Canon to Target The GH4 With New DSLR Type? [CR2]

ahsanford said:
CarlMillerPhoto said:
Exactly. It appears that Canon is trying to sneak into good standing with budget filmmakers by associating itself with Panasonic and the GH4. However, it's exceedingly easy for Canon to compete with the GH4 - all they need to do is make the 1Dc $2,000...but they won't.

I'm a stills guy, but videographers keep telling me that there's far more to a video rig than if 4K is / isn't included. Surely Canon's stubbornness to not offer 4K at lower price points comes with other features/codecs/options that the GH4 doesn't have, right? (And, no: a high price is not a feature :p)

I recognize Canon's being foolish here, but is it a 'reasonable market segmentation' foolishness or a flat out Rome-is-burning / 'The Emperor is wearing no clothes' sort of foolishness? Is this like Mercedes deciding to never sell an affordable car but at least what they sell is really well built, or has Honda (Panasonic) simply made a comprehensively better car (GH4) for less money?

I appreciate how disruptive the GH4 is, but is it truly better than its higher price point competition?

- A

The GH4 certainly has its limitations (mainly low-light), but the video hype is largely justified (and more than just about 4k). If one only compared video performance with the 1Dc, it would be a close call. The GH4 has all the features that are glaringly absent from non-Cinema line Canons: Peaking, Zebras, in-camera slo-mo, 1080p 60fps, 1080p 96fps, Synchro Scan, uncompressed 10 bit 4:2:2 out, XLR inputs with the YAGH interface unit...the list goes on and on. That's why the comparison is made to the 1dC and not the 5d Mark III, which is still more than twice its price. It's hard to justify paying $8,500 more than the GH4 for the 1Dc. However, I'm sure a full frame sensor, better low-light performance, and a native EF mount is worth it to some people. If I could have either camera for free, I would pick the 1Dc for those reasons. But right now it's just so overpriced to be competitive.
 
Upvote 0
ahsanford said:
If Canon offers a fourth lens mount (when EF-M is currently starving for high quality glass) for what appears to be some smash-and-grab 4K video response crossed with a drone opportunity, I will formally give up on ever owning a Canon mirrorless setup.

Agree that EOS-M and more EF-M lenses are a better solution than what this rumor proposes. If not that, surely a fixed (non-modular) zoom lens is the easier way to go here, right?

- A

the m has access to various high quality systems. via the adaptor itis the most compatable camera canon make. add in those sigma arts, tokinas zeiss etc...

or do you want excruciately expensive bright brimes and telezooms that only fit the m.

the csc concept is great, but I think people need to acccept that if you want to get in closer than a medium telephoto and have bright apertures... you need a chunky lens, which canon already make.

I always saw the m as a compliment to the eos system, rather than a stand alone system (like say the pentax q, nikon v).

Any csc with anything other than a pancake is no longer a csc...

Just my take. I'm a great fan of the m camera, it has its limitations but so has every other bit of kit i've ever used in some way or other.
 
Upvote 0
CarlMillerPhoto said:
ahsanford said:
CarlMillerPhoto said:
Exactly. It appears that Canon is trying to sneak into good standing with budget filmmakers by associating itself with Panasonic and the GH4. However, it's exceedingly easy for Canon to compete with the GH4 - all they need to do is make the 1Dc $2,000...but they won't.

I'm a stills guy, but videographers keep telling me that there's far more to a video rig than if 4K is / isn't included. Surely Canon's stubbornness to not offer 4K at lower price points comes with other features/codecs/options that the GH4 doesn't have, right? (And, no: a high price is not a feature :p)

I recognize Canon's being foolish here, but is it a 'reasonable market segmentation' foolishness or a flat out Rome-is-burning / 'The Emperor is wearing no clothes' sort of foolishness? Is this like Mercedes deciding to never sell an affordable car but at least what they sell is really well built, or has Honda (Panasonic) simply made a comprehensively better car (GH4) for less money?

I appreciate how disruptive the GH4 is, but is it truly better than its higher price point competition?

- A

The GH4 certainly has its limitations (mainly low-light), but the video hype is largely justified (and more than just about 4k). If one only compared video performance with the 1Dc, it would be a close call. The GH4 has all the features that are glaringly absent from non-Cinema line Canons: Peaking, Zebras, in-camera slo-mo, 1080p 60fps, 1080p 96fps, Synchro Scan, uncompressed 10 bit 4:2:2 out, XLR inputs with the YAGH interface unit...the list goes on and on. That's why the comparison is made to the 1dC and not the 5d Mark III, which is still more than twice its price. It's hard to justify paying $8,500 more than the GH4 for the 1Dc. However, I'm sure a full frame sensor, better low-light performance, and a native EF mount is worth it to some people. If I could have either camera for free, I would pick the 1Dc for those reasons. But right now it's just so overpriced to be competitive.

Low light performance is just happens to be the most important video feature, it is the one feature that can get you the shot or miss it. The GH4 is basically useless for video past ISO 1600, and not that great at 1600 either. The 5D3 gives great results up to about ISO 10,000 and with Magic Lantern you get zebras, peaking, magic zoom, and a ton of other goodies, so the GH4 doesn't cut it for me. The Sony A7s will be a great option when they get a good selection of native FF lenses, but Canon will probably have an offering before Sony gets the lenses made.
 
Upvote 0
Etienne said:
Low light performance is just happens to be the most important video feature, it is the one feature that can get you the shot or miss it. The GH4 is basically useless for video past ISO 1600, and not that great at 1600 either. The 5D3 gives great results up to about ISO 10,000 and with Magic Lantern you get zebras, peaking, magic zoom, and a ton of other goodies, so the GH4 doesn't cut it for me. The Sony A7s will be a great option when they get a good selection of native FF lenses, but Canon will probably have an offering before Sony gets the lenses made.

Does anyone actually use the FE lenses for video? I would have thought that the way the manual focus rings are setup leaves them pretty much dead in the water for video.
 
Upvote 0

ahsanford

Particular Member
Aug 16, 2012
8,620
1,651
Tinky said:
the m has access to various high quality systems. via the adaptor itis the most compatable camera canon make. add in those sigma arts, tokinas zeiss etc...

or do you want excruciately expensive bright brimes and telezooms that only fit the m.

I shoot stills with autofocus, so using MF lenses through an adapter is not going to do it for me. I want a high performing mirrorless system with reliable and quick autofocus, which means native EF-M lenses with USM focusing, either first party or possibly by Sigma.

Native EF-M lenses will also create the smallest aggregate mirrorless setup as compared to adapters or bolting on pickle-jar EF lenses.

There are tons of other options on this front, and Sony and Fuji have compelling offerings. But I don't mind waiting for CAnon to get it right here as (a) I could adapt my EF glass (thus allowing an EOS-M to be a small second body) and (b) I prefer Canon ergonomics, menu system, build quality, etc. This isn't a screaming need for me so much as an opportunity I can wait for.

- A
 
Upvote 0

PureClassA

Canon since age 5. The A1
CR Pro
Aug 15, 2014
2,124
827
Mandeville, LA
Shields-Photography.com
Etienne said:
CarlMillerPhoto said:
ahsanford said:
CarlMillerPhoto said:
Exactly. It appears that Canon is trying to sneak into good standing with budget filmmakers by associating itself with Panasonic and the GH4. However, it's exceedingly easy for Canon to compete with the GH4 - all they need to do is make the 1Dc $2,000...but they won't.

I'm a stills guy, but videographers keep telling me that there's far more to a video rig than if 4K is / isn't included. Surely Canon's stubbornness to not offer 4K at lower price points comes with other features/codecs/options that the GH4 doesn't have, right? (And, no: a high price is not a feature :p)

I recognize Canon's being foolish here, but is it a 'reasonable market segmentation' foolishness or a flat out Rome-is-burning / 'The Emperor is wearing no clothes' sort of foolishness? Is this like Mercedes deciding to never sell an affordable car but at least what they sell is really well built, or has Honda (Panasonic) simply made a comprehensively better car (GH4) for less money?

I appreciate how disruptive the GH4 is, but is it truly better than its higher price point competition?

- A

The GH4 certainly has its limitations (mainly low-light), but the video hype is largely justified (and more than just about 4k). If one only compared video performance with the 1Dc, it would be a close call. The GH4 has all the features that are glaringly absent from non-Cinema line Canons: Peaking, Zebras, in-camera slo-mo, 1080p 60fps, 1080p 96fps, Synchro Scan, uncompressed 10 bit 4:2:2 out, XLR inputs with the YAGH interface unit...the list goes on and on. That's why the comparison is made to the 1dC and not the 5d Mark III, which is still more than twice its price. It's hard to justify paying $8,500 more than the GH4 for the 1Dc. However, I'm sure a full frame sensor, better low-light performance, and a native EF mount is worth it to some people. If I could have either camera for free, I would pick the 1Dc for those reasons. But right now it's just so overpriced to be competitive.

Low light performance is just happens to be the most important video feature, it is the one feature that can get you the shot or miss it. The GH4 is basically useless for video past ISO 1600, and not that great at 1600 either. The 5D3 gives great results up to about ISO 10,000 and with Magic Lantern you get zebras, peaking, magic zoom, and a ton of other goodies, so the GH4 doesn't cut it for me. The Sony A7s will be a great option when they get a good selection of native FF lenses, but Canon will probably have an offering before Sony gets the lenses made.

Aaaaand that's why I wait for the Sony a7sII ... likely adding the 3-5 axis sensor stabilization and maybe fix that rolling shutter issue. I could care less what glass Sony makes for it. Hello metabones and Canon EF glass.
 
Upvote 0
I think canon is going "affordable 4k" with 1" sony sensor because... they have no other choice!
Their APSC sensor tech can't manage the readout speed needed for 4k. Even the 7D II doesn't have a full sensor readout for 1080p. (And the famous dualpixel AF is disabled when you shoot in 60/50p...).

Don't know the tech they're using in the C line cams, but it must be quite different than their APSC DSLR.
 
Upvote 0
Etienne said:
CarlMillerPhoto said:
ahsanford said:
CarlMillerPhoto said:
Exactly. It appears that Canon is trying to sneak into good standing with budget filmmakers by associating itself with Panasonic and the GH4. However, it's exceedingly easy for Canon to compete with the GH4 - all they need to do is make the 1Dc $2,000...but they won't.

I'm a stills guy, but videographers keep telling me that there's far more to a video rig than if 4K is / isn't included. Surely Canon's stubbornness to not offer 4K at lower price points comes with other features/codecs/options that the GH4 doesn't have, right? (And, no: a high price is not a feature :p)

I recognize Canon's being foolish here, but is it a 'reasonable market segmentation' foolishness or a flat out Rome-is-burning / 'The Emperor is wearing no clothes' sort of foolishness? Is this like Mercedes deciding to never sell an affordable car but at least what they sell is really well built, or has Honda (Panasonic) simply made a comprehensively better car (GH4) for less money?

I appreciate how disruptive the GH4 is, but is it truly better than its higher price point competition?

- A

The GH4 certainly has its limitations (mainly low-light), but the video hype is largely justified (and more than just about 4k). If one only compared video performance with the 1Dc, it would be a close call. The GH4 has all the features that are glaringly absent from non-Cinema line Canons: Peaking, Zebras, in-camera slo-mo, 1080p 60fps, 1080p 96fps, Synchro Scan, uncompressed 10 bit 4:2:2 out, XLR inputs with the YAGH interface unit...the list goes on and on. That's why the comparison is made to the 1dC and not the 5d Mark III, which is still more than twice its price. It's hard to justify paying $8,500 more than the GH4 for the 1Dc. However, I'm sure a full frame sensor, better low-light performance, and a native EF mount is worth it to some people. If I could have either camera for free, I would pick the 1Dc for those reasons. But right now it's just so overpriced to be competitive.

Low light performance is just happens to be the most important video feature, it is the one feature that can get you the shot or miss it. The GH4 is basically useless for video past ISO 1600, and not that great at 1600 either. The 5D3 gives great results up to about ISO 10,000 and with Magic Lantern you get zebras, peaking, magic zoom, and a ton of other goodies, so the GH4 doesn't cut it for me. The Sony A7s will be a great option when they get a good selection of native FF lenses, but Canon will probably have an offering before Sony gets the lenses made.

I use to think high ISO was super important, but then I learned how to light things. Now I think anything clean over 3,200 is nice, but not necessary. Maybe if all one has is a kit lens at f/5.6 I can see the importance.

Also, don't forget that a Speedbooster on the GH4 gives you both a Super35 (~APS-C) FOV AND an extra stop of light. When other cameras need ISO 3,200 for a given scene, the GH4 with Speedbooster will give you the same exposure at ISO 1,600. And that combo is still $400 cheaper than the A7s and $1000 cheaper than the Mark III.

And the A7s can mount any type of glass in the world. Not sure why you'd hold out for native Sony glass....
 
Upvote 0
Mar 21, 2013
515
3
44
Etienne said:
Low light performance is just happens to be the most important video feature, it is the one feature that can get you the shot or miss it. The GH4 is basically useless for video past ISO 1600, and not that great at 1600 either. The 5D3 gives great results up to about ISO 10,000 and with Magic Lantern you get zebras, peaking, magic zoom, and a ton of other goodies, so the GH4 doesn't cut it for me. The Sony A7s will be a great option when they get a good selection of native FF lenses, but Canon will probably have an offering before Sony gets the lenses made.

+1
Also, is there DOF on the Gh4 without the speedbooster? Just curious.

PureClassA said:
Aaaaand that's why I wait for the Sony a7sII ... likely adding the 3-5 axis sensor stabilization and maybe fix that rolling shutter issue. I could care less what glass Sony makes for it. Hello metabones and Canon EF glass.

+2

I wasn't too keen with mark 1, but that 5-axis man...
In fact, add 1080/120 and you have gold... pure gold :)

CarlMillerPhoto said:
I use to think high ISO was super important, but then I learned how to light things. Now I think anything clean over 3,200 is nice, but not necessary. Maybe if all one has is a kit lens at f/5.6 I can see the importance.

Also, don't forget that a Speedbooster on the GH4 gives you both a Super35 (~APS-C) FOV AND an extra stop of light. When other cameras need ISO 3,200 for a given scene, the GH4 with Speedbooster will give you the same exposure at ISO 1,600. And that combo is still $400 cheaper than the A7s and $1000 cheaper than the Mark III.

And the A7s can mount any type of glass in the world. Not sure why you'd hold out for native Sony glass....

+3

Yeah, but just to add... with regards to lighting... its a drag to lug around a generator all the time (if you are outside). And, if you're talking about battery LEDs... those sony batteries are expensive!

I'm hearing a lot good things about that speedbooster, never thought it can do super 35 FOV...
I have a friend who got the speedbooster with the Sigma 18-35 1.8 (turned it into 1.2 - Have you ever heard a zoom with 1.2???)
 
Upvote 0
mkabi said:
I have a friend who got the speedbooster with the Sigma 18-35 1.8 (turned it into 1.2 - Have you ever heard a zoom with 1.2???)

I know it's really quite amazing. That combo right there is a very large incentive to get the GH4. And the best part is (in my opinion) that while you get the f/1.2 exposure, you're not having to deal with a FF f/1.2 DOF equivalence. It's more akin to f/2 on FF, which helps keep things in focus.
 
Upvote 0
mkabi said:
Yeah, but just to add... with regards to lighting... its a drag to lug around a generator all the time (if you are outside). And, if you're talking about battery LEDs... those sony batteries are expensive!

Those Dedolights run nicely off a car battery or its NiMH/ lithium(preferably iron phosphate) counterpart. And you get output on par with an ace in a package the size of a monolight. 8)
 
Upvote 0
Canon already has the perfect platform to go head to head against the Lumix GH4, Sony A7II, and the Samsung NX1. It’s the SL1, which is actually smaller and lighter than the other three and sports an actual optical viewfinder. The current SL1 is less than half the cost of the Sony and Lumix and about a third of the Samsung. NX1’s price, so there’s plenty of room to upgrade and still remain competitive in cost to the others.

Canon just needs to spec it up with more MPX, faster FPS, 4K video, magnesium alloy body, water and dust resistance, fully articulated view screen, built in wi fi and they would have a winner on their hands.
 
Upvote 0
raptor3x said:
Etienne said:
Low light performance is just happens to be the most important video feature, it is the one feature that can get you the shot or miss it. The GH4 is basically useless for video past ISO 1600, and not that great at 1600 either. The 5D3 gives great results up to about ISO 10,000 and with Magic Lantern you get zebras, peaking, magic zoom, and a ton of other goodies, so the GH4 doesn't cut it for me. The Sony A7s will be a great option when they get a good selection of native FF lenses, but Canon will probably have an offering before Sony gets the lenses made.

Does anyone actually use the FE lenses for video? I would have thought that the way the manual focus rings are setup leaves them pretty much dead in the water for video.

Most EF lenses work fine, and lots of people use them for video. The 35 f/2 IS is great with IS and the focusing is very good, the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II is awesome, but it breathes quite a bit, the 24-105 is very good, and 16-35 is very good as well. The 100 2.8L IS macro is only useful for macro video (in my opinion), because it's very difficult to focus beyond a few feet away.
 
Upvote 0
mkabi said:
Etienne said:
Low light performance is just happens to be the most important video feature, it is the one feature that can get you the shot or miss it. The GH4 is basically useless for video past ISO 1600, and not that great at 1600 either. The 5D3 gives great results up to about ISO 10,000 and with Magic Lantern you get zebras, peaking, magic zoom, and a ton of other goodies, so the GH4 doesn't cut it for me. The Sony A7s will be a great option when they get a good selection of native FF lenses, but Canon will probably have an offering before Sony gets the lenses made.

+1
Also, is there DOF on the Gh4 without the speedbooster? Just curious.

PureClassA said:
Aaaaand that's why I wait for the Sony a7sII ... likely adding the 3-5 axis sensor stabilization and maybe fix that rolling shutter issue. I could care less what glass Sony makes for it. Hello metabones and Canon EF glass.

+2

I wasn't too keen with mark 1, but that 5-axis man...
In fact, add 1080/120 and you have gold... pure gold :)

CarlMillerPhoto said:
I use to think high ISO was super important, but then I learned how to light things. Now I think anything clean over 3,200 is nice, but not necessary. Maybe if all one has is a kit lens at f/5.6 I can see the importance.

Also, don't forget that a Speedbooster on the GH4 gives you both a Super35 (~APS-C) FOV AND an extra stop of light. When other cameras need ISO 3,200 for a given scene, the GH4 with Speedbooster will give you the same exposure at ISO 1,600. And that combo is still $400 cheaper than the A7s and $1000 cheaper than the Mark III.

And the A7s can mount any type of glass in the world. Not sure why you'd hold out for native Sony glass....

+3

Yeah, but just to add... with regards to lighting... its a drag to lug around a generator all the time (if you are outside). And, if you're talking about battery LEDs... those sony batteries are expensive!

I'm hearing a lot good things about that speedbooster, never thought it can do super 35 FOV...
I have a friend who got the speedbooster with the Sigma 18-35 1.8 (turned it into 1.2 - Have you ever heard a zoom with 1.2???)

All of those things are coming sooner than later.
If I was starting from scratch I might not go with Canon right now, but I don't see anything tempting enough to make me risk selling my and replacing it with another brand, especially since this is all a game of leapfrog and Canon is not sleeping.

The 5D3 is still the best all around combo video/photo option I think: it does great low light for both video and photo, it has good AF for photos, lots of lenses, built like a tank, great ergonomics, has magic lantern. I am tempted a bit by the Sony A7s (although some say it's a bit fiddly), but I'll wait and see what they do with the mark II. In the meantime Canon may leap ahead. I am actually considering the C100 markII ... the new viewfinder and LCD look great, and that is a really useable camera.

Some people love the GH4, but working alone in a variety of poorly lit environments where I can't control the lighting, it's just not going to do the job. The 5D3 can deliver great video without intruding on anyone or announcing itself with lights, the C100 even more so, and that's really important for documentary and ENG.

I hope Sony updates the A7s with IS and beefier grip like the A7II ... that might be interesting!
 
Upvote 0
Mar 21, 2013
515
3
44
Etienne said:
All of those things are coming sooner than later.
If I was starting from scratch I might not go with Canon right now, but I don't see anything tempting enough to make me risk selling my and replacing it with another brand, especially since this is all a game of leapfrog and Canon is not sleeping.

The 5D3 is still the best all around combo video/photo option I think: it does great low light for both video and photo, it has good AF for photos, lots of lenses, built like a tank, great ergonomics, has magic lantern. I am tempted a bit by the Sony A7s (although some say it's a bit fiddly), but I'll wait and see what they do with the mark II. In the meantime Canon may leap ahead. I am actually considering the C100 markII ... the new viewfinder and LCD look great, and that is a really useable camera.

Some people love the GH4, but working alone in a variety of poorly lit environments where I can't control the lighting, it's just not going to do the job. The 5D3 can deliver great video without intruding on anyone or announcing itself with lights, the C100 even more so, and that's really important for documentary and ENG.

I hope Sony updates the A7s with IS and beefier grip like the A7II ... that might be interesting!

+1
I'm not keen on replacing any of my gear either.
But, Sony is making it easy so that we don't have to... just body + adapter right?
It looks like Magic Lantern is already preloaded on it. Yet, I have to agree, current models are kinda "fiddly."
Still... add that 5-axis and it makes every one of my primes into ISed lenses... who wouldn't want that?
Only other problem is its only UHD and not true 4K, but they can upgrade that in the mark 2.
May be even add 2.5K @ 60p and 1080/240p?

You know whats funny, my cousin was asking about boxing day and the Nikon d610.
I told him that I don't know anything about Nikon, and that I'm a Canon guy myself, and that oddly enough... many people from both camps are looking at Sony a7 cameras and that he should seriously consider that as an option. I also told him that no matter which camera he chooses, on any side, there are going to be flaws that he has to learn to live with...
 
Upvote 0