In my experience which I admit is not particularly broad, with the editing programs I have used, FCPX, LumaFusion, iMovie, it really doesn't matter. It seems you can put practically anything in and get practically anything out and I don't see impacts in quality and I have yet to see a demonstration that does.
I'd happily have somebody point me to an authoritative and peer supported example where IQ is impacted to a noticeable degree by doing so. I'd also like to see the same for anything that demonstrated a visible difference between a 23.976, 25 or a 24 timeline.
I am not being a Canon apologist, not for one second. I am trying to be a realist and point out the desperate hand wringing over 'the issue' is largely overblown and grossly exaggerated.I have to chime in here. For starters, I have no idea why Canon would remove 24p in 1080. You have to actually change the video system back and forth in the menus to toggle between NTSC/PAL. If you are in PAL, you only get 25p in 4K as well. You have to switch it back to NTSC for 24p... It's a major inconvenience.
But aside from that, I mainly shoot in North America w/ 60HZ lighting. I'm more or less free to use any shutter angle while working in 24P. When forced to shoot in 25P, I now have to be selective with my shutter angles, or I will run into a ton of trouble with moving bands in my shot, especially with fluorescent lighting. Likewise in Euro/Asia, a person can shoot 25P with pretty much any shutter angle since the lighting there is 50HZ, but when shooting 24p, there are the same restrictions in shutter angles to avoid flicker. So while most people won't notice a significant difference dropping a 25p shot in a 24p timeline since Adobe will automatically conform them for you, if they are shooting in North America, they WILL notice the moving vertical bands in the shot and will spend hours working with plugins trying to rectify the issue all because they had to shoot in 25P.
Here is a calculator offering safe shutter angles depending on the region.
I kinda agree that the EF-S has become redundant. The RP entry price is quite low and all the RF lenses so far are superior to their EF counter-parts. Better that Canon concentrates on the M lenses and upscales the high end cameras to give a successor to the 7D MKII. Still if the rumours are true about an upcoming 90D were soon find out whether it prolongs the EF-S or jumps to RF. With the EOS R and RP both able to have an APS-C crop mode and the continued introductions into the M line up I think Canon R&D bucks will need to compromise somewhere.I don't see that as likely. Given the size weight and quality of the RF lenses to date I think Canon's intent is to make the R line a high quality higher cost ff system, I'd expect them to leave APS-C to the M and the generally low cost slower zooms much better suited to a more general audience and market.
The lines between the EF and EF-s market became very grey, at this point the differences between the EF-M and RF are very apparent to even the most basic of consumers. Why muddy the waters with an RF-S series of bodies and lenses when I'd think, in this shrinking camera market, R&D is best focused on the actual RF line and possibly a couple more complimentary EF-M lenses to keep people like me happy with our $1,000 bodies.
As a pure thought experiment where is Canon most likely to go with their stills camera lineups?I kinda agree that the EF-S has become redundant. The RP entry price is quite low and all the RF lenses so far are superior to their EF counter-parts. Better that Canon concentrates on the M lenses and upscales the high end cameras to give a successor to the 7D MKII. Still if the rumours are true about an upcoming 90D were soon find out whether it prolongs the EF-S or jumps to RF. With the EOS R and RP both able to have an APS-C crop mode and the continued introductions into the M line up I think Canon R&D bucks will need to compromise somewhere.
I'm currently selling my M6. The one thing that drives me insane is the slow CPU. Switching between some functions, especially between image review and back is painfully slow. As is AF still. I've lost too many images waiting for the camera and it's not like I am a sports or action photographer. I'm over it. Somehow I don't have faith that the Mark II will fix things. I would be happy to be surprised though as I am keeping my lenses for now, just in case.
Hmm Project Nacho. Sounds tasty
Well Canon are still investing in the M Series. It’s a series that seemed a dead end to me but must be doing well enough for Canon to give it more support with new cameras.
It’s small and compact and well loved by users.
Yes! This. And I'm quite sure that Sigma would not be taking this step without very good info/assurances (maybe insider, or some tacit private agreement) that Canon would continue to develop and release M-series bodies.
Surely that would just be the APS-C version of EOS RP, with RF mount not M mount.Would be nice to se an EosM camera with the shape and size of the RP. And would be awesome if it had ibis and weather sealing too. With that new 32mp sensor.
I would go head first for it.
One question though: Would my trusty Tamron 17-50 2.8 work on it with the ef to Ef-M adapter?
Canon will likely keep producing EF-s and EF cameras and lenses as long as people keep buying them in enough volume to be attractive. At this point, Canon is being pretty much handed the DSLR market except for Nikon's high end cameras FF cameras. We may not be talking very much about EF cameras and lenses on Canon Rumors though.As a pure thought experiment where is Canon most likely to go with their stills camera lineups?
1: EF-s is a dead end, it will get the 90D and maybe a Rebel T8. You can still buy T5's new so even when they stop manufacture they will have several years of stock.
2: EF is at the end of it's high R&D costs. The 1DX MkIII is basically done in terms of R&D and the 5D MkV will be close too. After that I just don't see any more EF DSLR's, who'd buy a 6D III when they can have an RP or discounted R?
3: EF-M is a high volume but irregular regional money maker, but the specific market, in general, are not exotic lens buyers so little extra lens development is needed to keep the customer base happy. Niche lenses like the 32mm f1.4 and the 28mm f3.5 Macro keep many extras happy too.
4: RF is taking up nearly all the ILC R&D budget with a range of cameras and lenses laid out in a roadmap we would all love to be privy too. RF is the future for Canon.
ok, so why bring this up? Because our visual cortex doesn’t see motion the way it sees a still. While watching that movie, everything looks more than sharp enough. We don’t really see the grain, and small defects aren’t noticed. But when we print a still, it’s different. Suddenly, it’s soft, there may be scratches we need to fix, the grain is prominent.
I wondered about the authenticity of the ‘code name’, but maybe nachos are a thing in Japan. They have nacho-flavored Pringles!