Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Lars Steenhoff

Canon EOS M6 Mark II

Recommended Posts

On 8/20/2019 at 4:05 AM, hoodlum said:

It does have 25p though. Do you think that anyone can tell the difference between 24p & 25p? Is the motion cadence & whatnot that is so distinctive & necessary for the cinema look that a 4% difference can be seen?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
EOSHD Pro Color for Sony cameras EOSHD Pro LOG for Sony CamerasEOSHD C-LOG and Film Profiles for All Canon DSLRs
3 hours ago, nigelbb said:

Would anyone notice if they shot at 25p?

I think 25p might make more sense than 24p in a PAL country. Because 24fps content is conformed to 25p for broadcast there anyway.

I think in NTSC countries, less so. Probably this isn't the camera to buy for a "film look" if you live in the US, for instance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, nigelbb said:

It does have 25p though. Do you think that anyone can tell the difference between 24p & 25p? Is the motion cadence & whatnot that is so distinctive & necessary for the cinema look that a 4% difference can be seen?

It's not the difference in look between 24p and 25p that's any issue, it's the fact you can't shoot in NTSC countries with 25p and avoid flickering lights, cannot mix 24p and 25p on one timeline, they don't conform to each other without dropping a frame or adding a frame, which wreaks the motion cadence, and besides 25p isn't the cinema standard, and some cameras like the Canon 1D C don't shoot 25p in 4K, so good luck having an EOS M6 Mark II as your B-cam for the 1D C or other 24p-4K only cam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/25/2019 at 9:23 PM, Andrew Reid said:

so good luck having an EOS M6 Mark II as your B-cam for the 1D C or other 24p-4K only cam.

I had this problem with the xc10. They have been screwing people around since long before this on the 24p issue.

But I am sure that canon know more than the likes of Nolan and Scorsese - why would they go to the trouble of pushing a filmmaker mode on the public when you can just shoot 30p -

https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20190827005822/en/UHD-Alliance-Brings-Filmmakers-CE-Companies-Hollywood

"Filmmaker Mode will allow viewers to enjoy a more cinematic experience on their UHD TVs when watching movies by disabling all post-processing (e.g. motion smoothing, etc.) so the movie or television show is displayed as it was intended by the filmmaker, preserving the correct aspect ratios, colors and frame rates." 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/26/2019 at 4:18 PM, Mokara said:

As I have said before, this is a cost saving compromise based on the expected user profile for the camera. Canon's sales woes no doubt have played a strong role in that decision.

How is removing 24p going to help their sales?  Just like how is no Prores in the c500 II by at $16k going to help?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Shell64 said:

How is removing 24p going to help their sales?  Just like how is no Prores in the c500 II by at $16k going to help?!

Exactly!

How does a new revolutionary 2019 sports car with no 1st gear or abs sound? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Shell64 said:

How is removing 24p going to help their sales?  Just like how is no Prores in the c500 II by at $16k going to help?!

It is not about increasing sales, it is about the increase in sales being less than what it costs to implement. Why would they spend $2 to make $1 in an era of belt tightening? That is not how business works. In this market they will be looking to trim the fat, reducing expenditures that don't generate a net return. And something like 24p is the sort of thing that is likely to be the first to go in a product like this. It costs money and is a feature that hardly anyone who buys this camera is likely to use. So why spend money to include it?

Maybe this is why so many DPs are starving artists, lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Mokara said:

It is not about increasing sales, it is about the increase in sales being less than what it costs to implement. Why would they spend $2 to make $1 in an era of belt tightening? That is not how business works. In this market they will be looking to trim the fat, reducing expenditures that don't generate a net return. And something like 24p is the sort of thing that is likely to be the first to go in a product like this. It costs money and is a feature that hardly anyone who buys this camera is likely to use. So why spend money to include it?

Maybe this is why so many DPs are starving artists, lol.

Did I miss something? How does 24p cost extra money for the manufacturer of a camera that will anyway have a video function? Wasn't the whole argument around video always that it's easy to do with minimal effort based on the live view function, while the photography purists were yelling that video functions have to be removed because they make cameras "way too expensive"?

Should we remove raw pictures because the soccer moms shoot JPEG?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, androidlad said:

4K video on M6 Mark II is derived from pixel-binned 3.5K Bayer output. Disappointing.

Where did you find this? Will likely be the same for 90D then. But could have been worse (line skipping 2,5K ish crap)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, androidlad said:

4K video on M6 Mark II is derived from pixel-binned 3.5K Bayer output. Disappointing.

So 2x2 binning from that 32MP sensor. I guess Canon didn't quite catch up to Samsung's 2014 tech after all. I thought the samples looked a bit ropey. At least they have Dual Pixel AF in 4K this time (forced to compete with A6600).

These APS-C cams are a bit of a waste of time when there is so much else around.

You may as well think of the EOS RP as an APS-C 4K cam and buy that for a bit more money

The only APS-C cams worth buying right now are from Fuji.

On 8/27/2019 at 7:04 AM, Avenger 2.0 said:

Canon EOS 90D w/18-55mm STM Kit $1349

This pricing is an effing joke.

You can get an EOS RP for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Phil A said:

Did I miss something? How does 24p cost extra money for the manufacturer of a camera that will anyway have a video function? Wasn't the whole argument around video always that it's easy to do with minimal effort based on the live view function, while the photography purists were yelling that video functions have to be removed because they make cameras "way too expensive"?

Should we remove raw pictures because the soccer moms shoot JPEG?

Because every feature included in a camera costs development resources, things are not just "added". There is additional hardware functionality required, that costs money to implement. There are license considerations, that costs money as well. 

RAW is used by a LOT more users of these cameras than 24p, so it is worthwhile for Canon to invest in including it in the cameras. They will make more money in additional sales by having RAW as a feature than it costs to implement it, that is why it is still there.

The feature set we are seeing in the latest consumer cameras is almost certainly a technology package build around Digic 8 that is dropped into whatever new design comes up in that category, so you are going to see similar or identical video specs in most of them. Basically they use the same designs in different bodies when it comes to implementing video. That would minimize the cost to implement, but it also results in those cameras having the same specs. Prosumer cameras likely have a different more advanced technology package while the dedicated video cameras probably have different ones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mokara said:

Because every feature included in a camera costs development resources, things are not just "added". There is additional hardware functionality required, that costs money to implement. There are license considerations, that costs money as well. 

RAW is used by a LOT more users of these cameras than 24p, so it is worthwhile for Canon to invest in including it in the cameras. They will make more money in additional sales by having RAW as a feature than it costs to implement it, that is why it is still there.

The feature set we are seeing in the latest consumer cameras is almost certainly a technology package build around Digic 8 that is dropped into whatever new design comes up in that category, so you are going to see similar or identical video specs in most of them. Basically they use the same designs in different bodies when it comes to implementing video. That would minimize the cost to implement, but it also results in those cameras having the same specs. Prosumer cameras likely have a different more advanced technology package while the dedicated video cameras probably have different ones.

Where’s your evidence for 24fps licensing costs?

 

Please don't repeat your educated guess that’s what is happening here.

 

I'm interested in seeing a link to evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Phil A said:

Did I miss something? How does 24p cost extra money for the manufacturer of a camera that will anyway have a video function?

It doesn't, Makara is talking out of his butt. His argument makes literally no sense. 

25 minutes ago, Jrsisson said:

Where’s your evidence for 24fps licensing costs?

 

Please don't repeat your educated guess that’s what is happening here.

 

I'm interested in seeing a link to evidence.

There is none, he's making it all up. The idea that they removed 24p for financial reasons is laughable / completely nonsensical. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/20/2019 at 11:45 PM, BTM_Pix said:

Just as an FYI in terms of costs, these are the license fees for products incorporating AVC/H.264 

https://www.mpegla.com/programs/avc-h-264/license-agreement/

This is from their FAQs

Q: Do the same licensing terms apply to all profiles of the AVC/H.264 Standard?
A: Yes, the same terms apply whether one or more profiles is used.

 

 

* There is an interesting quirk involved in the licensing but I'm not going to aid and abet the transition of EOSHD into the internet's pre-eminent camera and patent law fusion forum so you can research that one yourselves ;) 

With regard to h264 costs, I'm just going to bump this again for anyone who wants to look at the actual figures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...