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?
Yeah that does suck.
Exactly...it was a giant troll.
The 4K is really limited. Also I'm totally fine with the 4K being limited on this camera. That makes sense to me considering the price. What doesn't makes sense is suggesting you need to shoot 4K with a bad codec just to get 24p footage in 2019 right?
With that rolling shutter 4k is just on the paper.
Roger that. Yep I see how the omission of 1080p @ 24 is puzzling and aggravating.
It's a bit like which poison pill you want to swallow here, and it doesn't make any sense to leave this out.
At launch, the 5D Mark II did not have 24p (I bought it the week it came out). After a lot of outcry, it was added via a firmware update, and so my guess is with enough noise, maybe it can happen again. It's clearly not a hardware limitation if they could add it to the 5D Mark II this way 10 years ago.
There's a difference between the 5D, clearly intended from day one to be a professional camera, and the RP, an entry-level FF camera.
EOS RiP
I'll never understand why camera companies intentionally release crippled cameras. I get that they have to attempt to cover all market segments, but its like unveiling a front-wheel-drive four-cylinder Corvette and then scratching your head and wondering why it doesn't sell.
With every new camera release in the last decade people say Canon is doomed, the crippled cameras they put out won’t sell, why o why are they that stupid… No dynamic range, cropped crappy video, no ibis, low fps… If this camera was a car… Somehow Canon stays in business and has half the camera market…
If a Corvette was a camera it would probably be called an overweight brick that’s only good for shooting in a strait line. Why buy such a crappy car if you can get a Ferrari or a Porsche?
In camera terms a Ferrari or Porsche would be a Hasselblad or Phase One. 😁
Obviously you missed his point or was just playing coy.
the problem here is more that buying these won't give you a good feeling. these stripped down features are just software limitations no other company does. if a camera does 25/30/60 fps in a resolution 24fps could not mean that the cpu is not powerfull enough. the 4k crop and I also suggest the inabillity of dual pixel af in 4k is more a sign that canon biggest struggle is their cpu performance in these cameras. they need a cpu with more ommph. Otherwise the eos r would also have better af-c performance. these mirrorless are much more demanding for the camera cpus and the company with the fastest cpu (or better soc) gets the best af performance and video features. at the moment it seams this is sony and fuji. this might also be the reason canon startet with these super amazing lenses, because that is in their competence and they are waiting to get better cpus for their future cameras.
Want top video, buy a video camera.
A Jack of all trades, master of none.
I am always a little baffled why people go on an article - discussing the video aspect to tell the world "I don`t care about this - so it does not matter to me." Fine then, happy for you - but then it is not important to the discussion is it? Why make comments in the first place, it is not adding anything.
I am loving that the technology is so mature, that you can get a good video and photo performer in one body. What comes with that, is the need to occasionally discuss either the video or photo capabilities, without adding extra noise to the discussion.
Planes have wheels, sometimes you will need to discuss how it handles on the runway, without talking about how it performs when its airborne.
In turn, I'm baffled as to why people go on an article to demand that a product must have what doesn't have, and then declare that product worthless because it doesn't do what THEY demand that it must do, even though they haven't bought the product and wouldn't do so even if it did do what they demanded that it had to do.
You were planning to buy an RP?
Funny that you are asking, due to my day job - I am looking at buying 2 "cheapish" cameras for us to use on a L&D project - and the RP was one I were looking at - We don´t need eye-tracking, and nobody will care about 24 vs 25 or 30 fps - but the 4k crop is a concern for us.
I know the author already knows the answer to his question, but if you cripple features, it makes it much easier and justifiable for more advanced shooters/filmmakers to upgrade to a more expensive model with those features it hobbled on this model. Car manufacturers do it, computer companies do, etc- it's how you run a business and make money.
I cant recall a single article that ever said this was a higher end camera, so you have to treat it for what it is, a nice entry level mirrorless.
"I just can't fathom why'd they'd do this!!" You must be a simpleton. I knew right away why they did it.
Videots always whining about video capability (or lack thereof) in every new STILL camera that comes along. If you're an amateur - it doesn't matter - use your phone. If you're a pro (and you already do) - use a VIDEO camera.
I'm a Canon user, and I think I have taken video on my 5D IV maybe twice in the time I've owned it - I'm really just a stills shooter. I have really liked a lot of Canon's releases, and the issues with video have never really affected me. I fully understand and respect that in order to hit a price point which is palatable, manufacturers need to sacrifice some features. I'm fine with that, and in principle, I'm all for releasing a bare bones FF MILC because it gets more people into the FF market quickly.
With that said, the lack of 24 fps at 1080 rubs me the wrong way. I've been trying to figure out why this bugs me where other decisions have not and I've come to the conclusion that this is different because it is very clearly an artificial removal of a feature that the system can deliver. It isn't Canon choosing not to use its newest sensor fabrication techniques, it isn't Canon choosing not to install a more robust autofocus system, or a higher resolution EVF - all things which would cost more to add to a camera. It is artificial segmentation by software rather than hardware - the camera has the capability of delivering a feature, but it was consciously removed with no production cost savings. It's the difference between not installing physical systems to reduce manufacturing costs/sale price, and building a camera and then disabling features with software to segment it from other cameras.
I really doubt I'd ever need the feature, but this decision seems petty and acting in bad faith, and that leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
No camera performance should be behind GH4 specs. And 1300 bucks isnt an excuse for falling behind 2010 performances, whats the point of buying a new camera then?
It's full-frame, it's mirrorless, it takes good stills, you can adapt your old lenses, it's compact and it's relatively cheap.
What should I say. Canon always has taken out features they had already established. Only to reintroduce them later and say they improved something. That's how they were and how they will always be. I instead use Fuji, and they have just released a almost as strong camera as the X-T3, the X-T30 which still has most of the features the X-T3 has, with a lower price tag.
"Canon, why releasing a new camera back to just step back? You guys make yourself ridiculous."
The main problem here is that people will still buy this camera despite Canon gutting it before its release.
Relate this to having an amazing relationship that you know is flawed. At least you know it’s flawed...
Stop defending Canon because they keep cheating on you in plain sight. This video calls it out pretty well and it’s good to see that some people can put their bias to the side to say, “WTF CANON?!”
Stop buying trash when you deserve more for your brand loyalty. It’s that simple.
You don’t deserve anything for brand loyalty. You’re not in a relationship, you’re just buying a product from a company that’s only interested in your money. If they can’t make enough money, they’ll just abandon the product like Samsung did with their NX series cameras, or Nikon with their Nikon 1, or Sony will do with A-mount and in a couple of years Canon and Nikon will abandon EF-mount and F-mount. By then people won’t probably remember there used to be MFT cameras.
I only say it this way because of the people defending Canon.
I left their asses 4 years ago and haven’t looked back. I shoot whoever can make my work less painful and more enjoyable when shooting or editing.
Canon had no reason to kill their EF mount but they did simply to make more money from people who thought their mirrorless options would be worth it. They currently are not... at all
I don’t think most people are defending companies, they are defending their buying choices, just like you do.
Different people make different choices based on their wants, needs and budgets. For some (probably a lot) that will be this $1300 camera, so what. Sure, there are better cameras out there but if you can’t take great pictures with it, it won’t be because of the camera.
You must not be reading the comments about this camera or the EOSR then... people are defending Canon, not their choice in this shitbox
I don’t think making comments about a camera is equal to defending a company, but that’s just my interpretation (or comprehension) of what is written. Your choice of words seems to suggest Canon hurt you in some way. Cameras are just tools, not ex-wives.
Choice words from an ex-Canon defender here. I don’t hate canon cameras, I hate canon’s team that is throttling technology to make money instead of giving the consumers what they are asking for and expecting.
For me it's not even about expectations. I wanted to buy this camera. I was going to buy this camera. For what it is and the price it seems great. But leaving 24p for my main shooting format boggles my mind and doesn't make any sense to me at all. It's not even a feature that's protecting it's more expensive cameras to me.
So then the real question is will you still buy this camera and be a part of the crowd allowing this problem to continue? You can get almost everything this camera offers and more if you buy an A7ii with a lens included from 5 years ago...
Canon obviously did this on purpose, they aren’t stupid.
Alex, of course it is. If 24fps wasn't such a huge deal, everyone wouldn't be mentioning it. Canon knows the value of enabling that feature and have decided you're not getting all that for $1300.
But they are giving people what they want...for $1000 more.
But what if the camera does everything you want it to do??
If it does that is great BUT if you can have the same features, save money, and end up with a better suited lineup of lenses (reasonably priced for an entry level camera as this) then why would anyone buy the more expensive and less supported camera besides for brand loyalty?
Which lesser-priced, full-framed, mirrorless camera that supports all legacy lenses do you speak of? 🤔