...but they did suggest that the M6II will replace the M6 and the M5, at least in speaking to reviewers...
Yea, it's surprising to me too to be honest. With that said, I was always more interested in the 6 than the 5 just to make it smaller. I do most of my shooting using live view on a tripod, and adding an M6II as an ultralight balance between image quality and size/weight has some value to me. I think there is a niche there, but I would have thought there was a niche for the M5 too. Maybe the vision is that the M5 is replaced with an R mount APS-C equivalent for a 7D series - i.e. replacing both the M5 and 7Dii. That would make some sense in my mind with the headway they appear to be making on mirrorless focusing.I'm ignorant regarding the M line, but this surprises me more than the (presumed) elimination of the 7D. I would have thought that the model that did not have an integrated viewfinder would be the one to drop. But, then again, maybe the majority of people buying M bodies are cell phone upgraders who are used to composing and shooting pictures on a screen, while only old guys like me insist on a viewfinder.
Preach! "Oh 25 is so close to 24, just use that?" what are people saying.Why is it that the less you know about video, the more sure you are what video features other people do/don't need? The fact that you don't understand the difference between 24, 25 and 30 FPS doesn't mean there isn't a difference. I guarantee that Canon knows the difference and removing 24 FPS 4K from their low cost offerings is not just an oversight.
How does it affect it to convert to true 24p?
Maybe you should try doing a movie work flow then you would start to understand. 25 doesn't run on North American TVs so you have to convert to 24, what happens to the audio now that you are slowing the movie down? How about the picture quality? Going from 25 -> 24 means you ar clocking it out slower changing the lenght of the clip, every frame has to be intereted or you drop a frame causeing glitches. What if I go on a weekend trip with a friend and that person is shooting 24 and we want to use footage from both cameras? Now we have a new step in the work flow that takes effort, disk space and time to render. 24 is THE North Americn standard which the entire industry has consolidated around for close to 100 years, it makes co-operating with others so much easier.And 25, just a menu setting away. Seriously, you people got to have pretty professional needs if that’s not close enough to 24, and in that case you should probably acquire a professional camera.
Prior cameras had it, this one doesn't (maybe, still seems to be some debate). Logically, it was a definitive decision made by Canon. It seems pretty unlikely that they made that decision because they're malicious, crazy, or stupid.Solid no buy for anybody serious about video without 23.976fps. Canon is out of their mind.
90D uses CR3 files for RAW the same as the EOS R. I have to use DNG converter in order to be able to use RAW files from the EOS R so files from the 90D should work after being passed through DNG converter assuming your photo editor supports DNG.. But it addds another anoying step to the work flow and in my case means I have to keep a windows VM spun up so I can use DNG converter.In practice, you don't right now, as Adobe's DNG Converter almost certainly doesn't support 90D RAWs yet.
Certainly. So why is it that people assume it's capricious, malicious, or just plain crazy? It's a business decision. People may not like it, but Canon would have considered that and decided to do it anyway.I guarantee that Canon knows the difference and removing 24 FPS 4K from their low cost offerings is not just an oversight.
Because Canon doesn't communicate any reason for it, maybe? If they leave it to the people to interpret what their actions mean, it should not come as a surprise that there is a wide variety of interpretations. After all, one has to make assumptions in the absence of communication from Canon to form an opinion. And those are based on the people's subjective impressions and experiences.Certainly. So why is it that people assume it's capricious, malicious, or just plain crazy? It's a business decision. People may not like it, but Canon would have considered that and decided to do it anyway.
I don’t know, this sounds pretty raving to me:What noone mentions is the new sensor. Is that actually a new generation, stacked, BSI sensor? Not that it matters, if it does what it does. But if it really is a new Canon sensor generation, I wonder, why they don't rave about it more?
IBIS? I can live without it, it's superfluous. The (built in) EVF, now that is essential. Cameras have been doing just fine without stabilization for over 100 years, they haven't done very well without a viewfinder.If this is true, then it is a bit surprising. I was expecting some product differentiation, e.g. that M5 II is going to get an IBIS, thinking Canon was not ready with the feature in time, so that's a reason M5 II will get released later. But if there is not going to be any M5 II, we are going to live without an IBIS the whole one iteration, which means few years.
Prior cameras had it, this one doesn't (maybe, still seems to be some debate). Logically, it was a definitive decision made by Canon. It seems pretty unlikely that they made that decision because they're malicious, crazy, or stupid.
You might consider that while in your personal reality 23.976fps equates to being 'serious about video', the majority of camera buyers do not live in your personal reality.
wow a company praising it's own product. we need an outside source. none of that is even close to scientific regarding the image quality and DR except the mention of megapixelsI don’t know, this sounds pretty raving to me:
"A 32.5 megapixel APS-C CMOS sensor works hand-in-hand with our bespoke DIGIC 8 image processor to deliver fantastic image quality – clarity, tonality and colour are all abundant, while noise in low-light conditions is kept to an absolute minimum. Sensitivity extends up to ISO 25,600 for hand-held shooting in dark conditions, while a wide dynamic range allows detail to be retained in bright highlights and dark shadows."
All the praise you could give to sensor relevant image quality. Is it normal for them to mention DR in their material?
If all Canon cares about is saving pennies at the convenience of customers, they are out of touch. with them then. this definitely drives people to other brands for video.
Comments like this are common on these forums. People are switching brands. "We need [fill in the blank] or we will all switch to [fill in brand other than Canon, usually Sony]." The thing is, Canon has been omitting features for years, and there's no evidence that it's costing them net customers (in fact, the data suggest the opposite).Many loyal fans will be pushed to other brands by none other but Canon themselves. Many local stringers are getting annoyed with the wait. The Nikon dudes are sort of happy(er). 4 switched to Sony, 1 to Fuji. We need dual card slots for work on the main camera (and no, no one is upgrading to the 1dx2 or 3 when it comes out). We need PC sync. We need 24 to work in groups when the video editor says we need to shoot in 24.