Nikon D4 gets it right on movie mode!.....will Canon strike back?

[traveller]

I'm no expert here, but I happen to think that on the video front, the D4's AF abilities will be a greater advantage than all this uncompressed video-out stuff.  Here is my logic: the market for the 1D X's video features is primarily from photojournalists that need a video capable camera for mixed media reporting.  These people are (like myself) less interested in the technicalities of cinematography and more concerned about the ease with which they can shoot a video for consumption on their news outlet's website.  AF in video would be a boon to these people, as it's one less new skill for them learn. 

For the people out there who are looking for a cheap, large sensor video camera for indie movie production, I think that Canon's new video-DSLR will be more tailored to their requirements. 

[JR]

I'm no expert here, but I happen to think that on the video front, the D4's AF abilities will be a greater advantage than all this uncompressed video-out stuff.  Here is my logic: the market for the 1D X's video features is primarily from photojournalists that need a video capable camera for mixed media reporting.  These people are (like myself) less interested in the technicalities of cinematography and more concerned about the ease with which they can shoot a video for consumption on their news outlet's website.  AF in video would be a boon to these people, as it's one less new skill for them learn. 

For the people out there who are looking for a cheap, large sensor video camera for indie movie production, I think that Canon's new video-DSLR will be more tailored to their requirements. 

+1 well said.  I totally agree with you.

[AdamJ]

-Full-time AF - In addition to manual focus, four modes are available, including normal, wide area, face detection and subject tracking, which uses fast contrast detect AF to accurately focus while recording video and in live view.

On paper this represents a real leap forward in Dslr movie making: Expanding possibility for experienced cinematographer but also helping still photographer(weddings,ceremony,journalist etc.) shooting movie on the fly without getting stacked with manual focus issues

"Fast contrast detect AF" is surely a contradiction in terms. It might prove to be "less slow" but I feel sure it won't be "fast" by any comparison with phase detect AF. Remember that contrast detect AF cannot focus-track on moving subjects.

If you're expecting Nikon's AF system to lock immediately when panning from one focus distance to another, thereby eliminating the intervening period of non-focus, prepare to be disappointed.

[HurtinMinorKey]

Tell me if I'm wrong, but I read the D4 video specs and it says 1080i (not 1080p) for uncompressed readout. I'm not a video man, but I think this could be a snag for some.

I think its the separate RGB channels that are interlaced at a higher frame rate. This may be done to reduce motion artifacts.

[Window Frame]

Knowing Canon, they won't do much.

[ssrdd]

Tell me if I'm wrong, but I read the D4 video specs and it says 1080i (not 1080p) for uncompressed readout. I'm not a video man, but I think this could be a snag for some.

I think its the separate RGB channels that are interlaced at a higher frame rate. This may be done to reduce motion artifacts.

Can u pls explain a bit more,? thank u.
1080i won't be giving the same image as 1080p. then whats the advantage we got from D4, i know uncompresses thing, but does really improve the quality over 1080p+H.264?

[jspiteri]

Perhaps there should be a moratorium on the "but video is really secondary and I could do without it" talk, at least in threads with video-centric titles. This perspective has been voiced (with few points that elaborate on the base idea but many that demonstrate biased thinking) so often as to be implicit. The world knows some of you could care less about video, that you're all about stills. The argument now goes without saying.

The original poster is clearly interested in video, and anyone could see as much from the thread's title alone. Nonetheless, his original talking points have been only indirectly acknowledged. I don't understand why the anti-video perspectives hijack so many threads. It's not like pushing the "we don't care about video" agenda in the CR forums is going to dramatically sway Canon's thinking, especially since most of the arguments rely on anecdotal experience or emotional reasoning. Moreover, it's not like improvements in stills AND video are mutually exclusive. Allowing a "what do you think of this video feature" thread to evolve without anti-video interference will NOT change Canon's thinking. If there's some evidence that Canon's stills technology is lagging because the company has redirected too much R&D to video, then perhaps there's a valid gripe-- but I don't often see this sort of argument. I also doubt that it's the case.

Is the HDSLR video revolution a little played out? Given the surplus of shallow DOF fetish videos and time lapse movies on YouTube, sure. But this doesn't invalidate the entire enterprise so much as attest to an age-old truth: better tools won't necessarily make an unimaginative person more creative. But the technology is used in innovative and engaging ways by many, including some for whom traditional camcorders would be inadequate and non-DSLR large-sensor video cameras prohibitively expensive. Plus, some people actually prefer (notwithstanding "limitations" that require elaborate rigging) the DSLR form factor for video-- something the DSLR-inspired design of the C300 demonstrates. In short, video is here to stay. If someone has a more substantial criticism than "SLRs are supposed to be for STILLS, darn it," that's one thing. But a lot of the commentary fails to evolve beyond this (not altogether cogent) idea.

As for the OP's original point, I think Canon will have to reassess the clean HDMI output-- but if they weren't convinced the C300 required it, I'm skeptical that this move by Nikon will force Canon's hand. That said, the fact that the EOS division has to negotiate a bit with Canon's broadcast division seems to give Nikon some relative flexibility, at least for the present. That latitude could allow Nikon to aggressively pursue some things that Canon has been sheepish about. I'm still uncertain about Canon's likely response, though. In certain ways, the C300 is less impressive on paper (at least for the price) than the FS100, let alone the F3 or Scarlet. The reviews, however, have suggested that Cinema EOS is a pretty impressive new system, it's lowly 8-bit codec notwithstanding. If Canon is similarly confident that 1DX vs. D4 tests will bear out the merits of their product, then I doubt they'll change anything for now. The photographers at whom these cameras are targeted won't buy cameras based on specs alone, since virtually all of them will have glass investments to consider and enough experience to know that press releases don't translate into the best product.

Well said.

[treyconnally]

On paper, on paper... I'd rather wait for the real things to come out before we judge which one got it right...

Either way, dSLRs are first and foremost for stills, I'd rather they get the stills right rather than the movie mode. That one is just an added benefit imo, and I'd be way happier if Canon didn't "strike back" here, but came back arms swinging on the stills side - more accurate (and faster) AF (especially in low light), good ISO performance, sharper images...

agreed. however they are so close that both canon and nikon shooters who have so much invested in glass that they wont be switching brands

My thoughts exactly

[HurtinMinorKey]

Tell me if I'm wrong, but I read the D4 video specs and it says 1080i (not 1080p) for uncompressed readout. I'm not a video man, but I think this could be a snag for some.

I think its the separate RGB channels that are interlaced at a higher frame rate. This may be done to reduce motion artifacts.

Can u pls explain a bit more,? thank u.
1080i won't be giving the same image as 1080p. then whats the advantage we got from D4, i know uncompresses thing, but does really improve the quality over 1080p+H.264?

Start at the top of page 13. This explains how the canon-c300 uses a faster frame-rate interlaced set to produce 1080p. I presume the D4 will do something similar. 

http://learn.usa.canon.com/app/pdfs/white_papers/EOS_C300_New_35mm_CMOS_Sensor_WP.pdf

[Axilrod]

As for the OP's original point, I think Canon will have to reassess the clean HDMI output-- but if they weren't convinced the C300 required it, I'm skeptical that this move by Nikon will force Canon's hand. That said, the fact that the EOS division has to negotiate a bit with Canon's broadcast division seems to give Nikon some relative flexibility, at least for the present. That latitude could allow Nikon to aggressively pursue some things that Canon has been sheepish about. I'm still uncertain about Canon's likely response, though. In certain ways, the C300 is less impressive on paper (at least for the price) than the FS100, let alone the F3 or Scarlet. The reviews, however, have suggested that Cinema EOS is a pretty impressive new system, it's lowly 8-bit codec notwithstanding. If Canon is similarly confident that 1DX vs. D4 tests will bear out the merits of their product, then I doubt they'll change anything for now. The photographers at whom these cameras are targeted won't buy cameras based on specs alone, since virtually all of them will have glass investments to consider and enough experience to know that press releases don't translate into the best product.

I agree with everything you're saying, but I'm wondering about the whole clean HDMI output and if HD-SDI makes it pointless......

[wockawocka]

The only time I've ever used video in my 5D2 and 1D4 is if a friend asked me to record something for them.

Whilst the specs are great I would have no idea what to do with them