Canon EOS 90D Specs leaked in video

[TheRealOG]

LOLLL... "Tastes evolve"... Dude, intentionally crippling features that existed before and get removed is a butthead move. "NO ONE NEEDS 1080P 24, 30, OR 60. 120FPS IN 1080P AND 4K 30P IS WHAT I NEED". It is a terrible b-cam to the EOS R or even the 80D. I've been looking forward to something like this for a bit. The simplicity of the Canon 80D was great, just needed a bit sharper video. The X-T2 still outperforms it, minus the DPAF.

[ted1000]

At least Canon won't sue you if you say something bad about their cameras ?

Ted

[Cinegain]

Could actually be the last of the traditional DSLRs?

What a note to end on...

Aren't they also the only ones not to have any of their interchangeable cameras with sensor stabilization?

[Shell64]

Canon. The first to make a revolutionary DSLR and last to make an awful DSLR!

[Mokara]

2 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

Yeah you keep making bullshit claims even though I told you not to

Unless you can back this rubbish up with proof, I may well ask you to leave the forum.

You have a better explanation for why they would leave the framerate out? They are without question paying a license fee for using the codec. That is the most reasonable explanation. Or we could just go with the conspiracy theory, which, I may point out, has no support either. People repeating it over and over does not make it real.

7 hours ago, Cinegain said:

Yeah wow, great move, much smart. How dumb are Sony, Panasonic, Fujifilm & Nikon, eh?! WHAHAHA

Oh, c'mon. Just stop the bullcrap excuses. 'The omiting thing is a tradition. It’s a habit.' Well, yup. In the sense that it's Canon being Canon.

Canon be like: lol, we be crippling them cameras like there's no tomorrow...

... and they still fucking buy 'em! OMFG! xD

The enablers are to blame here. I'd be gloating too... it's like taking candy from a baby and them not minding getting spit in the face.

Older cameras have 24p included, so they are leaving it out for a reason. The people who buy this camera are not the ones who buy high end systems, so the idea that they are leaving the function out to "protect" their high end products is complete nonsense.

[newfoundmass]

16 minutes ago, Mokara said:

You have a better explanation for why they would leave the framerate out? They are without question paying a license fee for using the codec. That is the most reasonable explanation. Or we could just go with the conspiracy theory, which, I may point out, has no support either. People repeating it over and over does not make it real.

IT'S CANON! The company that has a history of removing features even as they charge a premium! 

They're not saving money cutting out 24p, BUT even if they were it'd be fucking indefensible and NOT "smart" at all. 

22 minutes ago, Mokara said:

Older cameras have 24p included, so they are leaving it out for a reason. The people who buy this camera are not the ones who buy high end systems, so the idea that they are leaving the function out to "protect" their high end products is complete nonsense.

Seriously, what planet are you living on?! 

[Video Hummus]

Just don’t buy their crap cameras if video specs are important to you. Moving on. 

[newfoundmass]

Canon accidentally sets off filmmaking revolution, 10 years later people act like there hasn't been a decade of people using these cameras to shoot films. 

[Mokara]

24p is not just "there". It costs money to implement. There is development cost associated with every function in the camera. There will be hardware support requirements which will add to the manufacturing cost. There is also the question of the license fee they have to pay to use H.264. 

When you are producing a low cost version of a high end product you manufacture, the way you do it and still make money is to strip out the frills that the likely user does not need. Although those sorts of things might seem trivial to you, they do cost money to implement, money that otherwise comes out of your margin.

[Cinegain]

1 hour ago, Mokara said:

You have a better explanation for why they would leave the framerate out? They are without question paying a license fee for using the codec. That is the most reasonable explanation. Or we could just go with the conspiracy theory, which, I may point out, has no support either. People repeating it over and over does not make it real.

Older cameras have 24p included, so they are leaving it out for a reason. The people who buy this camera are not the ones who buy high end systems, so the idea that they are leaving the function out to "protect" their high end products is complete nonsense.

Newer cameras have 24p included... Canon really sorta is the only exception. If there was such a weird thing as 24p codec licensing, which is an utter B$ of an assumption, then why-o-why is Panasonic including it? Why does Sony still fit 24p in all their cameras? Why does stills heritage Fujifilm care about 24p video? Nikon? Heck, even bloody Pentax... and nobody is even using those to shoot video.

Yet... it's a Canon strategy that we've seen time and time again. Seemingly purposely crippling cameras, withholding certain features. Playing the infamous segmentation game. You want X? Buy Z! Heavy crops, 24p, limited recording times, DPAF C-AF during 4K, inclusion of a mic-input/headphone port, display type (front-facing), etc... all to differentiate cameras, pushing you to buy certain cameras if you want certain features.

It's sorta the same we see Pansonic do diversifying their flagship line-up not to just be the one GH-camera. Now there's the G9 if you want the best in stills, with that top LCD, huge EVF, 6.5-stops of stabiization, USB-C charging and schtuff. The GH5S if you want the absolute best in image quality... dual native ISO benefit. GH5 if you think the GH5S sounds exciting, but rather have IBIS going on and pay less. I mean... it's working, I have 2 out of the 3. Pricing of the GH5S pushed me into getting the BMPCC4K instead. But yeah, definitely manufacturers are giving certain cameras certain features to set it apart, which I find disturbing. At least Panasonic/Sony still give you quite a bit more than the average consumer would ever need, but enthusiasts and pros would love to have. Canon? Not so much. They're trying to figure out what they can leave out of next camera releases instead of looking what to include. They don't have much going on for them anymore, they're just playing catch up. Others all are doing sensor stabilization cameras, have come a long way in color science, so that's not really a factor anymore, Sony's C-AF is in Canon's DualPixel AF league (rest perhaps not so much yet), ease of use? Well, maybe not Sony, but others are a delight and offer so much control and customization. Lenses? Give me a break. Nobody actually likes red ring lenses that much anymore, definitely not the pinnacle of the industry now. Like honestly, why even bother getting a Canon interchangeable lens camera these days? I know I wouldn't... then again I never saw the appeal throughout the years. The value proposition just isn't there. Seems to be a brand for sheeple chasing to be the next Casey Nicetatt, Matti Hapoopoo or Peter McCanon.

[newfoundmass]

15 minutes ago, Mokara said:

24p is not just "there". It costs money to implement. There is development cost associated with every function in the camera. There will be hardware support requirements which will add to the manufacturing cost. There is also the question of the license fee they have to pay to use H.264. 

When you are producing a low cost version of a high end product you manufacture, the way you do it and still make money is to strip out the frills that the likely user does not need. Although those sorts of things might seem trivial to you, they do cost money to implement, money that otherwise comes out of your margin.

<brain exploding gif>

If Canon is at a point where they have to cut 24p as a cost cutting measure then they're on death's bed. 

That's not the real reason, but still. 

"Guys, we gotta cut expenses." 

"Let's cut 24p."

"You're a genius Roger, you just saved the company." 

9 minutes ago, Cinegain said:

Newer cameras have 24p included... Canon really sorta is the only exception. If there was such a weird thing as 24p codec licensing, which is an utter B$ of an assumption, then why-o-why is Panasonic including it? Why does Sony still fit 24p in all their cameras? Why does stills heritage Fujifilm care about 24p video? Nikon? Heck, even bloody Pentax... and nobody is even using those to shoot video.

Canon includes 24p in their sub-$200 Vixia camcorders! ?

[Cinegain]

xD lol, sounds like a Cameraconspiracies boardroom meeting...

lol, yeah, they can do it alright... I mean just this thing, the XF705! They have the tech and the know-how. They just don't want to.

https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/portal/us/home/products/details/camcorders/professional/xf705/xf705

That's like everything I'd want in a camera from Canon. Except... it's not a compact interchangeable lens mirrorless camera with a large sensor but is really really pricey.

[newfoundmass]

43 minutes ago, Cinegain said:

lol, yeah, they can do it alright... I mean just this thing, the XF705! They have the tech and the know-how. They just don't want to.

That's the thing, every camera company has all the necessary code already written. The hard part was finished years and years ago and now it's just a matter of going in and changing fields to lock or unlock things. They could literally change a zero to a one in the code unlock 24p.

[Cinegain]

CHDK/Magiclantern/Hacked GH2 movement/BTM_Pix kinda have proven that over the years indeed.

[Mokara]

57 minutes ago, newfoundmass said:

<brain exploding gif>

If Canon is at a point where they have to cut 24p as a cost cutting measure then they're on death's bed. 

That's not the real reason, but still. 

"Guys, we gotta cut expenses." 

"Let's cut 24p."

"You're a genius Roger, you just saved the company." 

Canon includes 24p in their sub-$200 Vixia camcorders! ?

Which are likely made using existing technology and existing license agreements. If there was no reason to not include it, they would include it.

In industry when you license in someone else's IP payment comes in two separate forms typically. Firstly, there is an upfront payment as agreed to which is based off milestones through the development process. So, when I start making the gadget, and I want to use your IP, we come to an agreement that allows me to do that. Right away I will pay you some small amount of cash. Then, as the gadget proceeds from testing to manufacturing to release, there will be a number of agreed to milestones that when met will trigger additional increasingly larger payments I have to make to you (sometimes milestones can happen even after the product is being sold, depending on what the agreement was). THEN, on top of that for every unit I sell I will have to pay you a royalty, also agreed to in advance. 

Now, how would that work with multiple products? Every product you make would be subject to those milestones. Moreover, such agreements typically will limit the number of products you can develop before you need to negotiate a new license. Maybe you have 10, then once those are done you need a new license for any future products using the IP. Once you use up your allotment of products you need to negotiate a new milestone/royalty structure which can be quite different from what you had before. Maybe you agree to other limitations in order to decrease the milestone costs.

I am guessing that Canon are dealing with this sort of situation all the time. They are a manufacturer so it is reasonable to assume that they are dealing with the same business practices that every other manufacturer in the developed world has to deal with.

The point I am making is that Canon having certain features in earlier models is not predictive of what will be in later models, because the license agreements in place for the respective models may be quite different. These carry cost burdens, and that figures into whether it is worth your while to include them or not.

19 minutes ago, newfoundmass said:

That's the thing, every camera company has all the necessary code already written. The hard part was finished years and years ago and now it's just a matter of going in and changing fields to lock or unlock things. They could literally change a zero to a one in the code unlock 24p.

Not necessarily true. There is supporting hardware as well, and if that is not implemented or some part is not capable, then you can unlock all you want and nothing is going to happen. It is not just one thing.

[Yehouda]

It is the well known Canon politics of segmentation. 24p is for cinema so if we want 24p we must buy a C camera. Canon DSLRs, Mirrorless or XF/XA camcorders will never have it anymore. It is a pity but this is their marketing choice.

The big advantage of Canon is that the color science is the same between a C300, a 6D and an XF400 (for exemple) so you can use all those different tools at the same time and you will not have any problem during editing/grading. This is not the case for other brands like Sony or Panasonic.

[mercer]

I know a lot of folks love to ride Canon and think this is hilarious but this is not a good trend. Canon is still the number 1 camera company and bullshit like this could easily filter down to the other companies. Panasonic and Sony have already started limiting features in their lower tier cameras and the 90D is hardly a lower tier camera. 

[Cinegain]

Yeah...

Either way. Doesn't seem much point arguing any further. xD

[newfoundmass]

17 minutes ago, Mokara said:

Which are likely made using existing technology and existing license agreements. If there was no reason to not include it, they would include it.

Their reason is obvious: they don't want filmmakers using these cameras. I'm not really sure what part of that is hard to understand. 

I'm sorry but your argument is quite asanine. 

21 minutes ago, Mokara said:

In industry when you license in someone else's IP payment comes in two separate forms typically. Firstly, there is an upfront payment as agreed to which is based off milestones through the development process. So, when I start making the gadget, and I want to use your IP, we come to an agreement that allows me to do that. Right away I will pay you some small amount of cash. Then, as the gadget proceeds from testing to manufacturing to release, there will be a number of agreed to milestones that when met will trigger additional increasingly larger payments I have to make to you (sometimes milestones can happen even after the product is being sold, depending on what the agreement was). THEN, on top of that for every unit I sell I will have to pay you a royalty, also agreed to in advance. 

Just a few posts ago you argued that Canon might have to pay extra license fees for 24p, which is ridiculous, and now you're acting like an expert? 

The mental gymnastics you're doing right now to argue what is blatantly obvious is insane. Seriously, you wrote all that man to excuse CANON, who has a history of handicapping their cameras! Please, think that last sentence over a bit. 

26 minutes ago, Mokara said:

Not necessarily true. There is supporting hardware as well, and if that is not implemented or some part is not capable, then you can unlock all you want and nothing is going to happen. It is not just one thing.

All that, like the reason Canon cripples their cameras, goes without saying. No one said otherwise. 

[OliKMIA]

6 hours ago, ted1000 said:

At least Canon won't sue you if you say something bad about their cameras ?

Ted

They don't have the resource internally to do that, it would be an endless task. Plus, HR prioritized the Video Crippling department over Legal affairs.