something more or better than the other ones. Their wording implies the '+' models are running faster than the regular models. 
But yes, so far no mention of a camera with Digic 8+, so all Digic 8s out there should be the same.


----------



## Rocky (Aug 24, 2019)

ashmadux said:


> Let me make it as plain as possible. It's all related to why Ibis is important for these small lightweight cameras. I've used an M1 professionally for 5 years, in many situations. So mirrorless is not new to me.
> 
> Anyways, here's my points in a simple fleshed out list.
> 
> ...


----------



## Rocky (Aug 24, 2019)

Ashmadux, Please post some pictures with shooting data to show the shutter shock of the M50. I would like to see them. I have been using my M50 for almost a year. I have never notice the problem. I am a pixel peeper.


----------



## Sharlin (Aug 24, 2019)

Tugela said:


> All Digic 8s are the same.



We don't know that. Indeed, there's no reason to believe they're more similar to each other than, say, different variants of a given Intel microarchitecture generation. (Also note that DIGICs are not simple general-purpose processors but ASICs with dedicated signal processing hardware for doing most of the "heavy lifting". Which, incidentally, is not unlike modern computer processors with integrated memory controller and GPU.)

It is entirely plausible that different DIGIC 8 instances, although possibly sharing the same basic microarchitecture, may have different number of processing units enabled, or run at different clock speeds depending on the thermal envelope of the body. Also, given the general trends toward multicore architectures and highly-integrated systems-on-a-chip, I wouldn't be surprised if there wasn't anymore a technical (as opposed to marketing) need for "dual DIGICs" in Canon bodies.


----------



## stevelee (Aug 24, 2019)

Just creating a JPEG from Bayer array Raw data takes a huge amount of processing for 30 million pixels, and then all the adjustments and lens corrections. Even if you are shoot Raw, the camera still makes a JPEG so you can preview it. I'm amazed that the cameras work as fast and as well as they do.


----------



## koenkooi (Aug 24, 2019)

stevelee said:


> Just creating a JPEG from Bayer array Raw data takes a huge amount of processing for 30 million pixels, and then all the adjustments and lens corrections. Even if you are shoot Raw, the camera still makes a JPEG so you can preview it. I'm amazed that the cameras work as fast and as well as they do.



And for modern Canon sensors it's twice that due to the Dual Pixel architecture!


----------



## Kit. (Aug 24, 2019)

ashmadux said:


> 3- I'm encountering trivial shooting situations where Im getting oof images of the subject. A model in front of the camera, not moving for example. This is the main problem.
> 
> 4- It's well documented that with higher density sensors, you will likely have to double your shutter speed (say, compared to 18/20mp sensors of old) to get sharp photos as he sensors are more sensitive to slight movements.
> 
> 5- No one talks about the shutter shock with these cameras, so I bring it up so that it can go on fellow camera buyers radar. Combined with the above characteristics, AND no Ibis, it's basically a recipe for many blurry images. That is exactly what I'm experiencing..right now.


I don't see what shutter shock or lack of IBIS have to do with _out-of-focus_ images. Care to explain?

Or do you mean that you miss the focus because you need to keep the aperture open because you need to use faster shutter speed?


----------



## David - Sydney (Aug 26, 2019)

hne said:


> 2012? I think you've overslept a few years!


Can I suggest that you have a insular perspective on the world? 12/8/19 is a valid date format for 12-August-2019. Perhaps you quote front element filter sizes in inches?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 26, 2019)

David - Sydney said:


> Can I suggest that you have a insular perspective on the world? 12/8/19 is a valid date format for 12-August-2019. Perhaps you quote front element filter sizes in inches?


Well, I don’t think you overslept a few years. But apparently you overslept by 9 days, since you posted that reply on the morning of Wed 21Aug2019, your time.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 26, 2019)

David - Sydney said:


> Can I suggest that you have a insular perspective on the world? 12/8/19 is a valid date format for 12-August-2019. Perhaps you quote front element filter sizes in inches?



Anything is valid. I could call today the 76th of Octember. International standard, however, is YYYYMMDD.


----------



## SecureGSM (Aug 26, 2019)

3kramd5 said:


> Anything is valid. I could call today the 76th of Octember. International standard, however, is YYYYMMDD.


DD/MM/YYYYY is the date standard used in Australia. Which is a bit backwards to what folks are used to in North Americas. Hence I usually quote month by name as in August to avoid any possible confusion.


----------



## Danzig (Aug 26, 2019)

Stereodude said:


> You have data to support this? You love to brag that Canon has the #1 marketshare and that their marketshare is growing very slowly. Of course this is not causation. It's not even correlation. The majority of the cameras Canon does sell have p24. It's mostly just the newly released ones that don't. Maybe the lack of p24 in their new models is going to meaningfully impact their sales. When they sell less cameras in 2019 vs. 2018 will that be proof that p24 mattered to potential buyers?
> 
> Further, borrowing your game of twisting things out of context as argument support... Canon's best selling camera, the Rebel T7, has 1080p24. So clearly the feature is important to buyers and has driven the Rebel T7 to the top of Canon's sales chart.
> 
> ...


Neuro! You got buttslammed lol


----------



## Rocky (Aug 26, 2019)

ashmadux said:


> Agreed, and hey, I'd take anything that helps. The shutter shock is so noticable, it's a wonder why not a single review mentions it. Maybe because they are too busy counting the sponsorship dollars. ()
> 
> My M1 turned much more reliable when I added a metal grip from fotodiox. The body was already metal(magnesium?). Unfortunately, only one person/entity has tried to make a grip for the M50....for a best selling camera, there's nothing out there. I'm going to try a smallcage instead and see if it's feasible. Trying my best to make it reliable...I'm shooting tomorrow and I can't bring it with me. All portraits


Is it possible that may have something to do with how you hold the camera and how you r index finger pushing the shutter release?


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 26, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> DD/MM/YYYYY is the date standard used in Australia. Which is a bit backwards to what folks are used to in North Americas. Hence I usually quote month by name as in August to avoid any possible confusion.



Most people here (USA) write it that was too. I’ve seen federal documents written multiple ways despite us being an ISO member.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 26, 2019)

3kramd5 said:


> > DD/MM/YYYYY is the date standard used in Australia.
> 
> 
> Most people here (USA) write it that was too. I’ve seen federal documents written multiple ways despite us being an ISO member.


 USA standard format is MM/DD/YYYY. Previous companies I’ve worked at have adopted an unambiguous format – 26Aug2019 – for recordkeeping, e.g., lab notebooks. One significant problem with that, as well as with both the US and international formats, is that they don’t sort chronologically (e.g. file names). YYYYMMDD is useful for that reason.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 26, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> USA standard format is MM/DD/YYYY. Previous companies I’ve worked at have adopted an unambiguous format – 26Aug2019 – for recordkeeping, e.g., lab notebooks. One significant problem with that, as well as with both the US and international formats, is that they don’t sort chronologically (e.g. file names). YYYYMMDD is useful for that reason.



I’ve never seen a standard for the country enumerated (nor have I looked for one). In my professional life I use, among others, ASME and ISO standards. Y14.100 and 8601* both require YYYYMMDD. I also adopted that format many years ago for the reason you cite (sorting).

*ISO allows various other formats, such as YYYYDDD, YYWwwD, but the complete representation is as the aforementioned.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 26, 2019)

3kramd5 said:


> I’ve never seen a standard for the country enumerated (nor have I looked for one). In my professional life I use, among others, ASME and ISO standards. Y14.100 and 8601* both require YYYYMMDD. I also adopted that format many years ago for the reason you cite (sorting).
> 
> *ISO allows various other formats, such as YYYYDDD, YYWwwD, but the complete representation is as the aforementioned.


The Chicago Manual of Style is as close as you'll probably come to a 'US standard'. Note that I was using 'standard' in the sense of a convention, not as in an ISO standard. 

But in the original case, I suspect the Australian poster's error in stating the current date was part of the confusion.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 26, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> The Chicago Manual of Style is as close as you'll probably come to a 'US standard'.



Pff, they can’t even make pizza right.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 26, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> USA standard format is MM/DD/YYYY. Previous companies I’ve worked at have adopted an unambiguous format – 26Aug2019 – for recordkeeping, e.g., lab notebooks. One significant problem with that, as well as with both the US and international formats, is that they don’t sort chronologically (e.g. file names). YYYYMMDD is useful for that reason.


The old I-95 USA immigration form for non USA citizens used to have the 'USA' standard MM/DD/YYYY on the front part which was for immigration, on the back section that was for customs it was DD/MM/YYYY!

I utterly hate the confusion that has arisen around the two digit, two digit, year and I never write it like that. On a form I will always put the month with letters, if it is first or second, so there can never be any confusion over the day/month or month/day.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 26, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> The old I-95 USA immigration form for non USA citizens used to have the 'USA' standard MM/DD/YYYY on the front part which was for immigration, on the back section that was for customs it was DD/MM/YYYY!
> 
> I utterly hate the confusion that has arisen around the two digit, two digit, year and I never write it like that. On a form I will always put the month with letters, if it is first or second, so there can never be any confusion over the day/month or month/day.


Agreed!

2019/08/09..... Is it September 8 or August 9?
09/2018/08... same problem plus does not sort well
08/18/09.... now you are trying to make it confusing!

2019/Sep/08.... unambiguous


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 26, 2019)

Don Haines said:


> Agreed!
> 
> 2019/08/09..... Is it September 8 or August 9?
> 09/2018/08... same problem plus does not sort well
> ...


Today is the two-hundred and thirty-eighth day of the two-thousand and nineteenth year of the current era. Also unambiguous, but not nearly as helpful.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 26, 2019)

Don Haines said:


> Agreed!
> 
> 2019/08/09..... Is it September 8 or August 9?
> 09/2018/08... same problem plus does not sort well
> ...



Also, like Neuro pointed out, any unambiguous way of writing it means it can't be sorted numerically which means I end up putting a letter for a week on the front of a date formatted file into a year folder; and, I hate it when on line forms or spreadsheet and word processing forms 'help' you when you type in something it thinks might be close to a date and it changed the format because that isn't how the preference is set for th date format for that particular document.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 26, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Today is the two-hundred and thirty-eighth day of the two-thousand and nineteenth year of the current era. Also unambiguous, but not nearly as helpful.


Well surely that's only if we are using the Gregorian calendar?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 26, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> Well surely that's only if we are using the Gregorian calendar?


Obviously. Would you prefer 13.0.6.13.19, which is today’s date in the Mayan long count?


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 26, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Obviously. Would you prefer 13.0.6.13.19, which is today’s date in the Mayan long count?


No I'm more into Chinese now, today being Jul 26 [sic], Ji Hai Year, Year of Pig, I find the Mayan long count so 3,000B.C.


----------



## Kit. (Aug 26, 2019)

Don Haines said:


> 2019/Sep/08.... unambiguous


20190908T00Z is unambiguous and lexicographically sortable (as long as the time zone stays Z).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 26, 2019)

Kit. said:


> 20190908T00Z is unambiguous and lexicographically sortable (as long as the time zone stays Z).


Sorry, no. 2019 09 08 — is that September 8th or 9th August? Formats where both the month and day are represented numerically are only unambiguous if the day is the 13th or higher (or on those days where the month and day are the same number, 01/01, 06/06, etc.), and that assumes the year is represented by all four digits (i.e. 08/09/10 could be 09Aug2010 or 08Sep2010 or 09Oct2008 etc.).


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 26, 2019)

I do actually use UTC/Z and often find it interesting the reason some call it one and others the other seeing as how they are exactly the same thing. 

Dates we can't get right yet are pretty straightforwards, time, which is much more complicated, ends up with several understandable names for the same thing!


----------



## Kit. (Aug 26, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Sorry, no. 2019 09 08 — is that September 8th or 9th August?


It is not "2019 09 08".
It is "20190908T00Z".
The very beginning of September 8th in the UTC+0 timezone.
And still September 7th in the timezones with negative UTC offsets.



neuroanatomist said:


> Formats where both the month and day are represented numerically are only unambiguous if


...they are standardized in a clearly recognizable format. Like ISO 8601 above.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 26, 2019)

Kit. said:


> It is not "2019 09 08".
> It is "20190908T00Z".
> The very beginning of September 8th in the UTC+0 timezone.
> And still September 7th in the timezones with negative UTC offsets.
> ...


A very large proportion of the people in the world use calendar dates. A very tiny proportion of the people in the world have even heard of the International Organization for Standardization, much less ISO 8601. Logically, the format is clearly recognizable to only a small proportion of people, and to most people 20190908T00Z would be an ambiguous representation of a date.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 26, 2019)

This is an epic derail 



Don Haines said:


> Agreed!
> 
> 2019/08/09..... Is it September 8 or August 9?
> 09/2018/08... same problem plus does not sort well
> ...



Unambiguous but doesn’t sort well outside databases which recognize month abbreviations. In some systems you’d have alphanumeric sorting leading to: August-April-December-February-January-July-June-March-May-November-October-September, and that’s only in English.


----------



## Kit. (Aug 26, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> A very large proportion of the people in the world use calendar dates. A very tiny proportion of the people in the world have even heard of the International Organization for Standardization, much less ISO 8601. Logically, the format is clearly recognizable to only a small proportion of people, and to most people 20190908T00Z would be an ambiguous representation of a date.


For the vast majority of those who _recognize it as a representation of a date_, it will be unambiguous, but nothing short of it will.

For the rest... well, other than for the general sentiment that we should educate people to do things right, it is not my problem.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 26, 2019)

3kramd5 said:


> This is an epic derail



Yes 

But is does raise an interesting question.... why are we stuck with 8 character file names and a very limited ability to customize file names?

Some of us are in the environment where there are multiple shooters with multiple cameras and file naming becomes very important. With limited ability to change filenaming structure, duplicate file names become a problem. We have enforced a renaming structure, so if were to grab the 5D3 and iPhone to shoot something today, my shots would be renamed DH19-08-26-5D3_0001 or DH19-08-26-Phone_0001 and so on.

We name the photographer, the year, the month, the day, the camera, and the sequence number.

It would be nice to get a naming structure straight from the camera.....


----------



## Kit. (Aug 26, 2019)

3kramd5 said:


> Unambiguous but doesn’t sort well outside databases which recognize month abbreviations. In some systems you’d have alphanumeric sorting leading to: August-April-December-February-January-July-June-March-May-November-October-September, and that’s only in English.


Then we have French, for which "jui" can be an abbreviation from both June and July.

Then there is one obscure language in which "maj" means March (while for quite a large part of Europe "maj" means May).


----------



## Kit. (Aug 26, 2019)

Don Haines said:


> But is does raise an interesting question.... why are we stuck with 8 character file names and a very limited ability to customize file names?


I think it's because Microsoft's patents on the FAT long filenames have expired only very recently (several years ago).


----------



## stevelee (Aug 27, 2019)

I thought about putting a clock on my home page that would show the apparent solar time at my house, IOW sundial time, day and night.

I did a test page that would have the server get GMT, calculate an approximation for the equation of time, and then give the current solar time (note: *not* "mean solar time," which is no fun) at my house. I just did a sparse readout for my own benefit for the test, and chose the sign of the EOT for the convenience of the formula. http://www.stevelee.name/eot.php

(Hit the refresh button to update the time.)


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 27, 2019)

canonnews said:


> or the USB controller is in DIGIC and that requires a new USB controller on the SoC. that may take more time.



There have been some USB 3 models all the way back to DiG!C 6 and DiG!C 6+. The EOS R is a DiG!C 8 camera with USB 3.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 27, 2019)

ashmadux said:


> 4- It's well documented that with higher density sensors, you will likely have to double your shutter speed (say, compared to 18/20mp sensors of old) to get sharp photos as he sensors are more sensitive to slight movements.



Doubling your exposure time will double the blur. This may be your technique problem that seems to have persisted over several cameras. To reduce blur, you need to reduce your shutter speed. If you go from 1/500 to 1/1000 (that's a half as long exposure), you'll halve the impact of the same amount of camera movement. If you go from 1/500 to 1/250 (that's doubling your shutter time), you'll double the impact of the same amount of camera movement.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 27, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> DD/MM/YYYYY is the date standard used in Australia. Which is a bit backwards to what folks are used to in North Americas. Hence I usually quote month by name as in August to avoid any possible confusion.



MM/DD/YY is actually the most common format used in written prose in North America.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 27, 2019)

Don Haines said:


> Yes
> 
> But is does raise an interesting question.... why are we stuck with 8 character file names and a very limited ability to customize file names?
> 
> ...



You can change the IMG_ prefix to whatever you want in most recent Canon models. I have mine changed to:

MC72 = 7D Mark II
MC53 = 5D Mark III
MC54 = 5D Mark IV

FIle names come out of the camera as:

MC720001, MC720002, MC720003, etc.

When I import them they are automatically modified to YYMMDD[existing file name] (with YYMMDD extracted from the EXIF info for the time image taken), so the files above shot on 27 august, 2019 would look like:

190827MC720001, 190827MC720002, MC720003, etc.

If I resume shooting the next day, those would end up as:

190828MC720004, 190828MC720005, etc.


----------



## BurningPlatform (Aug 27, 2019)

Actually the reco mended ISO 8601 date format is yyyy-MM-dd. Today is 2019-08-27. To my knowledge, Sweden is the only country in tne world that actually uses it as the national standard. Should be used everywhere, I say.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 27, 2019)

BurningPlatform said:


> Actually the reco mended ISO 8601 date format is yyyy-MM-dd.


It doesn’t recommend it, it mandates it (where full representation is necessary). Note the hyphens are optional. YYYYMMDD is sufficient to satisfy the SHALL statement.


----------

