Why has Canon omitted 24p 4K recording in their new cameras such as the EOS M6 Mark II, EOS 90D and EOS RP?

[Famateur]

Heaven forbid a customer tell a company what would encourage them to buy more product

Fair point that customer feedback is important to effective product development and market segmentation. That said, "pros" pining for "pro" features in a product clearly marketed to an amateur/enthusiast segment stretches that a bit far...

 

[Photo Hack]

This thread would be 1/10th the size if people who don’t know squat about video didn’t chime in with a bunch ignorant comments haha. I gotta get to work. What a time suck.

 

[Famateur]

You guys do realize you’re commenting on a thread wholly devoted to video. Who’s hijacking the discussion? No one is forcing you photographers to read and comment on video lol. As long as there’s video capability on these cameras, it will be a discussion of the camera.

And it’s pretty evident you guys aren’t doing video. Tripods, monopods, gimbals, glidecams, sliders, etc. don’t care what ergonomics your DSLR has.

Fair enough -- the features are open for discussion. And an interesting discussion it can be.

You do realize you're commenting about the lack of a feature "necessary" for professional workflow and video timelines...on a camera clearly not intended for pro filmmakers, right? No one is forcing pros to buy this amateur camera and settle for a hampered workflow...

 

[Loswr]

This thread would be 1/10th the size if people who don’t know squat about video didn’t chime in with a bunch ignorant comments haha. I gotta get to work. What a time suck.

This thread would be 1/10th the size if people who don’t know squat about business and the ILC market didn’t chime in with a bunch of ignorant comments.

 

[Famateur]

Films are shot natively in 24p in Hollywood because the frame rate is part of the look and the format of feature film. Amateur filmmakers want their films to look like Hollywood films. Films that are captured at the wrong frame rate will never look professional.

This argument is already so painfully self-evident that I don't think explaining it any further is going to help.

Yep. The people complaining bitterly about a missing video feature in an amateur/enthusiast stills camera want Hollywood-like video results...without using the equipment Hollywood uses.

I also want my next factory-fresh Subaru Outback to have the same "pro" performance as a souped up rally cross monster. Without paying for the latter.

[For the record, I'm still happily enjoying my 1997 Outback with 305K miles, knowing full well it can't produce the "pro" results with which Subaru is capable of imbuing it. It feels good to be in the target market for the product I own...]

 

[Famateur]

This is going to sound like I was born yesterday, but I really am shocked by the Canon apologists in this thread tying themselves in knots attempting to explain why customers should be fine with 30p when they want 24p.

The gist I'm getting from the "apologists" is more along the lines of, "If you need 24P for professional reasons, you'll have no problem getting a camera that provides it, Canon or otherwise. If the M6II doesn't have it, but you want it, you're not the target market for the M6II. Amateur stills shooters that want basic video functionality for home use likely are the target market. Sure, it's a head-scratcher, but if the 'professional results' you need can only come from 24P, you can easily justify purchasing the product that provides it."

Honestly, I haven't met a Rebel/M shooter who gives two hoots about frame rate in video, let alone is aware that there's a meaningful difference. When the curious exploration of a feature's absence turns into lamentation and criticism, it sounds more like budget-constrained video "pros" who want what they need from an amateur/enthusiast stills camera.

(Honest Question) Who is more closed-minded: die-hard brand apologists, or those who criticize a brand for not giving them what they demand rather than just buy what they need from another brand? Food for thought...

 

[Loswr]

This is going to sound like I was born yesterday, but I really am shocked by the Canon apologists in this thread tying themselves in knots attempting to explain why customers should be fine with 30p when they want 24p.

Explanations are irrelevant. You might as well explain why the M6II and 90D are crippled by the lack of a FF sensor. These cameras don’t have p24. If you require p24, buy a different camera.

 

[c.d.embrey]

Films are shot natively in 24p in Hollywood because the frame rate is part of the look and the format of feature film. Amateur filmmakers want their films to look like Hollywood films. Films that are captured at the wrong frame rate will never look professional.

This argument is already so painfully self-evident that I don't think explaining it any further is going to help.

Please tell me about your adventures in Hollywood. Maybe we worked at some of the same studios.

Twentyfour was strictly to save money. Less film used for Principal Photography as well as on Release Prints. It's all about the budget, art has little to do with it.

 

[Shutterbug]

The answer is more than obvious. For regular user there's no difference between 24p, 25p and 30p, so he won't care about omission of 24p. But for serious video guys 24p is a workhorse framerate, and they will be forced to pay for advanced cameras (even if they could be served by cheap ones otherwise)

Or they'll just move to another camera system and lose the customer. Many do not need the more advanced C series but need a hybrid. Especially the freelancers out there. I wouldn't call myself a serious video guy but need 24p.There are plenty of new alternatives popping up. The past 2 years have been a boom. With Sony , Fuji and others. 2 years ago Canon was an easy sell. Not anymore.

 

[Shutterbug]

And there we have a new drinking game. Anytime someone says The Hobbit was shot in 48fps. Go!

 

[Scenes]

For me it comes down to ease of use. I had a broadcast Sony HDR Z1 for professional work then added a 70D as my travel shooter. Switched to the 80D entirely when it came out and now have a 90D on order.

When it comes time to buy a new camera I look at the competition and video wise it’s the GH5 which I’ve used and while fine is a pain to focus. Sony a6600 is interesting as it shoots 4K HDR. But every Sony camera says “now we’ve nailed the auto focus, no really this time”. And I have no way of editing 4K HDR without buying a £2k adapter box and preferably a £30k+ HDR monitor.

Maybe I’m just lazy as I get old. I could switch to a camera with objectively better specs but It would be much harder work day to day and I wouldn’t be able to shoot things like fashion shows I do now because I couldn’t rely on auto focus from another camera. Moving up to a Canon C model camera is a oath but not without spending thousands and increasing the size and weight of everything I carry when I like everything to be in a small backpack.

The only real thing for me t think about was I could probably sell my 80D and some lenses and break even on a 2nd hand 5D mark 4. But it has a worse crop than the 90D for 4K and 5x the file size for video so the 90D seems the way to go.

 

[dtaylor]

Yep. The people complaining bitterly about a missing video feature in an amateur/enthusiast stills camera want Hollywood-like video results...without using the equipment Hollywood uses.

Canon's competition is basically offering this in several bodies now available, including a few that are close to the 90D's price point. The people complaining want to use their Canon lenses on a Canon body that gives them this as well.

 

[Stereodude]

This thread would be 1/10th the size if people who don’t know squat about business and the ILC market didn’t chime in with a bunch of ignorant comments.

Please tell us what we need to do to get you to take your own advice?

 

[Stereodude]

And there we have a new drinking game. Anytime someone says The Hobbit was shot in 48fps. Go!

Because the 90D shoots in 48fps right?

 

[Don Haines]

You guys do realize you’re commenting on a thread wholly devoted to video. Who’s hijacking the discussion? No one is forcing you photographers to read and comment on video lol. As long as there’s video capability on these cameras, it will be a discussion of the camera.

And it’s pretty evident you guys aren’t doing video. Tripods, monopods, gimbals, glidecams, sliders, etc. don’t care what ergonomics your DSLR has.

It is a camera that is designed for stills and the vast majority of users will shoot predominantly stills. That is why it is not loaded with video features. This is not hijacking the discussion, it is pointing out a very pertinent fact.

 

[Loswr]

.There are plenty of new alternatives popping up. The past 2 years have been a boom. With Sony , Fuji and others. 2 years ago Canon was an easy sell. Not anymore.

Sure, and maybe someday some of those alternatives will start taking market share from Canon. It just hasn’t happened yet.

 

[Loswr]

Please tell us what we need to do to get you to take your own advice?

If my advice applied to me, I’d suggest you could start by not being the latest in a long string of people claiming the lack of their own particular favorite feature spells doom for Canon. Probably too much to ask, though.

 

[Don Haines]

Then Canon should remove all the video features and stop pretending that they're pursuing the video market with these cameras. As it is, it's clear that they want to pursue the video market, just not very hard. As such, they're going to get criticized.

That’s going too far..... remember the target market.....

It is a stills camera that has the ability to shoot simple video clips to watch on your TV..... a TV that is probably at a 60hz or 120hz refresh rate....

 

[dtaylor]

Fair point that customer feedback is important to effective product development and market segmentation. That said, "pros" pining for "pro" features in a product clearly marketed to an amateur/enthusiast segment stretches that a bit far...

C-Log is a pro feature. 10-bit 4:2:2 is a pro feature. I'm not sure 24p qualifies as a pro feature. It would be like Canon letting you adjust brightness and saturation in DPP, but NOT contrast because contrast adjustments to a RAW file are a "pro feature."

 

[dtaylor]

You could start by not being the latest in a long string of people claiming the lack of their own particular favorite feature spells doom for Canon. Probably too much to ask, though.

For the record I don't think this spells DOOM for Canon. Never the less, I think it's silly and I know of at least one sale it will likely cost them.