PolarStarArts

It's frustrating to see Mokara make the same argument over and over again despite all logic and reason.
Canon left out 24p in their lower end cameras because they wanted those users to spend more and/or invest in the new RF mount cameras. 
It really is that simple. It's a calculated move where they've decided that the rewards outweigh the negatives. 
Casual users are unlikely to care or notice, which is the only thing Mokara is correct about. 
Enthusiasts/low budget filmmakers will either pay up for more "premium" cameras, because of brand loyalty or the amount of money they have already invested in Canon gear, or they will move on to a different camera system. 
From a purely financial standpoint it makes sense, because unless their sales absolutely tank, they'll end up making more by forcing people to pay more for the features they've always had, even if a percentage of users abandon Canon. They've probably calculated those customers were at risk of buying different cameras anyway. 
But by removing 24 fps from their new sub $1,300 cameras they've given you two choices if you want to stay with Canon: pay up or buy up the remaining inventory of soon to be phased out cameras that are collecting dust in warehouses and store back rooms. 

Older cameras had 24p when they still was a huge gap with Pro models. And at the time, the C lineup was not very developed. When canon started adding DPAF and 4K, they crippled it somehow with lack of AF, huge crop and now the removal of 24p. They just want leave a large gap between prosumer cam and pro cam.
 
Someone shopping for $6500 camera might also need a B and C cam with relatively close look, APC-S and S35 are close. A few 90D  might do well with regular C200/C300 footage for quick cut and B roll. Canon try to sell A, B and C cam at full price. Not sure about the reasoning, does it really work for them? Big prods might buy that but how many customers do they lose in the process? I don't know.
But it's not just about price, mounting a M6 II on a small gimbal would be much easier than a C200. Getting B-roll with light and small gimbal is great, doing the same thing with a C200, not so easy.
It's all about margins not sales. They probably make pennies on entry level DSLR but the margins in the Pro camera business are comfortable, even after factoring the smaller production batch:
Need a longer cable? $350 !!!!
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1184818-REG/canon_0887c001_un_10_unit_cable_for.html
A 90 Wh battery? $430
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1159864-REG/canon_0870c002_bp_a60_battery_pack_for.html
A 4" monitor $650
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1340812-REG/canon_2417c001_lm_v1_lcd_monitor.html
 
 

Conspiracies, cost cutting, delusions... it's all the same to me. There's only so much value to be had in speculation about the whys and hows. The bottom line is: I'm not buying any camera that doesn't shoot 24p.

Well said.
The cheapest camera with 24p is probably something like $80
And people still believe the Canon rep PR spin that 24p had to go to bring the price of their $1400 camera down a bit and that Canon did everybody a favour and it's good business! LOL!
People are so gullible it saddens me to the core.
Even the EOS 1300D has 24p!
Obviously not in 4K but this is one of their cheapest and worst DSLRs.
There is a reason Canon do not want filmmakers and enthusiasts using 4K 24p for under $2000 and it has nothing to do with profit margins, licensing costs, technological capabilities and everything to do with forcing these advanced users to pay more for a different model, end of story.

It is my understanding that Sony's 5k and 6k full pixel readout and scaling to 4k video...is dont at the A/D conversion level. The sensor does that proprietary scaling right on the sensor and feeds that final 4k image to whatever video processor your camera has.
Why does this matter? Because all of the readout and scaling engine is on the chip itself. Your image processor doesnt have to do that work!
Anybody who buys a Sony sensor has access to the scaling readout modes. So when Canon buys 1 inch Sony sensors,...bang!...they got Sony-style full pixel readout. Since Canon makes their own FF and APSC sensors,...they dont have that scaling engine onboard! Their DIGIC processor has to collect and scale that readout by itself!
CLEARLY.....Canon has NOT figured out how to do 4k with anything more than a 1:1 deBayer or a 1:1 assembly using binning or line skipping!!
Canon is literly 10 years behind Sony in sensor readout and image assembly mathematics!
My God....wow.

Thanks much for your feedback Andrew on this just announced M6-Mark-II.  I was about to get rid of my existing (and very humble) Olympus E-M10 Mark-III and 'upgrade' to this M6 Mark-III as my first foray into the Canon world.  I thought, double the megapixels, a larger sensor (m4/3 vs APS-C) DPAF vs CDAF only, etc.  But now, your insightfulness has created pause to rethink matters.  Now, I am thinking to either wait for the upcoming Olympus E-M5 Mark-III and stick with M4/3, or to  go full frame and consider A7-III et el,  Or perhaps I should venture into the Fuji camp and consider X-T3/X-T30, albeit no IBIS (I think) and also owning no Fuji lenses.  I tend to shy away from full frame because of the  added weight, size, and expense for lenses, and at this point in life (age) I really like the relative compactness of the current Olympus or this new M6-Mark-II.  I like the ergonomics and control layout of the Olympus but the menu system is another story!. But size alone is surely not the only factor.  Perhaps the all around compromise might be the Fuji X-T3 / X-T30 but again, no lenses.   Alternatively, just wait and see what Olympus produces with the upcoming E-M5-Mark III.   It is rumored to minimally have the capable sensor of the current E-M1-MKII but with new processor.   Anyway, again, thanks for the heads up info on the shortcomings of the M6 Mark-II 4K specifications  not being true 4K.  It's definitely food-for-thought.  Sheesh!  Even my Samsung Galaxy Note 9 gives me 4K @ 60fps!  ... decisions, decisions, confusion!   (^J^)

What was to stop Sony using their own Fuji X-T3 sensor in the A6600 and at least make it compete?
Or was the sensor a Samsung part after all?
Is Sony really telling APS-C users in 2019 that they don't quite have the technology to do 4K/60p or reduced rolling shutter on a crop sensor? No 10bit?
Honestly buying a 2016 cam in 2019 just seems a bit of a waste of time.

Really shitty updates from Sony. Feels like they didnt want to put any effort and R&D money into it but they wanted to keep their piece of the pie buy introducing small incrimental upgrades.

https://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sr5-leaked-images-and-specs-of-thenew-sony-a6100-and-a6600-and-lenses/
So little difference between a6100, a6400 and a6600. But at least there is a 16-55mm f2.8 now!

Agreed. I think Canon are done.
The Canon EOS M6 I own now will probably be the last Canon camera I'll ever buy, or own. I was so disappointed when Canon brought out their new EOS M6 Mark II. I was hoping that it would be a natural upgrade path for me.

Sure, there's no crop factor in 4K, but there's no DPAF available either and the only mode you get in 4K is 30p. There's no 24p mode in standard HD, only 30p. If you want to shoot in 60p, you have to downgrade to 720p, which is barely HD in this day and age. That's nuts, if you ask me.
The EOS RP full-frame camera is similarly crippled and has a horrible 4K crop. And it's overpriced. In Canada, a EOS RP with the 'kit' 24-105mm F4 L-series RF mount lens is $2899.00. That's a lot to ask for a camera that isn't even semi-pro grade and is aimed at dumb consumers who want full-frame but don't know any better.
And don't get me started on the EOS R, which is almost $4K in Canadian dollars with the same 'kit' lens.
The way Canon want people to do things is to buy one of their crippled stills cameras and then buy one of their XA- or XF-series camcorders if they shoot video and want 4K. Or, buy one of their Cinema EOS cameras like a C100, C200 or C300. Like a lot of people, I'm not made of money and can't afford to do this. I want ONE camera, one that does it all reasonably well, is affordable and won't suck all the cash out of my bank account. I demand good image quality and good autofocus when it's needed.
I'm in the market for a new camera and looking to get into pro photography. My M6, nice as it is for purely still photography, won't cut it. I know a new camera won't make me a better photographer. But that's not the point. What I'm looking for is usability and features that will help me get the shots I want. And let me shoot video.
The problem, as I see it, is that Canon have too many camera lines chasing too few dollars. And they're engaging in excessive market segmentation where they either withhold features buyers want, or put them just out of reach until they stump up the extra cash to get them, whether they can afford to or not. All in an effort to squeeze still more cash out of their customers. As a consumer, I don't like being forced to do anything, nor do I like the feeling of someone, anyone, trying to extract something from me.
My next camera may well be a Sony A7II. Sure, it won't have 4K, but it will have XAVC-S video at 50Mb/s. The quality of video you can get in XAVC-S at that bit rate is pretty much equivalent to the quality you get from downsampling 4K to 1080p.
My thinking is that if Canon take another 5 to 10% hit on their revenues and don't smarten up, they'll be exiting the camera business.
 

Agreed. I think Canon are done.
The Canon EOS M6 I own now will probably be the last Canon camera I'll ever buy, or own. I was so disappointed when Canon brought out their new EOS M6 Mark II. I was hoping that it would be a natural upgrade path for me.

Sure, there's no crop factor in 4K, but there's no DPAF available either and the only mode you get in 4K is 30p. There's no 24p mode in standard HD, only 30p. If you want to shoot in 60p, you have to downgrade to 720p, which is barely HD in this day and age. That's nuts, if you ask me.
The EOS RP full-frame camera is similarly crippled and has a horrible 4K crop. And it's overpriced. In Canada, a EOS RP with the 'kit' 24-105mm F4 L-series RF mount lens is $2899.00. That's a lot to ask for a camera that isn't even semi-pro grade and is aimed at dumb consumers who want full-frame but don't know any better.
And don't get me started on the EOS R, which is almost $4K in Canadian dollars with the same 'kit' lens.
The way Canon want people to do things is to buy one of their crippled stills cameras and then buy one of their XA- or XF-series camcorders if they shoot video and want 4K. Or, buy one of their Cinema EOS cameras like a C100, C200 or C300. Like a lot of people, I'm not made of money and can't afford to do this. I want ONE camera, one that does it all reasonably well, is affordable and won't suck all the cash out of my bank account. I demand good image quality and good autofocus when it's needed.
I'm in the market for a new camera and looking to get into pro photography. My M6, nice as it is for purely still photography, won't cut it. I know a new camera won't make me a better photographer. But that's not the point. What I'm looking for is usability and features that will help me get the shots I want. And let me shoot video.
The problem, as I see it, is that Canon have too many camera lines chasing too few dollars. And they're engaging in excessive market segmentation where they either withhold features buyers want, or put them just out of reach until they stump up the extra cash to get them, whether they can afford to or not. All in an effort to squeeze still more cash out of their customers. As a consumer, I don't like being forced to do anything, nor do I like the feeling of someone, anyone, trying to extract something from me.
My next camera may well be a Sony A7II. Sure, it won't have 4K, but it will have XAVC-S video at 50Mb/s. The quality of video you can get in XAVC-S at that bit rate is pretty much equivalent to the quality you get from downsampling 4K to 1080p.
My thinking is that if Canon take another 5 to 10% hit on their revenues and don't smarten up, they'll be exiting the camera business.
 

Bah... who cares... I’m not an investor...
Im a consumer... and I don’t see Canon producing anything of interest to me to anymore. Period.

I reckon the 30p lovers should all go and tell Hollywood and Netflix to switch.
I don't care if the camera is aimed at me or not, only Canon's marketing people do.
The founding principals of the cinema look include 24p and it's as important as dynamic range, RAW, etc., 25p looks similar but 24p is the standard and you can't mix the two on one timeline.
Canon know this which is why it's another Protect the Cinema EOS margins cripple.
Which is a shame because the new sensor technology looks good, and has finally caught up to the readout speed of others. 
If you are calling yourself a filmmaker but prefer to shoot 30p over 24p you should be a bit embarrassed.
25p is another matter, that has the same cinematic feel to 24p.
I shoot 25p quite a lot because I live in a PAL region.
I am glad it has 25p.
But I'm not happy with the 24p bullshit spreading on this forum and screen Hz judder-stutter-bullshit. Stop doing it. Tiresome to read.

Yes of course we all know the story with the M6 Mark II is that compared to earlier efforts such as the 60D or T2i, Canon finally had to drop 24p to save on the H.264 licensing fees which were really racking up a huge debt in their corporate bank account, and the other reason they had to drop 24p was that it takes just so much processing power to drop those 6 frames compared to 30p which is much easier, and the virtual garbage bin kept filling up with those frames and overflowing causing a memory leak and a security issue for people with smartphones connected, so 24p just had to go, and also the uncompressed 16bit 8K HDMI output could only run at 60hz for the screens on Atomos recorders so no 24p externally either, plus in Japanese the number 24 is associated with ghosts.

Everybody stop, we have been wrong all along for 10 years since the 5D Mark II came out with that silly 24p firmware patch, why they bothered with that and didn't just stick to 30p I don't know.
All that stutter and judder from the cinema frame rate, damn my computer screen for not being a flickering 24hz scan rate, it's all the fault of those damned LCD panels!!
Yes I wondered why the Arri Alexa looks so shit on my LG OLED.
Bloody 24fps strikes again.
Tut tut tut.
*Checks notes* Canon are completely right to remove 24p and it has *checks notes* nothing to do with protecting the higher-end cameras.
Better warn all those C200 users shooting their silly mismatched 24p for Netflix.
They should all be shooting at 60p to avoid judder, and recommending people turn their TVs to Motion Smoothing mode, especially for those fancy daytime soap operas we used to call "films" like Christopher Nolan's Dunkirk.
Quick somebody tell Scorsese!
Why won't he get the 30p 60p memo??? Doesn't he know his scan lines are juddering and stuttering?
And damn that bloody Spielberg still living in 1984.
An affliction you mean? Yes, the look of cinema is the scourge of filmmakers everywhere.
They should really go to a doctor for that 24p disease.
I don't know how much you guys in these PR offices get paid by companies like Canon but I am fascinated by the work and script writing you put in.
Should do a documentary about it...
Shot in 30p of course.

They are on a glide-path to exiting the consumer camera market completely and exploring other avenues.
And it shows!

Shoot in 30p, but then conform it into 24p.  The subtle slow-mo of the image will make it look more cinematic.  Canon is just trying to help you become better filmmakers.

Its not funny. A Canon rep told there is a legitimate reason for no 24p. He said something about the way the sensor is read out. He said that Canon wants it to operate at a perfect temperature. It runs too cold at 24p, but is at an optimum temp at 30p. It was done for the benefit of the camera.

That's exactly why I jumped off from the Canon ship few years ago. I'm sick of all those little things to protect their upper models. I mean you can do it in a sense, but when every other brand do offers 24p, you really have to have no shame...

FWIW, one of the favorite docs I shot was with a GM1 handheld.  There's a lot of things to worry about with making movies.  Sure, camera mass is one of them, but, to me, pretty inconsequential on the priority list.
 

32.5mp APS-C Sensor
DIGIC 8
14fps
RAW burst to 30fps
Up to ISO 26500
Eye detect AF
AF capable down to -5 EV
4K video
FullHD at 120fps
Removeable OLED viewfinder


Read more: https://photorumors.com/2019/08/19/canon-eos-m6-mark-ii-and-canon-eos-90d-promo-videos-leaked-online/#ixzz5x552VOdJ
What does 4k though image processing mean canon?
 

It's a shame they left. Their NX1 and NX500 cameras seemed to offer the ground on which Samsung could have been a very successful camera manufacturer.
 

Thought others here might find this interesting, although it was shot in NZ....  it was actually done a long way away from myself! Down in NZ's South Island. 

This is what you get when you treat your customers like crap, severely cripple your cameras, and don't give the buyer good value for $$$.
They've been living on their laurels for some time now, and have failed to see the hand writing on the wall.
They can't say the weren't warned.
STOP RIPPING YOUR CUSTOMERS OFF, OVER CHARGING THEM, AND THEN STABBING THEM IN THE BACK!
BAD COMPANY

Almost all ENG cameras, even today, use a Monochrome eyepiece. It just has more distinction than Color does. Way easier to focus.