Why the Canon EOS RP Sucks for Video

As an avid Canon user I tend to ignore the constant stream of hate for Canon across the Internet but this just doesn't make any sense. How can you leave these features out regardless of the price?

I was actually quite interested the Canon EOS RP camera when I read the spec sheet. Full frame, decent resolution, mirrorless, all for a starting price of $1,299. That's a great price for a full-frame sensor and its spec nearly match the Canon 6D Mark II within a mirrorless body. That was until I saw Caleb Pike's video on DSLR Video Shooter. The EOS RP doesn't film 1080p at 24fps. Yes, you read that correctly. The camera that changed the video world, the Canon 5D Mark II, was released over 10 years ago had 24fps in Full HD. Furthering the confusion, it does shoot 25p (PAL) for our friends across the Atlantic. At first I thought it was an error on the spec sheet until I began watching videos, and it became evident that it wasn't an error. On top of that you also lose the ability to shoot 1080p at all using any EF-S lenses.

I just don't understand these decisions at all. Canon receives plenty of hate (some justified) but mostly it's irrelevant to my actual day-to-day work. I'm of the opinion that what I'm shooting on isn't really that important and try not to get lost in spec sheets or feeling like I need every new piece of gear. I also don't ever expect Canon to release something that will best its current competition in most stat sheets. That said, this one just doesn't sit well with me. It feels wrong and I truly hope it's something they just update with firmware but at the same time I'm left wondering how on earth it got released without arguably the most important video setting there is.

What do you think? Do you think this is a blatant protection of Canon's lineup or is this something they will quickly fix in firmware?

Log in or register to post comments


Steve White's picture

Alex asks: How can you leave these features out regardless of the price?

Easy. It's a $1300 still camera that is a 6Dm2 replacement. It's not meant to be a sweet video shooter, it's meant to be an entry-level FF still shooter.

Perhaps Canon COULD have put these sweet video features in without running the price up (I have no idea of what the incremental cost is to them), but the market for advanced hobbyist/enthusiast cameras (e.g., me) is price sensitive. If we weren't price sensitive we'd all just buy a 1DXm2 AND a C300 and be done with it. The advanced hobbyist market clearly divides into those who think video is important, and those who think video isn't. I'm in the latter group; I respect the people who want to do video but I have no desire/knowledge base to do video today, tomorrow or next decade.

So if you put all the video sweet goodness into the RP, and because of that the camera now was $1800 and not $1300, then I'd be less likely to buy it. There goes a sale.

Canon has to balance these issues all the time. That's why they make many cameras. Perhaps what they need to produce next in the R line is an RV (R for video) camera; one that you would buy, and I would not.

Just a thought.

Ted Hendershot's picture

It's remarkable what Canon fans are willing to tolerate. It's been five years since Sony and Panasonic proved with the a6000 and GH4 that the barrier between excellent APS-C stills performance and extremely competent video isn't a technical one. The failure to provide even basic video features on a full frame camera is jaw-dropping and represents a basic failure to compete.

After years of Canon deliberately hobbling their cameras for marketing reasons, how can their fans not hold them to account? Your response can't really be "well, yes, they fatally compromised their camera for a significant portion of their potential userbase, for completely non-technical reasons, but they did it on purpose so it's fine?" They put out a camera that shoots 4k at 1.74x, doesn't shoot the single most common video format in the world, and doesn't have C-LOG. In 2019. It's an obscenity.

And yes, okay, you're a stills shooter and will never touch video, even to play with it. So you'll get something that's already a few hundred dollars overpriced, with a low frame rate, crappy eye autofocus, and, like, three lenses. Fine.

Sony got my business three years ago when it became clear they were focusing on making the best camera possible at the lowest price point. For every camera. That's what commitment to a system looks like. Canon system owners should stop making excuses and start demanding better.

honderd woorden's picture

Commercial businesses are about making money.
Why would a company change their strategy if it’s been a commercial success for years?
I’m not going to buy this camera, you’re not, but a lot of people do.
You talk about things like the omission of C-log but fail to understand 90% of the people buying these kinds of cameras will never use it anyway.

Sony is also a commercial business. They are not in business to make the best camera possible at the lowest price point, they are in it to make money. They change strategy if they need to, like Canon, Nikon and all other camera manufacturers. Do you think Sony still cares about people who invested in let’s say A-mount cameras?

Canon will change if people stop buying their products, just like every other commercial business will, or they go broke if they don’t. People can demand whatever they like but as long as they don’t stop buying what these companies produce nothing will change.

Deleted Account's picture

Correct me if I am wrong but wasn’t there an article a few weeks ago about Canon publishing something in the lines of 10% drop in their camera sales?

honderd woorden's picture

The camera market is declining as a whole. Canon will look at their competitors and see their market share has been pretty stable at between 40 and 50% for the last decade or so. They might change their strategy if they drop 10% market share but despite a decade of internet discussions about low dynamic range sensors, crippled video, less features, etc. their market share didn’t drop. There simply isn’t a reason for Canon to change.

Steve White's picture

Correct, Sony is NOT in the business of making the best camera possible at the lowest price point, they're in the business of making cameras that make money.

As is every business that intends to stay in business.

Sony is not a charity.

C Scarlett's picture

I'm glad a few people here understand how business runs. Your opinions mean ZERO!! Only your $$ talks. I bought the RP last Friday. I had EF lenses that I bought from my Canon 6D Mark I. The price was right. My images straight out of camera look fantastic and I could care less about video. I guarantee you there are more people out there exactly like myself and Steve White.

Steve White's picture

Ted, what am I willing to tolerate with Canon?

Superb color rendition
Rugged, well built camera that fits in my hand
Logical controls, menus, etc that stay out of my way
Camera that fits in my lens eco-system ("date your bodies, marry your lenses")
Fast, dual-phase AF

So what's an obscenity to you is a fine camera to me. Enjoy your Sony.

Spy Black's picture

"Superb color rendition"
In the 7 years I've been working professionally with Canon cameras, I have yet to see this.

The cameras are otherwise well made and professional in pretty much every other aspect, but "superb color rendition" is not a Canon trait, unless you may possibly be color blind.

Alex Armitage's picture

I don't disagree with what you're saying at all. However 24fps @ 1080 is the standard. If you asked anyone who shoots video that if they had only 1 video format choice it's very likely a 24 fps frame rate (unless your PAL). This is what doesn't make sense. The camera is fully capable of shooting at the speed, it's not a hardware limitation. And it's been a standard on every single camera they have released since 2008. Why randomly omit it here?

Nicolas KIEFFER's picture

Maybe the target audience is usually unable to distinguish the difference between 24fps and 25fps.

Yeah, we all know datasheet have to be impressive, but frankly, if you know why you need 24fps instead of 25fps, you should not buy that camera and be a little bit more serious !
Why ? because even if that videocamera feature would be in the cheap body, you will still whine or ask for a better feature in another part of this camera, wouldn't you ?

This article is another one, coming from a nice guy using the wrong tool for its specific needs ! But hey, that guy still not candidate to Canon design team, in order to reveal them what they should slap into camera bodies !
But in the meantime, it makes clicks and audience, and this the only point for the author....

James Madara's picture

No 24fps @ 1080 is just silly. I guess Canon will have to rely on those guys at Magic Lantern to fix their firmware or they could include the 24fps and sell more cameras to the YouTube crowd.

C Scarlett's picture

Alex, this is EXACTLY why they didn't include 24fps!! Solely because it's the FEATURE that every videographer wants!! You think Canon is stupid?? They're not going to give you all the benefits of mirrorless + full-frame + the most wanted video modes for $1300. Go spend $1000 more and get the R.

revo nevo's picture

If you guys don't need any of that stuff why even buy a new camera ? You can get Canon 6D (used-like new) on MBP for £659.00
At least sensor is better on that old horse :P

C Scarlett's picture

Because of the advantages of the mirrorless system...SIMPLE.

Kirk Schwarz's picture

Doesn't that just mean that Canon won't sell to the rapidly emerging videography market, and also miss out on a second revenue stream?

C Scarlett's picture

Maybe, but that's not your business. That's Canon's business. Your business is to say this camera is for me or it isn't.

Kirk Schwarz's picture

Actually, I’m a camera reviewer, it kind of is my business! ;)

C Scarlett's picture

Precisely...a camera reviewer...not a financial advisor. ;-)

Kirk Schwarz's picture

Or an observer.... paid to make comments on such things. And to be honest, as a consumer, it’s 100% our business! If we don’t pay, company’s don’t exist.

If you don’t fluid and frank opinions, may I suggest trading a book from the 1850s

C Scarlett's picture

Question? Do you have stock in Canon? I don't. When a product doesn't suit my fancy, I don't buy it. That's me being a consumer. If you're a reviewer...at least a credible one, your job is to give an unbiased review. When I watch a Jared Polin video, what I love is that when he reviews a product, he offers sample images for the potential consumer to make up his or her mind.

The fact of the matter is that if I put my RP in video mode and press record, I'm gonna get decent video. It's not going to be "cinematic", but the camera was never touted to be a cinematic, full-frame option. Moreover, as a reviewer, you should already know that Canon is going to protect their higher end devices that are geared towards filmmakers. But you wanna play "concerned citizen" for the continued viability of a diversified, multi-billion dollar corporation?

Yea okay. If you expect me to believe that, I've got a famous bridge in NYC to sell you for $5.

Kirk Schwarz's picture

No, I don’t have a stock in Canon, but I do have a vested interest in the camera industry as a whole, and individual products, including the RP.

As a camera reviewer, I can tell you that protecting investments with price walls is much less accepted now than it use to be. Of course it isn’t going to be a CXXX, that would be crazy. However, what they have here, if it had video and IBIS, could have cleaned house with a growing number of ‘new media’ creators, as well as stills shooters who like the specs. Its going to take strong photos, and here isn’t such a bing as a bad camera from the main folks these days. That said, look at the A7III, or the X-T30, or the Z6. They’re all lower tier cameras that boast higher tier features, in some cases stealing directly from more expensive kit. Hell, the X-T30 does 4K 30, no pixel binning with a 4:2:2 10-bit out and Flog! And it’s a hell of a lot cheaper than the X-T3. In fact, it does pretty much everything the T3 does, with minimal limit capping. It’s a buyers market out there, and by Canon’s own admission, it has too many cameras in the race. It, and others need to simplify the structure. Price isn’t the same wall it used to be in today’s market place, and as the A7III showed so well, neither is brand loyalty.

Of course it’s going to sell insanely well, it’s a cheap full frame mirrorless... but Canon don’t really have anything geared towards solid video at this price point, and if they boosted the features in this, they could have increased sales and re-emerged as a fan favourite.

FYI, if I’m playing concerned citizen for anyone, it’s always the people who are spending the money. When I review a camera the most important question I ask is a simple one. Would I spend my money on this? If I wouldn’t, why should I expect anyone else to?

And finally, you do realise most of these diversified billion dollar corporations are keeping photography as more of a heritage piece than a viable profitable income, right? The moment it goes south and doesn’t stand up to expectations, it’ll either be sold off or dropped! It’s just not where the money is these days, so yes, I imagine they would love to sell to as many people as possible.

Michael Comeau's picture

Who actually expected perfection at that price point? Did anyone REALLY think it was going to check every box for serious video people?

Alex Armitage's picture

If I told you Canon was releasing a $1,300 Mirrorless camera that had video. What formats would you expect at the very least? This isn't about everybox to me.

revo nevo's picture

Problem is in artificial handicap.

C Scarlett's picture


Scott Hussey's picture

Canon is marketing this camera to "photo enthusiasts," not professional photographers and videographers. For the mom or dad who wants a good quality camera without breaking the bank, here it is.

Not every camera is meant for "us."

Ted Hendershot's picture

Does that product category really exist any more? Are there really total amateurs willing to drop $1300 on a camera that, without a fair amount of training, will basically act like a less-convenient iPhone camera? This camera seems like it's for the wealthy and slightly clueless, cash-strapped pro-ams with zero equipment, and no-one else.

Scott Hussey's picture

It's like a BMW. You don't need to be a professional driver to enjoy driving it. But if you've got the money and you want one, you can buy it.

They sell plenty of them there BMWs as far as I can tell. So there's probably a market for this camera, too.

Chad Andreo's picture

Its more like They refuse to make the camera for "us" that we know theyre capable of making. People would spend big money if they made cameras to rival the specs of Fuji and Sony.

C Scarlett's picture

They will make it, but there will be a cost associated with it.

revo nevo's picture

Why would they buy this handicaped camera when there are so much better cameras out there that could do much more for -+200$

Scott Hussey's picture

Because a lot of people like shiny new baubles. And this shiny new bauble is a full frame mirrorless camera for only $1,300.

If nobody buys it, I'm pretty sure Canon's accountants will make them stop making it.

People still buy Leicas. I'm sure people will buy this too.

revo nevo's picture

It will sell but if it does not they will lower the price fast like they did for 6Dmk2
So I "you" plan to get wait a bit it will be on sale soon.

Steve White's picture

Revo: name the FF camera that for "$200 more" (list price under $1500) gives you all the things you wish the RP had, plus all the things the RP has. I'll wait...

revo nevo's picture

But why fullframe ? X-T3 probably better at everything other than high iso stuff
So landscape (with much better DR), sport (with much better AF and speed) , video (with 4k60 and all other stuff).There is also many other things that are better on X-T3.
You are getting so much more with APS-C camera for the same price (and you pay less for lenses)
High iso noise is a bit worse and DOF is not as shallow on APS-C

If you know that you will need a camera with good high ISO and nothing else is important sure this is a good option but if you need a camera that can shoot everthing X-T3 is much better option.

You can get Canon 6D (used-like new) on MBP for £659.00 and you are getting almost the same thing, some say that sensor is even better on that old 6D

C Scarlett's picture

Don't play coy. You know the benefits of full-frame...just like you know the benefits of mirrorless...just like you know the benefits of 24fps.

chrisrdi's picture

Believe it or not a camera doesn't HAVE to have prime time video features. It could just be a really good stills camera. Not everything has to cater to video.

revo nevo's picture

But it can. Software was there from the start. Canon had to remove stuff from it.

Jeffery Hunter's picture

Not everyone Cares about high quality video!!!! Or any video. A little sick of "reviews" crapping on everything that doesn't meet their needs as a vlogger or "film maker" if you want 4k or 120 and log buy a camera that does that don't crap ones that don't. You think Canon cares what people say tons of parents looking for a camera will love the RP and probably don't give a dam if it shoots any video.

Ryan Stone's picture

Buy a video camera, Canon makes some nice ones. Want a hybrid with 4k 24p, c-log, 10-bit out? Buy an R.

C Scarlett's picture

Simple...it's not like Canon doesn't have a camera out there that checks off those boxes. You simply just have to pay $1000 more.

Chad Andreo's picture

Because it’s what the competition is offering, so we know it’s lossiblr. They're literally dumbing down the specs via software. The tech is in the cameras.

Stefan Herdeg's picture

I dont think anyone expected perfection from a $1300 dollar camera, but canon had a real opportunity to gobble up mirrorless market share and sell millions of r mount camera, opening the door for RF lenses to sell well for many years. I'll concede that I didnt expect crop free 4k DPAF, but cutting 24fps in 1080p and the ef-s lens debacle is blatant elitism. Canon can fix these 2 things very easily and should before the community makes the decision to take a hard pass on the RP.

David Pavlich's picture

That's where you're wrong Stefan. Video seems to be the yardstick that people measure cameras by. I peg the Nikon D850 as the best FF camera on the market, yet there are those that won't buy it because it isn't the perfect video camera. I never shoot video, so I don't care.

It's a $1300 camera. If Canon priced it a $999, there would still be howls about what Canon screwed up this time. You want video? Buy a purpose built camera and you won't have to worry about stat sheets.

chrisrdi's picture

They could price the RP at free and these people would still complain. nO TwEnTy FoUr FpS In A $1300 FuLl FrAmE CaMeRa?!?!?!?!? CrOpPeD 4k?!?!?! It'S The WoRsT CaMerA EvEr. No Ef-S ( The EF-S mount has been bunk from the beginning) CoMpAtIbILiTy??!!! Blah blah blah.

Steve White's picture

Why is the EF-s lens "debacle" a debacle? The EF-S lens format is going to die. Anyone with any sense sees that. The future for Canon is the RF lens and perhaps the EF-M lens mounts; the EF will go away over a decade but Canon will ensure there's an adapter for the R and M users.

But EF-S? It was a compromise mount from the beginning for the Rebel and xxD crop-frame cameras. They were made to do one thing, sell consumer quality dSLR cameras. I have a couple of these lenses; nice enough but nothing special. They're consumer quality lenses that can collect nice images, but there is a reason (several) why the pros generally don't use them. If you want to shoot a Rebel in casual and amateur photography they're very good lenses (I mean that).

But you want to stake your claim to the EF-S mount? Really?

C Scarlett's picture

No. They shouldn't change it. If the camera is going to fail, let it fail. Dollars (or lack of it) talk. Mouth chatter doesn't.

Tom Weis's picture

It is odd Canon left out 1080p @ 24fps, but the camera has 4K UHD @ 24fps. So can't one just shoot 4K and then knock the resolution down in post? Yeah I know that's a lot of extra data to capture if you only need 1080p, but hey it means your footage is somewhat future-proofed, and you get some extra overhead and room to zoom in or push in... right?

Ryan Mense's picture

4K with the RP doesn't use Dual Pixel AF is the main issue I think.

More comments