For 8k to be worth it(distinguishable from 4K) you'd need a huge screen(200in) at a relatively short distance(10ft). In which case, eye strain will cease to be a problem, but neck strain will kick in as you try and cover the entire screen.
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
If the strongly rumored specifications for the new 5D3 are an indication, we now know exactly what the actual difference is "between a video camera and a non-video camera." It's about $1000.
And it's $1000 because the video crowd are happy to pay that for a camera that will nearly equal what they'd have to pay $15K to $50K for in a dedicated video camera. Very astute on Canon's part, but also somewhat tragic as they're throwing the still photographers who made them under the bus -- where we probably now belong anyway in a world transitioning to full HD video!
uh ... no. that's the price difference for a 61-point AF system and 6 FPS shutter. the 5D Mark II came with video and it cost $2500.
they're not throwing anyone under the bus, they ran the numbers and predicted that the market could sustain a $3500 FF pro-AF camera. people on these forums love to assume that pricing structure is something 'owed' to them by the companies, whether Canon or Nikon. no such thing. they are pricing their goods the same way that you price your goods as a photographer. if I feel my potential client base is willing to pay $4000 for a wedding package there is no way you're going to get me to sell it for $3000.
I think you perfectly make my point on the pricing. Canon was surprised by demand for the video capability in the 5D2. They probably sat in meetings for two years saying, "Damn, if we'd know it would be this popular, we'd have priced it at $3K or more." With a 5D3, they'll now say they have addressed what the market said were the small deficiencies in the 5D2 video, do a business reset and price it at $3500 -- with certainty they'll sell as many or more to the same video crowd who paid $2500. That's simply how business works, and I wouldn't expect otherwise. But the demand that drives the pricing is coming from the video, not the stills.
And the whole discussion could be moot as that rumored $3500 price may be a kit price. Who knows!
What I will disagree with is the point that better AF and shutter are worth $1000. In a stills-only camera, they could never get away with that. Also, I'd be surprised if their unit cost for such an upgrade were over $100.
But they didn't do that. They put an 18Mpix FF sensor in the 1Dx, not this rumored 22Mpix FF sensor. If these are so close in image quality that nobody can see a difference as you state, why then is it not in the 1Dx?
People can appreciate an image of a bird caught in flight, but a video of the same birds tracking across the screen? Boring.
i dont mean those family ones.. i mean these: http://www.usa.canon.com/app/html/HDV/index.shtml
*nods* that is exactly the line that I am wondering how the C300 fits in and if it signals a phasing out of that product line.
Thought marekjoz does bring up a good point, as PaS and DSLRs increasingly become multimedia devices, what will become of the dedicated 'family' camcorder? If it is not worth it to produce dedicated still cameras, why would it be worth it to produce dedicated video ones?