I don’t want to assume, but are you concluding it’s a technology or hardware limitation? I agree with what you’re saying, in the long run if it’s not a limitation on their end, I don’t think it’s best.If lack of 24p is due to a licensing issue, I would bet that the people complaining would gladly pay another $50 to have 24p in 4k and 1080.
If it's not due to licensing then it's a silly decision. Period. If Canon wants to protect Joe Consumer from choosing the "wrong" frame rate then they could hide 24p just like they do expanded ISOs. If it's to try and drive people to higher end cameras, there's no way to predict if those people will purchase an R or another brand. And is it really worth the risk when people buy lenses and future bodies based in large part on the camera they own today?
5) You'll add a Sony or Fuji for video. But even with an adapter that likely means some of your future dollars will go to their lenses and not Canon's.All the negative feedback here was already factored into the product design by Canon's marketing department. It seems only four options are available:
1) you'll buy the 90D anyway
2) be forced into buying the R or 5DIV to get your 24p frame rate
3) you'll sit out this product and wait for the next Canon iteration
4) you'll sell all your canon equipment & jump ship to sony/nikon/fuji
Let's not worship market analytics. When someone screams that Canon is bleeding customers or that Canon management is full of idiots it's fair to point out that Canon's marketshare is growing. But not every marketing decision is ideal, nor immune from criticism, even from the perspective of profit.The statistical analysis they ran to maximize profit...
Ironically, on other forums a lot of people are complaining about their two releases, the A6100 and A6600.Get the most you can for your Canon gear and move to Sony, which throws a kitchen sink of features with every product they release.
I would be shocked to discover that it was a hardware limitation. I think they've made a foolish decision which sounded good in a boardroom. It's not a decision that's going to doom Canon or anything. But it's going to cost them some sales for nothing really.I don’t want to assume, but are you concluding it’s a technology or hardware limitation?
Great advice, indeed!...never make any assumptions about motives, because when you do that, you are almost always wrong and it only makes it harder to come to a resolution. Instead, he tried to take everything at face value and negotiate from there.
We may never know why this feature is not included in certain models. I am reminded of something a top executive at AT&T once told me when I worked there. To paraphrase, he said whenever he was negotiating with someone (another company, a public official, etc.) he tried to never make any assumptions about motives, because when you do that, you are almost always wrong and it only makes it harder to come to a resolution. Instead, he tried to take everything at face value and negotiate from there.
Great advice. I see so many cases where people get caught up in assigning motives to Canon's actions, when we will probably never know why they made a particularly decision and, in fact, it doesn't matter.
The feature is not on the 90D, M6 or RP. Make your buying decision based on what you need and move on. Maybe at some point in the future Canon will explain their rationale. Or maybe they won't. In either case, it's not going to make any difference.
And now I've learned something today from both of you. Thanks!!Great advice, indeed!
This is something I try to teach my kids when they have conflict. Instead of getting caught in the tar pit of assuming motive, just make a request of what you'd like the other to do (in positive language, if possible). The other party will either honor the request or decline. Either way, going down the rabbit hole of "why" generally fuels additional contention and rarely solves anything. Making a request gets directly to a potential solution.
You're probably right. But this doesn't work when the competition undercuts your plans.Canon knows this and wants the films to be shot in a proper cine camera or if you still want to use a DSLR/Mirrorless camera you will have to buy the more expensive full frame (Canon) cameras for 24p filming.
We are talking about blowing out of proportion the decision of limiting the video capture to something other than 24p for some technical or business reason.Well that is almost entirely mis-information.
Yes, fewer and fewer movies are shot on film, but they're still being shot at 24 fps.
Many movies may use higher frame rate CAPTURE for slow motion effects in specific shots, but they achieve that by "printing" at the standard 24 fps, and the vast majority of their filming is done at 24. So far there have been exactly 3 Hollywood movies released with a standard frame rate higher than 24, and they were all called the Hobbit.
Thank you, I have amended the article.It is worth pointing out that the RP does in fact support 4k 24fps(No DPAF), it is just strangely absent from 1080P on the RP. Hard to argue that Canon is doing this due to a hardware limitation when they have already shown they can do it with current hardware.