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

Ozarker

Love, joy, and peace to all of good will.
CR Pro
Jan 28, 2015
5,933
4,336
The Ozarks
In an age where your smartphone can do everything, camera manufacturers need to be adding in more features to keep sales going and, businesses and media teams are requesting both stills and video from the same shooter more often.
I have a brand new iPhone 8 Plus (Nearly $850.00 because I don't like contracts for cell service). That's the only thing I personally take video with and shoot in 60p 4K. Clips of the grandson tearing around. Comparing video from a cell phone to that of a DSLR or MILC camera is silly, in my opinion. Even with my wife's micro 4/3 camera I can watch the video on my 27" monitor and it looks great. The cell phone footage is all but unwatchable at that size when the video is shot indoors. So for me, and only for me, cellphone video is nearly worthless except for social media clips viewed on a cell phone. Obviously, cell phone video does not compete. Comparisons of what a cell phone can do often leave out what a cell phone absolutely cannot do. Would I watch cell phone footage on my 65" television. I could, but it would really suck. Not so with a DSLR or MILC footage... even crop sensors do far better than any cell phone (which is a minuscule crop sensor).

Personally, I like clarity and detail far more than the "Hollywood" look people keep wishing for... whatever that is. Ask the average Joe walking down the street, and I'll bet they don't know what we are even talking about and couldn't care less. These cameras were made for the average Joe or Josephine. The target is not film makers. Neither is the iPhone.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
I have a brand new iPhone 8 Plus (Nearly $850.00 because I don't like contracts for cell service). That's the only thing I personally take video with and shoot in 60p 4K. Clips of the grandson tearing around. Comparing video from a cell phone to that of a DSLR or MILC camera is silly, in my opinion. Even with my wife's micro 4/3 camera I can watch the video on my 27" monitor and it looks great. The cell phone footage is all but unwatchable at that size. So for me, and only for me, cellphone video is nearly worthless except for social media clips. Obviously, cell phone video does not compete. Comparisons of what a cell phone can do often leave out what a cell phone absolutely cannot do. Would I watch cell phone footage on my 65" television. I could, but it would really suck. Not so with a DSLR or MILC footage... even crop sensors do far better than any cell phone (which is a minuscule crop sensor).

Personally, I like clarity and detail far more than the "Hollywood" look people keep wishing for. Ask the average Joe walking down the street, and I'll bet they don't know what we are even talking about and couldn't care less. These cameras were made for the average Joe or Josephine. The target is not film makers. Neither is the iPhone.

I completely agree. The quality out of DSLRs or mirrorless cameras is much better than anything a phone could produce or achieve. But like you say, for the average joe who doesn't know... why would they spend £1k on an iPhone that shoots 4k and then buy a dedicated camera separately if they don't see similar specs.

My point is, if camera manufacturers aren't pushing 4k and advertising both video and photography specs then why would average joe be interested? They will just think, well my phone does 4k and super slow mo and this dedicated camera doesn't, that's crazy.

That's what I meant when I said camera manufacturers need to keep up to some extent even though it's much harder to process their higher quality image when compared to smartphone video, which to my eye is digitally sharpened beyond return.

And I also agree these cameras aren't made for pros. But surely it's only a good thing if people can produce high quality, stunning video with some of Canon's mid-tier cameras.
 
Upvote 0
And what is 'the magic' of that frame rate? Other than it is what people have got used to.
I used to hear the same when CD was released - some people in the early days claimed to be able to hear the 'gaps between the digital bits' when all it was was that people were used to the distortions in vinyl. Now people have rapidly got used to CD and other digital media people accept vinyl or what it was.
I suspect the same thing is happening with non-24p frame rates: it is no inherent superiority but is what people are used to.
And any tech-savvy youngster will realise the benefits of (as others have mentioned previously) shooting at higher rates and adjusting to 24p in post processing. To take the megapixel analogy, why not maximise data and process it from there.

---

Since our parent company has numerous scientists as part of the workforce, at one point I actually got around to asking one of our Optical Physicists AND a Computational Neurobiologist about motion blur and low video frame rates, and it was explained to me that 24 fps (and SIMILAR low frame rates) that have long shutter-open times create MOTION BLUR on a directional axis which "Calms Down" down the human visual cortex so it does not have to assign much processing power for hard edge detection. It already KNOWS to ignore the blurred area and simply skips over to the sharper areas of a video frame for advanced edge detection and object recognition.

On a computational basis this makes sense BUT there is an ADDED EMOTIONAL EFFECT in that our thinking mind is "Not So Edgy" and "Irritated" at areas of an image that are considered an amorphous region, are motion blurred or have soft focus. This gives a "pleasing" feeling to one's mind. The HOW and the WHY of that workload reduction in the brain's edge detection circuitry within any given visual field, causing that pleasing effect on actual human emotional circuitry is as of yet unknown!

All we know is that object recognition workload reduction makes us calmer. We ALSO KNOW that there is a specific pleasing effect present when the blur on edges is NOT in the direction of the motion path of in-scene objects. This means that objects moving on any given direction SHOULD have a blurred edge on the OPPOSITE side of the direction of movement. Ergo, objects moving leftwards SHOULD have motion blur on the right side of their edges.

The amount of motion blur present at 24 fps when shutter open times are about between 20 to 41 milliseconds is enough to make the video look PLEASING to the human mind. At higher frames rate from about 50 fps into the 1000's of fps, motion blur-based emotional impact is such that all frames are nearly fully sharp and require the human visual cortex to do a LOT of hard edge detection and object recognition tasks which kinda makes our mind TIRED and less pleased at all the extra work. This means cinematographers MUST use other techniques such as colour desaturation, lowering of contrast ratios and edge softening to reduce visual cortex workloads which will affect subsequent emotional state in a more positive manner.

So again, even IF you shoot at higher frames rates from 50 or 60 fps up to 120 fps or even 1000 fps, you NEED to read what 1950's to 1990's era cinematographers did with REAL Film in terms of making their imagery look more Hollywood and less Soap Opera. By reading the SCIENCE behind the human visual cortex, you can apply the ART of FILMMAKING to ensure your high frame rate videos LOOK like a REAL Cinema production.

This also means that the WHY of any camera maker LEAVING the 24 fps cinema frame rate has more to do with letting the typical shutter-open time of that 24 fps frame rate CAUSE that pleasing-looking motion blur which so enhances video into that desired Hollywood Cinema Look!

Why SHOULD Canon leave that effortless, easy-out 24 fps frame rate on these new DSLR/Mirrorless camera when they can MAKE YOU PAY FOR THAT Easy-Way-Out by forcing you the buyer into a HIGHER END camera in order to get that easy-to-use method of making video look like cinema! So at LOWER frame rates, it is MOTION BLUR that is the deciding factor for a cinema look. At HIGHER frames rates of 50/60 fps, it's a lowered contrast ratio, mild colour desaturation and SMOOTH rolloff of shadows and highlights that make your video look like Hollywood!

AND since GOOD LIGHTING can let you highlight the area of interest but blur object edges on areas of the frame that are periphery (aka outside) of the area of interest, you can give the appearance of motion blur thus reducing human visual field workload, therefore making your video look PLEASING and more Hollywood CInema-like! This means get a decent budget for GOOD lighting and LEARN HOW and WHEN to use Colour Correction Gels, Diffusion, Spun, Key Lighting Positions to FORCE the human mind to focus on a specific subject area within any given video frame. Reduce the mind's visual workload! Use ANALOGUE FILMMAKING TECHNIQUES to enhance your all-digital productions for a more Hollywood Cinema Look !!!


.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

stevelee

FT-QL
CR Pro
Jul 6, 2017
2,383
1,064
Davidson, NC
Please forgive the ignorance, but can anyone think of a good reason Canon decided to omit 24p and use 25p instead? Is there a new standard on the horizon or something? I don't shoot video..at all...but I can't for the life of me think of a reason a company as large and as experienced as Canon would sabotage a new product by omitting such a necessary feature. I use the word "necessary" based on the vitriol found on this thread.
I'll somewhat oversimplify things with a complex history. In countries that use 60 Hz alternating current, the standard for black-and-white television was set in the '40s for 30 frames a second. Tube TVs interlaced half of the lines every sixty seconds to be in sync with the house current. By current terminology, we might think of it as 30i. When color standards were set in the '50s, they adopted something that would be compatible with existing TVs, so black-and-white sets would just ignore the color information. That's were the 29.97 came in. If you set your camera for NTSC video, that will be the frame rate you get, and multiples thereof.

In countries that have 50 cycle current, they adopted a different standard, not surprisingly using interlaced 25 frames a second. If you set your camera for PAL, you get that instead of 29.97. Canon didn't substitute 25p for 24p in recent cameras. The 25p has been there all along. You just don't see it listed if you set your camera for the North America, Japan, et. al. standard. Likewise, if you set it for PAL, you are not presented a 29.97 option.

Silent movies were shot on film, hand cranked at 16 or 18 fps. The real rate depended upon the mood of the cameraman or his artistic instincts. When they added sound, that was too slow for decent sound from the optical soundtrack on the film. So they adopted a standard of 24 frames per second. They didn't have to interlace it or make it into some funny decimal, as on TV. They did project it at twice or three times that rate, repeating each frame accordingly, to minimize flicker.

Several people have suggested that since 25p is already on our cameras, people wanting the look of 24p could just switch to 25p, and the difference would be too subtle to see. In certain workflows there are situations for 24p is needed, apparently.

The part of the discussion I have no clue about is when people say that they want their videos to look cinematic without their looking like movies.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

Valvebounce

CR Pro
Apr 3, 2013
4,555
450
57
Isle of Wight
Hi Folks.
Whatever happened to the knowledge that I was taught in ‘o’ level biology that it is the persistence of vision that led to 24fps movie, 24fps being the slowest frame rate that would enable the majority of people to see a flicker free moving image?
Whilst I’m certain that scientific studies like HarryFilm gave us could be true, I’m almost certain that the early film makers had absolutely no interest in or knowledge of these things. Film was expensive and bulky, I’m betting it was mostly cost driven, possibly followed by some engineering constraints, like ‘what is the fastest we can sync the shutter’ or ‘what is the longest reel of film’, but I’m still going with ‘you want to spend how much on film?’ Being the main question!

Cheers, Graham.
Ps I got bored o_O at page 4 and skipped to the end so if I missed this please forgive me! ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
Hi Folks.
Whatever happened to the knowledge that I was taught in ‘o’ level biology that it is the persistence of vision that led to 24fps movie, 24fps being the slowest frame rate that would enable the majority of people to see a flicker free moving image?
Whilst I’m certain that scientific studies like HarryFilm gave us could be true, I’m almost certain that the early film makers had absolutely no interest in or knowledge of these things. Film was expensive and bulky, I’m betting it was mostly cost driven, possibly followed by some engineering constraints, like ‘what is the fastest we can sync the shutter’ or ‘what is the longest reel of film’, but I’m still going with ‘you want to spend how much on film?’ Being the main question!

Cheers, Graham.
Ps I got bored o_O at page 4 and skipped to the end so if I missed this please forgive me! ;)


---

I should note that our Computational Neurobiologist's explanation for the EMOTIONAL impact for 24fps vs 60 fps is due to the differences in the presence of motion blur at low to high frames rates. This WAS NOT the reason for 24 fps being chosen as the preferred rate. In those early days 24 fps was CHOSEN due to the cost of film being the primary factor because human eyes persistence of vision allowed for 24 fps being the most ideal for 90% of humanity's eyesight capabilities for intepreting smooth motion at that frame rate for 16mm and 35mm film frame sizes. 24 fps was ALSO the fastest stable speed able to be met by the motors of that time which drove film through a camera!

The LARGER the displayed frame size, the HIGHER that the frame rate and higher the overall frame resolution MUST BE in order to prevent perceived flicker and aliasing due to the way the human eyes scans across imagery. What our scientists said is just ONE aspect of how and WHY the human eye and visual cortex sees imagery and assigns emotional impact to the perceived imagery. These are just after-effects of the basic limitations of the human eye's hardware.

The term Cinematic-looking is a hodge-podge of ideas within the filmmaking community which TENDS to agree amongst itself that certain technical aspects of video frame size, frame rate, colour saturation, small-detail retention, focus, camera movement ALL conspire together to make a LASTING and MEANINGFUL EMOTIONAL IMPACT on viewers. This general silent agreement amongst filmmakers worldwide over the last 100 years are merely SUGGESTIONS to the rest of us that we should simply ACCEPT their standards for the technical and artistic portions of filmmaking.

Only RECENTLY within the last 10 years has there been ACTUAL PEER-REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC STUDY of the human visual processing system and basic underlying optical and neural hardware that compares and MEASURES FILMMAKING TECHNICAL STANDARDS and accepted practices against perceived or actual emotional and/or physical impact on humans.

It has been FOUND that larger sensor pixel resolution and faster frame rates ARE REQUIRED to be processional and linear in magnitude in order to keep the original emotional impact that 24 fps imagery has at lower resolutions. At our modern 4K/8K sensor and display resolutions, we SHOULD be doing 120 fps at 16-bits per colour channel to ENSURE emotional impact remains the same. By using 60 fps and lower colour depths we are "Shocking" the human visual system into adverse effects that make such imagery look and FEEL very "Soap Opera"-like and "Corny". This emotional dissonance BREAKS most filmmakers original intent on their projects. We are using the HARDWARE-based CRUTCH of heavily motion-blurred 24 fps to make 24 fps and 8 or 10-bit colour sampled 4k/8k high resolution imagery look like earlier films! At such high resolutions, we MUST be filming and displaying imagery at uncompressed 120 fps and 48-bit RGB colour in order to keep the original emotional impact intent of directors and cinematographers!

Today, we are so much crushing the blacks and clipping the highlights at 8-bit/10-bit 4k/8k resolutions that details are lost and oversaturation of colour results which BREAKS the pleasing nature of an analogue process by compressing it to death into a digital mess. That causes actual physical reactions in the human body and mind which affects our overall perception of video imagery.

24 fps being chosen for cinema is mostly an economic one that JUST HAPPENED to coincide with human limits of flicker free motion perception, and the practical technical capabilities AND SIZE of motors used in film cameras and projectors during the 1920's to late 1990's era of analogue FILM systems. Today, in order to get past the "Soap Opera Effect" we MUST transition to 120 fps and 48 bit colour (16 bits per RGB channel) at 4k/8k/16k sensor and display resolutions!

.
.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

PureClassA

Canon since age 5. The A1
CR Pro
Aug 15, 2014
2,124
827
Mandeville, LA
Shields-Photography.com
No, what they wanted was the S1H, which has just been announced. Admittedly, if it was Canon they would be complaining that at was $1000 overpriced, but the S1H is the camera that DSLR video enthusiasts have been demanding.

Exactly this^^. This is a camera type Canon should be producing. The Alphas have not cut into the F line of Sony, and a real cinema/video MILC body from Canon wouldnt cut into EOS Cinema either. As of this moment, there is nothing up line between the EOS R to the C200 for video. And apart from the build and the greater feature set, the EOS R with an external recorder performs almost as well as the C200. So there’s a huge gap between $2200 and $7500. Now we are thinking a new C100 is coming but where in the spec realm does it fall??? That’s the real oddity right now. You can’t get much more basic in 2019-2020 than what the C200 offers. This is what makes me hope Canon uses a robust MILC body as the new C100 of sorts, right in that $3500-$4000 price range, smack in the middle of the R and C200.

And $4000 for a FF camera that does what this new Panasonic does is outstanding. Even if Canon created this same device with the Canon look/color science and eco system and billed $5K for it, it would be a great seller for them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
India for 1 is a country where mathematical formulations or algorithms or softwares cannot be patented.

Sorry, but I disagree. I live in India (Pune), and personally have 4 patents filed in India just this year alone (2019) - all software based. The bar may be a bit higher than in other countries, however it is not impossible to file patents in India for such things.
 
Upvote 0
Jun 27, 2013
1,861
1,099
38
Pune
Sorry, but I disagree. I live in India (Pune), and personally have 4 patents filed in India just this year alone (2019) - all software based. The bar may be a bit higher than in other countries, however it is not impossible to file patents in India for such things.
My Patent lawyer must have been bad but when I had tried to file for a patent(for data sync. method in software tools we had developed) we were told software along with algorithms are two things for which patents cannot be awarded. That was about 7 years back since then I changed my field from software development to information and network security and I am out of touch with software development these days(currently busy with network security projects of 2 DC-DR).
 
Upvote 0
Sep 29, 2018
325
270
Unless I've missed the release of Canon's modular "build yourself your own perfect camera" range, Canon executroids are already making many of those decisions for you.

The fact that (I assume) you are a Canon user, suggests they're doing a pretty good job.

I have been a dedicated Canon shooter for most of my life but just picked up the BMPCC6K. I am still rigging it out but I am thrilled with what I am getting out of it. I can't imagine ever shooting video again on my Canon bodies. I bought my R for 4K because Canon claimed it had it and then felt cheated when I discovered it didn't. Customers feeling cheeted is never a good thing.

I no longer consider Canon DSLRs and MILCs to be hybrid cameras. They are grossly over priced stills only cameras now. Welcome back to 2008. What will I do when my 80D or R die? I don't know but the Canon value proposition is pretty well gone if they can't do both stills and video. When your hiking up a mountain carrying 2 separate rigs isn't an option. I doesn't appear that Canon intends to fulfill my crop needs going forward either. I probably have a couple of years before I have to buy my next body so I have some time to decide where I am headed. But stills work is decreasing while video work is increasing so it will be interesting.

For those who want to know more about film rates I highly recommend this video.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0
Jul 28, 2015
3,368
570
---

Since our parent company has numerous scientists as part of the workforce, at one point I actually got around to asking one of our Optical Physicists AND a Computational Neurobiologist about motion blur and low video frame rates, and it was explained to me that 24 fps (and SIMILAR low frame rates) that have long shutter-open times create MOTION BLUR on a directional axis which "Calms Down" down the human visual cortex so it does not have to assign much processing power for hard edge detection. It already KNOWS to ignore the blurred area and simply skips over to the sharper areas of a video frame for advanced edge detection and object recognition.

On a computational basis this makes sense BUT there is an ADDED EMOTIONAL EFFECT in that our thinking mind is "Not So Edgy" and "Irritated" at areas of an image that are considered an amorphous region, are motion blurred or have soft focus. This gives a "pleasing" feeling to one's mind. The HOW and the WHY of that workload reduction in the brain's edge detection circuitry within any given visual field, causing that pleasing effect on actual human emotional circuitry is as of yet unknown!

All we know is that object recognition workload reduction makes us calmer. We ALSO KNOW that there is a specific pleasing effect present when the blur on edges is NOT in the direction of the motion path of in-scene objects. This means that objects moving on any given direction SHOULD have a blurred edge on the OPPOSITE side of the direction of movement. Ergo, objects moving leftwards SHOULD have motion blur on the right side of their edges.

The amount of motion blur present at 24 fps when shutter open times are about between 20 to 41 milliseconds is enough to make the video look PLEASING to the human mind. At higher frames rate from about 50 fps into the 1000's of fps, motion blur-based emotional impact is such that all frames are nearly fully sharp and require the human visual cortex to do a LOT of hard edge detection and object recognition tasks which kinda makes our mind TIRED and less pleased at all the extra work. This means cinematographers MUST use other techniques such as colour desaturation, lowering of contrast ratios and edge softening to reduce visual cortex workloads which will affect subsequent emotional state in a more positive manner.

So again, even IF you shoot at higher frames rates from 50 or 60 fps up to 120 fps or even 1000 fps, you NEED to read what 1950's to 1990's era cinematographers did with REAL Film in terms of making their imagery look more Hollywood and less Soap Opera. By reading the SCIENCE behind the human visual cortex, you can apply the ART of FILMMAKING to ensure your high frame rate videos LOOK like a REAL Cinema production.

This also means that the WHY of any camera maker LEAVING the 24 fps cinema frame rate has more to do with letting the typical shutter-open time of that 24 fps frame rate CAUSE that pleasing-looking motion blur which so enhances video into that desired Hollywood Cinema Look!

Why SHOULD Canon leave that effortless, easy-out 24 fps frame rate on these new DSLR/Mirrorless camera when they can MAKE YOU PAY FOR THAT Easy-Way-Out by forcing you the buyer into a HIGHER END camera in order to get that easy-to-use method of making video look like cinema! So at LOWER frame rates, it is MOTION BLUR that is the deciding factor for a cinema look. At HIGHER frames rates of 50/60 fps, it's a lowered contrast ratio, mild colour desaturation and SMOOTH rolloff of shadows and highlights that make your video look like Hollywood!

AND since GOOD LIGHTING can let you highlight the area of interest but blur object edges on areas of the frame that are periphery (aka outside) of the area of interest, you can give the appearance of motion blur thus reducing human visual field workload, therefore making your video look PLEASING and more Hollywood CInema-like! This means get a decent budget for GOOD lighting and LEARN HOW and WHEN to use Colour Correction Gels, Diffusion, Spun, Key Lighting Positions to FORCE the human mind to focus on a specific subject area within any given video frame. Reduce the mind's visual workload! Use ANALOGUE FILMMAKING TECHNIQUES to enhance your all-digital productions for a more Hollywood Cinema Look !!!


.

Thanks for posting that, Harry I found it very interesting.
However, I doubt that when 24 fps was decided on as the frame rate the film producers had absolutely no idea this 'reasoning' even existed. Which begs the question I asked in my post is whether 24fps really does have a 'magic' or if it was simply what we are used to seeing in film. But I am sure what you CANNOT do is apply 24fps processing techniques to 30fps frame rates.
When Jackson released the 48fps version of The Hobbit, it is clear that not everyone found it unnerving, but I also read a very cogent article about the way that 48 fps has to considered in every single stage from shooting to projection but unfortunately this is continuity is rarely possible when a new format is introduced.

I also recall that the comments about 24p relate to film cameras using frame rate + rotary shutters and digital cameras using simple frame rate which muddies the waters still further. However I do recall that when Panasonic released their cameras, there was a hack on YouTube about settings that would mimic the shutter angle and produce a more pleasing result.

So I still ask what is inherently 'magic' about 24fps unrelated to any technology.
 
Upvote 0
Jul 21, 2010
31,099
12,863
I no longer consider Canon DSLRs and MILCs to be hybrid cameras. They are grossly over priced stills only cameras now. Welcome back to 2008. What will I do when my 80D or R die? I don't know but the Canon value proposition is pretty well gone if they can't do both stills and video.
You’re welcome to your opinion, of course. I suspect Canon has considered your point of view, and chosen to disregard it based on a lack of bottom-line relevance
 
Upvote 0
Jan 29, 2011
10,675
6,121
I have been a dedicated Canon shooter for most of my life but just picked up the BMPCC6K. I am still rigging it out but I am thrilled with what I am getting out of it. I can't imagine ever shooting video again on my Canon bodies. I bought my R for 4K because Canon claimed it had it and then felt cheated when I discovered it didn't. Customers feeling cheeted is never a good thing.

I no longer consider Canon DSLRs and MILCs to be hybrid cameras. They are grossly over priced stills only cameras now. Welcome back to 2008. What will I do when my 80D or R die? I don't know but the Canon value proposition is pretty well gone if they can't do both stills and video. When your hiking up a mountain carrying 2 separate rigs isn't an option. I doesn't appear that Canon intends to fulfill my crop needs going forward either. I probably have a couple of years before I have to buy my next body so I have some time to decide where I am headed. But stills work is decreasing while video work is increasing so it will be interesting.

For those who want to know more about film rates I highly recommend this video.
So how is the stills performance on your new Black Magic?
 
Upvote 0

Quirkz

CR Pro
Oct 30, 2014
297
221
He's the worst part about CR.

He’s rude, and I don’t like the way he delivers his message, but he’s not the worst part of CR. He’s consistent in his views, takes care to only present facts, or call out when it’s his opinion. Since he only bases his arguments on verified history, he’s proven to be more right than wrong. He just gets so annoyed every time someone presents personal opinion as fact or the now decade old classic of ‘canon doesn’t know what they’re doing and will lose market share’ that he’ll pour petroleum up your @SS and throw a dozen matches after it.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0

AlanF

Desperately seeking birds
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
12,355
22,534
He’s rude, and I don’t like the way he delivers his message, but he’s not the worst part of CR. He’s consistent in his views, takes care to only present facts, or call out when it’s his opinion. Since he only bases his arguments on verified history, he’s proven to be more right than wrong. He just gets so annoyed every time someone presents personal opinion as fact or the now decade old classic of ‘canon doesn’t know what they’re doing and will lose market share’ that he’ll pour petroleum up your @SS and throw a dozen matches after it.
Neuro is a very accomplished guy, but even he would find it easier to pour down rather than up. And, I am sure he wouldn't use a fossil fuel but a more eco-friendly one.
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0

unfocused

Photos/Photo Book Reviews: www.thecuriouseye.com
Jul 20, 2010
7,184
5,483
70
Springfield, IL
www.thecuriouseye.com
He’s rude, and I don’t like the way he delivers his message, but he’s not the worst part of CR. He’s consistent in his views, takes care to only present facts, or call out when it’s his opinion. Since he only bases his arguments on verified history, he’s proven to be more right than wrong. He just gets so annoyed every time someone presents personal opinion as fact or the now decade old classic of ‘canon doesn’t know what they’re doing and will lose market share’ that he’ll pour petroleum up your @SS and throw a dozen matches after it.
Honestly, the incessant, predatory bullying gets a bit tiresome. Weaker individuals have been driven from the site and while they were often annoying, they were not always incorrect ("Dilbert" being the classic example). I don't have any patience with those who equate their personal wants with the success of Canon and generally, their childish petulance deserves all the disdain they receive. Still, there are too many instances of an "attack first, ask questions later" attitude.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

Quirkz

CR Pro
Oct 30, 2014
297
221
. Fuji's manual focus tools are much better than Canon's so I can usually get something using MF but it's not quite the same.

Have you tried the MF on the r/RP? I’m finding it easier to do manual focus on my RP than I do with my x-e3.

And the R focus triangles look like they’d be brilliant, but I’ve only tried that in a store.

Disclaimer: I don’t use MF much, so take what I say with a healthy dose of salt
 
Upvote 0

AlanF

Desperately seeking birds
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
12,355
22,534
Honestly, the incessant, predatory bullying gets a bit tiresome. Weaker individuals have been driven from the site and while they were often annoying, they were not always incorrect ("Dilbert" being the classic example). I don't have any patience with those who equate their personal wants with the success of Canon and generally, their childish petulance deserves all the disdain they receive. Still, there are too many instances of an "attack first, ask questions later" attitude.
Dilbert "weaker"? He is as tough and resilient as old boots and he wasn't driven away by Neuro - his identity was, quite out of order, outed on the site. Dilbert gave as good as he got and I would presume not like being labelled "weaker".
 
Upvote 0