For your consideration.
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.
"Will still photography be necessary in the age of 4K video?"
Yes, because an 8MB image from a movie with a shutterspeed of 50 will be blurry... if we could shoot video with 160/250 or even higher shutterspeeds around 1000 or more to freeze action, then it will compete dslrs...
for now we only can take images from a 4k video when the subjects aren't moving, or slowly moving at least.
I would like for Canon to offer a replacement focus screen for the 5D3 with the traditional split image center so I could more easily focus my Zeiss glass.
Of course I expect it to retain the 63 point AF as well.
Lots of lenses are on sale, because they are not selling. The story is the same across all brands of cameras and lenses. If you are a business with a lot of inventory but little sales, then you do what it takes to move it.
On the other hand, why would a company spend huge sums of money for lenses that won't sell. There will always be some new lenses, just to meet competition, or company goals which might go beyond worrying about short term profits. Canon seems to be plunging into Cinema in a big way, and you have to pay to play.
I use 2 seconds time with mirror lock up. No problem of blur so far though I haven't experienced live view photo yet.
This. Sounds like you don't have mirror lock up enabled. I shot a ton of architectural stuff for a few years and results would suffer if I didn't do mirror lock up and wait a second to two to trigger the shutter after the mirror had settled into position. The tripod in this situation can actually magnify the vibrations of the mirror slap causing slight motion blur in otherwise sharply focused images. The effect lessens with faster shutter speeds or really long shutter speeds. When the shutter is between 1/60th and say a sec or so it's particularly troublesome.
Irregardless of live view, make sure mirror lock up is enabled and that you allow time for the mirror to settle before triggering the exposure.
The point is I wouldn't hire any wedding photographer who was also offering to shoot video unless he had dedicated stills and video shooters with him/her.
Why, when you can theoretically shoot the whole thing in 4K video and then just pull printable stills from the video footage.
Theoretically? We can theorize until the cows come home. Care to share real-world examples of this being done successfully?
Aye, only in theory. This has never been proven. The thing people who believe this notion don't understand is that a camera is ALWAYS moving. Given that the standard frame rates are 24, 29, 30, and maybe 60fps (the latter is less likely unless your doing something special), even the smallest amount of camera shake will result in more than enough blur to render every single RAW 4k video frame unacceptable from a "still" photography standpoint.
The "dream" of being able to shoot video then pull out crisp, clear 4k frames as "photos" is really just that...a DREAM. The needs of video and still photography are very different. They always have been different, and with the exception of high speed filming (which is still also very different), the chances of anyone ever actually being able to pull out full sized crisp, sharp frames from 4k video is highly, highly unlikely, regardless of how good the technology gets. The entire point of 24fps is to ensure you end up with a certain amount of blur. You WANT the blur in video. You DON'T want the blur in a still photo.