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

[Ramage]

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.

 

[Canon Rumors Guy]

24p isn't patented and doesn't need to be licensed.

The framerate isn't patented, the encode/decode for the framerate is in some countries, as mentioned in the article.

 

[dtaylor]

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?

 

[Photo Hack]

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?

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.

It seems like they’re playing on the fact that they’re #1 which I can see would cause the animosity a lot of current former Canon shooters have. I just can’t see Panasonic or Olympus purposely taking features out to move consumers to a higher price point. I don’t think they would survive like Canon could playing that game.

 

[unfocused]

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.

 

[BradC]

There’s really no good logical reason for this. They can give excuses, but it doesn’t make common sense. It’s not a Digic 8 issue. The M50 does 24p just fine. It’s “low end”.

With regards to the article, it’s not even 4K-24p that’s missing... it’s 24p *anything*. I don’t even need 4K, even though it’s nice. Not having 1080-24p is just ridiculous. That’s a staple.

 

[dtaylor]

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

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.

I have a friend who shot for years with Nikon pro equipment. He picked up a Fuji XPro 2 for something small and lightweight, and he doesn't even talk about Nikon's new products any more. All of his money has gone to Fuji since buying that camera. I think handling with long teles is the only reason he hasn't sold off his Nikon gear to fill out his Fuji lens kit.

Now in Nikon's case they just didn't have a mirrorless to offer him when he wanted one. And that's a huge task (design, tooling, manufacturing). But why risk introducing your customers to the competition over a firmware change???

I'm still waiting to see what the 90D/M62 video quality is like, but it looks like I'm going to add an X-T3 this year simply for video. I would much rather add a Canon for the lens compatibility and shared ergonomics. In my case I can't see myself abandoning Canon for stills because I'm in love with 5Ds IQ. The 5Ds gives me what I lusted for back when I was shooting xxD bodies and the 7D, but wanting files from MFDBs. Even so, if I pull the trigger on an X-T3 it means some of my future lens purchases will be for that mount rather than Canon's.

It seems quite silly from where I'm sitting.

The statistical analysis they ran to maximize profit...

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.

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.

Ironically, on other forums a lot of people are complaining about their two releases, the A6100 and A6600.

 

[dtaylor]

I don’t want to assume, but are you concluding it’s a technology or hardware limitation?

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.

 

[PureClassA]

There is no hardware/tech limitation. It's the same Digic 8 chip that is in the 5D4, EOS R, etc...

This was a marketing decision by Canon, pure and simple. That's their choice. They clearly are trying to keep film folks at the $2k + price range. Casual video folks are less concerned with standard film frame rates.

Yes, 24fps is STILL the Hollywood standard and will be for a while, regardless of a few experimental shootings like the Hobbit. Doubling the data handling and doubling the lighting requirements isn't something that industry would prefer, not to mention the additional time and resources (and huge costs) to do the more intricate CGI work on twice as many frames as before. It's not a matter of film vs digital, it all the ancillary and costly impacts it has.

AL THAT BEING SAID, while I respect (but disagree) with Canon's choice, I find it strange that they claim to want to expand their market share in a shrinking market, but at the same time seem to want to under serve (by comparison to say Sony or Panasonic or Fuji) the desires of what is arguably the segment of the market remaining that has seen the most growth in recent years.... the DSLR/MILC film folks.

I really love my EOS R. I got it mainly for filming. But the EOS RP and the 90D should have 24p. The extra money with the R could/would have given you the step-up of Canon Log and 10bit 4:2:2. (Would have been nice to have a full frame readout, since obviously the 90D can with the same Digic 8 and 32MP), but I can't complain.

 

[ajm]

Here's the real reason. I work in Hollywood on mostly indie to low budget films. Many are shot on Sony A7's, 5D's, 1DXMII, and Yes the Canon 80D...and in 24 fps. If the budget is a little bigger for a Canon C300MKII or C200 or Sony FS5 -7...etc....then they will use those. But many times the previous mentioned cameras will do the job, especially with an external recorder to get a better image and good lighting. 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. Not so with Sony APS-C cameras as they have 24p. Of course the Canon Rebel series has 24p...which are used also in very low or no budget films out here. The 90D would kill it out here for indie films if it had 24p. Oh well. I was going to order one, but most likely not now.

 

[Famateur]

...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.

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.

 

[navastronia]

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.

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.

And now I've learned something today from both of you. Thanks!!

 

[dtaylor]

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.

You're probably right. But this doesn't work when the competition undercuts your plans.

 

[bhf3737]

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.
...

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.
You can shot a scene in 25, 30 or 60p and import it to a 24p workflow. This is a common practice in many multi-cam setups. Almost all NLEs can automatically do the pull-down and you can print the end result in 24 FPS if you want.
Is it necessary to have the entire capture-edit-produce workflow to be 24 FPS?
Can't you still deliver your end product with whatever frame rate you want (24 FPS) even if it was captured in 30 FPS?

 

[slclick]

Video work is putting a roof over your family's heads and you're complaining that an entry level camera doesn't have a particular frame rate? Were you depending on an M series body to keep your business afloat?

 

[genriquez]

It is very strange that Canon is removing 24p from cameras. They should firmware it back.

At the same time 24p is for the internet, 48hz projectors and 120hz screens.

30p is for the internet, 30p NTSC (television), 60p (broadcasting television, slow motion 30p), 120hz displays.

Sure you can pull down/convert. But 30p seems more useful.

They should put 24p back and end this.

 

[Trey T]

Just Canon proving they are a greedy company. Maybe they are just saving their pennies for a rough future. Some companies care about customers and some dont.

wait ...whaaaaaat??? the last pay raise you accepted, did you not deserve it?

 

[Arod820]

Cool story bro, I’m not buying it if it doesn’t have 24p.

 

[BurningPlatform]

While I personally never use 24p (and think it is more or less the emperor's old clothes, unusable for action, horrible looking panning even with the recommended 180 degree shutter especially on a big high-resolution screen... and I actually liked the 48 HFR version of the Hobbit, so much more realistic look [IMHO]), it is still a mystery why Canon left it out. There are people who want to shoot in 24p to get that old-fashined Hollywood look and when it is not available in these cameras, the production chooses another brand for their B or C camera. By the way 30 or 25 fps do not really translate well to a 24 fps timeline. Whereas the other way round works fairly well, 24=>30fps. 24=>25, on the other hand, has routinely been done speeding the frame rate, which is why movies in PAL TVs are 4 % shorter.

Or maybe they could not decide between the real film 24fps and the NTSC compatible 23.976 fps?

 

[Canon Rumors Guy]

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.

Thank you, I have amended the article.