Canon EOS M6 Mark II

[MaverickTRD]

19 hours ago, Mokara said:

In order to use H.264 they have to get a license like everyone else. There is absolutely a license fee structure involved, it is NOT free. You are not going to find any link to it because that information obviously is confidential, but suggesting that there is no license is ridiculous. What you pay for a license depends on who your are, what you use the codec for and how you use it. It can range from nothing to a very large amount of money. The exact amount would be negotiated at the time the license is issued and having some restrictions in return for a lower fee is normal business practice.

That is a reasonable and obvious explanation for why something like 24p is omitted. The suggestion that they left it out on purpose just to make their product less competitive is absurd, but that is essentially what most of you are arguing. It is not like 24p was not in their cameras before, so they were not protecting anything then and are not now. The reason for the omission has to be something else.

I’ve never had an account in here. Just lurked. 

But I finally had to sign up. Some of us grow so tired of reading your repetitive assumptions, theories, and misguided opinions. 

No one in their right mind thinks canon removed 24p to save a bit of money. 

 

Furthermore the license fees fees have an annual cap. Once a company hits that cap it can’t cost them more. I imagine big companies that manufacture video equipment using these codecs hit that cap regularly 

 

please stop repeating the same terrible excuse every page 

[Mokara]

22 hours ago, OliKMIA said:

As soon as they release an entry level cam with DPAF and no crop, they magically remove 24p. Don't you see any link here? As you said, they used to have 24p in the past on anything, including sub $500 entry level DSLR such as the 100D. First they release 4k after everybody else, then they release 4k with with huge crop, to finally implement 4k on cheap mirrorless by removing DPAF and now this. I'm not sure if you are blind or if you playing the devil's advocate.

Crippling and segmentation is nothing new or specific to Canon. All manufacturers do that at some point (Sony with shitty codec on the A7x, S1 with shitty audio) but Canon is just mastering the art. Same as the lack of intermediate codec on the C200 (and no 4k raw out!!), etc. Canon line-up is full of crippling, more than the other brands. That's all.

The reason is to protect their higher margin Cxxx camera business, it's both simple and very dumb, which is why you might have issue to grasp at this difficult reality. They are somehow terrified that people would buy entry level stuff for B cam. Sony and Panasonic don't, FS and EVA exist along with A7 and GH/S1 product. People won't give up a pro cam for a DSLR but these type of cameras could be nice as B or C cam if you already own the lenses and want to maintain a certain image consistency.

Your explanation doesn't add up, no matter how many times you repeat this non-sense on every thread. It just goes against basic observation of Canon release history over the year. Nothing to be mad about but this is just embarrassing for you at this point. Not sure if you are a troll, a Canon Rep or really believe in this fairy tale. That said, I'm out of this discussion. Have fun.

It is not "as soon as". The latest point and shoots don't have it either, which everyone seems to have forgotten. Or do you all seriously think that point and shoots were sucking business out of the cinema camera market? All of those cameras are using the same technology subsystem package, just in different bodies. Canon have a long history of using subsystem technology packages, and you can predict what sort of video specs a new camera has based on what processor it uses and what market class it belongs to (consumer/prosumer/pro). 

There is nothing mysterious about it. They are using a reduced set tech package in their consumer cameras to cut costs and improve their margins on those products.

Most of these stupid arguments about "crippling" overlook the fact that the level of technology used in these different market classes is very different. For example, Canon pro cameras have dual main processors and a third older processor for focusing/exposure control. The prosumer cameras have one main processor and a second older processor again for focusing/exposure. Consumer cameras only have the main processor, which has to do everything. That is the main reason why consumer cameras are lacking a lot of the capabilities the high end cameras have, they are not being "crippled", they literally lack the hardware to cope. That extra hardware is left out to reduce costs and make the camera more affordable.

In the case of the current consumer paradigm Canon have clearly built a video subsystem that has everything that is not going to generate a positive to their margin stripped out, and that includes 24p. Expect every consumer camera that is released with Digic 8 to be the same. It is predictable whether people here like it or not. It is not there for a reason, and that reason has nothing to do with "crippling" to "protect" some product in a different market segment that would never buy these cameras in the first place.

[HockeyFan12]

14 minutes ago, Mokara said:

It is not "as soon as". The latest point and shoots don't have it either, which everyone seems to have forgotten. Or do you all seriously think that point and shoots were sucking business out of the cinema camera market? All of those cameras are using the same technology subsystem package, just in different bodies. Canon have a long history of using subsystem technology packages, and you can predict what sort of video specs a new camera has based on what processor it uses and what market class it belongs to (consumer/prosumer/pro). 

There is nothing mysterious about it. They are using a reduced set tech package in their consumer cameras to cut costs and improve their margins on those products.

Most of these stupid arguments about "crippling" overlook the fact that the level of technology used in these different market classes is very different. For example, Canon pro cameras have dual main processors and a third older processor for focusing/exposure control. The prosumer cameras have one main processor and a second older processor again for focusing/exposure. Consumer cameras only have the main processor, which has to do everything. That is the main reason why consumer cameras are lacking a lot of the capabilities the high end cameras have, they are not being "crippled", they literally lack the hardware to cope. That extra hardware is left out to reduce costs and make the camera more affordable.

In the case of the current consumer paradigm Canon have clearly built a video subsystem that has everything that is not going to generate a positive to their margin stripped out, and that includes 24p. Expect every consumer camera that is released with Digic 8 to be the same. It is predictable whether people here like it or not. It is not there for a reason, and that reason has nothing to do with "crippling" to "protect" some product in a different market segment that would never buy these cameras in the first place.

Sure, but don't you think, to an extent, "crippling" vs "ignoring" is primarily a matter of semantics? Either way, it's market segmentation. 

It is interesting that when the 5D Mark II was first released it shot 30p but demand picked up in the cinema market and Canon had to put in some real work getting it to shoot 24p. But they did. I do think, if there were no EOS-R above the 90D, the 90D would be more likely to shoot 24p. 

But do I think it's crippling? No, I think it's ignoring. I just think the end result is no different and people like to feel victimized rather than ignored; it makes them feel important.

https://www.canonrumors.com/why-has-canon-omitted-24p-4k-recording-in-their-new-cameras-such-as-the-eos-m6-mark-ii-eos-90d-and-eos-rp/

Regardless, 3.4k upscaled doesn't bother me at all and I love DPAF. If this camera had Canon Log and 24p, I would be very likely to buy it despite its other flaws. As it is, I'm not even considering the purchase. I don't like feeling ignored either.

[Andrew Reid]

 

4 hours ago, MaverickTRD said:

I’ve never had an account in here. Just lurked. 

But I finally had to sign up. Some of us grow so tired of reading your repetitive assumptions, theories, and misguided opinions. 

No one in their right mind thinks canon removed 24p to save a bit of money. 

 

Furthermore the license fees fees have an annual cap. Once a company hits that cap it can’t cost them more. I imagine big companies that manufacture video equipment using these codecs hit that cap regularly 

 

please stop repeating the same terrible excuse every page 

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.

[Shell64]

It’s that canons technical flaws are disappearing so canon has to give people a reason to go higher 

[HockeyFan12]

16 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

 

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.

This seems completely delusional to me, but what do I know. Is Canon really so concerned with undermining such a small demographic that they go through the trouble of removing a feature across multiple lines so they can upsell them from a (presumably profitable) $1200 dSLR to a $6500 C200 on which they lose money?

The very fact that the older models had 24p contradicts this conspiratorial nonsense. We're simply not that important to them. They're not out to get you, they just don't care. 

[KnightsFan]

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.

[Andrew Reid]

18 minutes ago, HockeyFan12 said:

This seems completely delusional to me, but what do I know.

Yes exactly, what do you know?

"Canon lose money on a C200"

HAHA

We are officially living in an era of world history where the majority of people unashamedly, knowingly speaking total shit to one-another without embarrassment, with no evidence or research to back it up, just pure uneducated or misinformed conjecture.... And it makes them feel good about themselves. It's perverse. No wonder our politics is going down hill rapidly.

[HockeyFan12]

18 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

Yes exactly, what do you know?

Canon lose money on a C200.

HAHA

We are officially living in an era of world history where people are unashamed to knowingly speak total shit without any evidence or research to back it up.

Fair enough, the C200 certainly sells for more than the cost of manufacturing, but their cinema department is unprofitable overall. Regardless, I don't see many people being upsold from a 90D to a C200.

That said, you're proof of the last sentence being true. So we can agree on that.

[Andrew Reid]

1 minute ago, HockeyFan12 said:

Fair enough, the C200 certainly sells for more than the cost of manufacturing, but their cinema department is unprofitable overall.

That said, you're proof of the last sentence being true. So we can agree on that.

Show me the figures...

[HockeyFan12]

15 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

Show me the figures...

Canon has reclassified its cinema department so I can't give you the exact numbers. However, their projections for cinema and broadcast for 2019 are -8.5 billion yen in loses:

https://global.canon/en/ir/conference/pdf/conf2019q1e.pdf

And in 2018 they lost -9.7 billion yen.

But point taken that the individual cameras might sell at a profit. I just don't buy the broader argument that someone shopping for a $1200 stills camera is shopping it against a $6500 cinema camera. 

[MaverickTRD]

Example of the licensing fees from 2011-2015 for example (h264 specifically) there is also no reference of separate fees for 24 vs 30 vs 60p

and if for some reason this doesn’t directly relate to canon devices their other fee structures are similar 

[newfoundmass]

30 minutes ago, HockeyFan12 said:

Fair enough, the C200 certainly sells for more than the cost of manufacturing, but their cinema department is unprofitable overall. Regardless, I don't see many people being upsold from a 90D to a C200.

That said, you're proof of the last sentence being true. So we can agree on that.

They're not trying to push people to buy the C200 instead of the 90D. They are clearly trying to push those users towards the EOS R entry model, which magically has these features. 

It's literally common sense. What changed in the last year? Couldn't be the debut of their FF mirrorless and RF mount, could it?! 

[HockeyFan12]

11 minutes ago, newfoundmass said:

They're not trying to push people to buy the C200 instead of the 90D. They are clearly trying to push those users towards the EOS R entry model, which magically has these features. 

It's literally common sense. What changed in the last year? Couldn't be the debut of their FF mirrorless and RF mount, could it?! 

That makes more sense. But I still don't buy the argument that Canon is actively cutting features that would otherwise be "free." I do buy the argument that they're willing to save a few pennies per camera (these are high volume cameras) at the expense of alienating a small group of users. Which is ultimately probably even more insulting–rather than being the victims of some orchestrated conspiracy, we're not worth a few pennies. But I suspect that's what's going on.

Apologies for being snippy before, btw. I do disagree, but that's no reason to be a jerk.

[PolarStarArts]

3 hours ago, newfoundmass said:

They are clearly trying to push those users towards the EOS R entry model, which magically has these features. 

No question. But not everyone has the money to buy an EOS R body or the RF lenses that are designed to go with it. The EOS R is a camera that appeals to professionals, wannabe professionals (i.e., well-heeled prosumers) and well-heeled consumers. The overall size of that market is relatively small and doesn't explain why Canon would suddenly stop putting 4K 24p or even 1080 24p in their lower-end cameras. Especially when those lower-end cameras have traditionally had some form of 24p for a very long time. And even more so when all of their competitors are continuing to offer it.

In other words, Canon seem to be trying to protect small markets (eg., their Cinema EOS line) that account for a minority of their sales. It doesn't make any sense.

 

[OliKMIA]

8 hours ago, HockeyFan12 said:

This seems completely delusional to me, but what do I know. Is Canon really so concerned with undermining such a small demographic that they go through the trouble of removing a feature across multiple lines so they can upsell them from a (presumably profitable) $1200 dSLR to a $6500 C200 on which they lose money?

The very fact that the older models had 24p contradicts this conspiratorial nonsense. We're simply not that important to them. They're not out to get you, they just don't care. 

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.

 

7 hours ago, HockeyFan12 said:

 I just don't buy the broader argument that someone shopping for a $1200 stills camera is shopping it against a $6500 cinema camera. 

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.

4 hours ago, PolarStarArts said:

In other words, Canon seem to be trying to protect small markets (eg., their Cinema EOS line) that account for a minority of their sales. It doesn't make any sense.

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

 

 

[gt3rs]

 

[Mokara]

On 8/29/2019 at 2:51 PM, MaverickTRD said:

Example of the licensing fees from 2011-2015 for example (h264 specifically) there is also no reference of separate fees for 24 vs 30 vs 60p

and if for some reason this doesn’t directly relate to canon devices their other fee structures are similar 

Those are royalties, not license fees.

[Mokara]

On 8/29/2019 at 6:36 PM, PolarStarArts said:

No question. But not everyone has the money to buy an EOS R body or the RF lenses that are designed to go with it. The EOS R is a camera that appeals to professionals, wannabe professionals (i.e., well-heeled prosumers) and well-heeled consumers. The overall size of that market is relatively small and doesn't explain why Canon would suddenly stop putting 4K 24p or even 1080 24p in their lower-end cameras. Especially when those lower-end cameras have traditionally had some form of 24p for a very long time. And even more so when all of their competitors are continuing to offer it.

In other words, Canon seem to be trying to protect small markets (eg., their Cinema EOS line) that account for a minority of their sales. It doesn't make any sense.

 

Canon are not trying to protect anything. No one buys a consumer camera instead of a pro camera when they need a pro camera. Whether or not an M6 does or does not have 24p has no impact on EOS-C sales at all. Nothing. Zip. Zero.

There is zero evidence that these features were left out to protect high end products. People speculating as such is not evidence. Features are left out to reduce costs. That is it.

Think about it. If 24p was really in such high demand as most here think, do you think Canon would shoot themselves in the foot by leaving it out, when all that would accomplish is send customers to competitors consumers cameras, not the Cxxx cameras? They would gain absolutely nothing if that was true and instead would lose market share to the competition. Remember, people have been going on for ages how Canon are market savy, and look to what their customers really want while waiting for the technology to mature. People say that their superior sales speak for themselves. Now suddenly we are supposed to think that their engineers and marketing managers have no clue. Just like that, because they made a decision exactly on the basis that people have been saying they have for all these years. 

They left it out because it costs money to implement and few people who buy these cameras actually use it. They counted the beans and went with the largest pile. So they cut it out in order to improve their margin. It will save them a million or two and have negligible impact on sales. Why wouldn't they do it? It is the smart thing to do.

The vast majority of people who buy the M6 are buying it as a stills camera, and the vast majority of that minority who use it for video will shoot 30/60p anyway, not 24p. Canon know this, and they would rather have that extra million or two in margins in these times of shrinking markets. When sales are growing you can add fluff to improve your sales pitch, but when they are shrinking you are best served by cutting the fat.

[gatopardo]

24p is not that important to me as i live in a PAL country and don't do feature films. Use 25p all the time. But this are the first 4k Canon cameras which image quality video is really lacking. EOS M50 and EOS R are capable of producing very nice creamy image despite the crop. This ones seem to suffer from the poor upscaling. This way there's no point shooting with a Canon any more.