Prosumer Level Canon Mirrorless Camera to Have 4K [CR2]

[scyrene]

I have to wonder how many of the "4K is everything" people actually shoot video.

From my limited experience, it seems like 4K would be very important for editing but not all that critical for a final product.
...

I have to wonder how many who say that have actually seen good 4k video on a good 4k display. The difference from good HD is enormous. The difference from the traditional blurry Canon SLR HD is absolutely gigantic.

The 5DSR doubled the number of pixels over 5DIII. 4k quadruples the number of pixels over HD. It's like having reduced vision and putting on glasses for the first time.

I've watched 4K videos - but at reduced quality, as my laptop is only 2560x1600. They can look dazzling - at first, and in comparison to lower resolutions. But just as with HD, a lot of the time, you can't tell the difference. Or rather, your eyes adjust, and it's only when swapping between different resolutions that you notice.

When HD came along, we were told it was like looking through a window - so clear and crisp. Except it's not. 4K is sharper, but it's not the be all and end all. What matters to me, and to most people, is content. I'd rather watch a show I enjoy in SD than something boring in HD. Not to mention, a lot of channels still don't broadcast in HD for free here (in the UK) - and somehow we manage. I don't think 4K will be mainstream for a while yet.

None of this is to say it's bad to have it - it's great to have more of most things. But claiming it's something particularly special, a deal breaker, a life-changing thing, is just the same old hyperbole.

 

[neuroanatomist]

None of this is to say it's bad to have it - it's great to have more of most things. But claiming it's something particularly special, a deal breaker, a life-changing thing, is just the same old hyperbole.

4K video is useless unless you can underexpose it by 6 stops and push it back up in post.

 

[Don Haines]

I have to wonder how many of the "4K is everything" people actually shoot video.

From my limited experience, it seems like 4K would be very important for editing but not all that critical for a final product.
...

I have to wonder how many who say that have actually seen good 4k video on a good 4k display. The difference from good HD is enormous. The difference from the traditional blurry Canon SLR HD is absolutely gigantic.

The 5DSR doubled the number of pixels over 5DIII. 4k quadruples the number of pixels over HD. It's like having reduced vision and putting on glasses for the first time.

I've watched 4K videos - but at reduced quality, as my laptop is only 2560x1600. They can look dazzling - at first, and in comparison to lower resolutions. But just as with HD, a lot of the time, you can't tell the difference. Or rather, your eyes adjust, and it's only when swapping between different resolutions that you notice.

When HD came along, we were told it was like looking through a window - so clear and crisp. Except it's not. 4K is sharper, but it's not the be all and end all. What matters to me, and to most people, is content. I'd rather watch a show I enjoy in SD than something boring in HD. Not to mention, a lot of channels still don't broadcast in HD for free here (in the UK) - and somehow we manage. I don't think 4K will be mainstream for a while yet.

None of this is to say it's bad to have it - it's great to have more of most things. But claiming it's something particularly special, a deal breaker, a life-changing thing, is just the same old hyperbole.

To my mind, it all comes down to the bitrate.... Nobody broadcasts uncompressed video.... Nobody puts an uncompressed movie onto a DVD... and to my mind, visually there is very little difference between 2K video and 4K video at the same bitrate.

Since both broadcast and cable feeds are already at the limits of their data rate, and since DVDs (including Blu-Ray) are also hitting the same wall, going to 4K will have no practical effect on the quality of video delivered to the consumer. The distribution pipeline is full and it does not even come close to meeting the needs of 2K, so 4K is a laugh..... Of course, those 10 minute "demo" DVDs are different, they have the bitrate cranked up to consume the entire DVD with just the short clip and the subject matter is carefully chosen. Making your evaluation based on that is a bit like deciding which pickup to buy based on the TV commercials where they do things that no sane person would ever do, and when what you really needed was a minivan to fit the kids.

That's for distribution, production is different. 4K and higher bitrate encoding allows much more data to be collected. You get more detail. You get more cropping and framing. You can average out noise. You have more tools to deal with moiré. You can do post-production steady-cam and still have full 2K HD left over... Yes, it also eats up memory a lot faster, but from a production point of view this makes as much sense as a still shooter deciding to change from shooting jpg to shooting RAW.

 

[Don Haines]

None of this is to say it's bad to have it - it's great to have more of most things. But claiming it's something particularly special, a deal breaker, a life-changing thing, is just the same old hyperbole.

4K video is useless unless you can underexpose it by 6 stops and push it back up in post.

Neuro, you are so wrong on that one......

First.... no Canon shoots 4K, only Sony. Canon only claims they shoot 4K in a few models because to admit otherwise would mean immediate and irrevocable doom for Canon. (YAPOD)

Second..... if you are shooting Sony, you can underexpose by 5 stops ( not 6, 5! ) and bring it back in post

Third..... The second point only holds when shooting RAW uncompressed video.... of course, at 24Mb per frame and 60Fps you fill up that 512Gbyte memory card in 6 minutes.... but hey, this is the price to pay for not knowing how to set your exposure and if people don't like it then Boo! Hoo! go set it right!

Fourth.... If Canon really was that good, it would mean that the DXO site would be temporally off-line while they invented a new anti-Canon ratting system (ratting is NOT a typo of rating)

 

[scyrene]

Of course, those 10 minute "demo" DVDs are different, they have the bitrate cranked up to consume the entire DVD with just the short clip and the subject matter is carefully chosen.

So *that's* why all the tvs in the shop show videos of coral reefs and suchlike!

 

[Don Haines]

Of course, those 10 minute "demo" DVDs are different, they have the bitrate cranked up to consume the entire DVD with just the short clip and the subject matter is carefully chosen.

So *that's* why all the tvs in the shop show videos of coral reefs and suchlike!

Yes..... nobody in sales ever lies or misleads

Watched the news on TV tonight..... according to the adds, Chevy, Ford, and Dodge all sell the most fuel efficient pickup truck, the toughest truck, the best selling truck, and the class leading pickup truck... I wonder why I don't believe any of them

 

[takesome1]

Watched the news on TV tonight..... according to the adds, Chevy, Ford, and Dodge all sell the most fuel efficient pickup truck, the toughest truck, the best selling truck, and the class leading pickup truck... I wonder why I don't believe any of them

Because you drive a Tundra?

 

[gargamel]

First, I would conclude that I would fire you if you were my data analyst. Second, I would note that Canon's imaging unit has been consistently profitable for over a decade, so they probably know more about how the market moves than anyone on this forum.

+1, but then smurf society is basically a barter economy so probably the real fiscal world is a little confusing for gargamel...

After a night of sleep I wish I had phrased that differently. Though Gargamel misunderstands the data he's citing, he does not appear to be a troll.

Don't worry, I put it into the "special sense of, but still humor" drawer.

gargamel

 

[neuroanatomist]

None of this is to say it's bad to have it - it's great to have more of most things. But claiming it's something particularly special, a deal breaker, a life-changing thing, is just the same old hyperbole.

4K video is useless unless you can underexpose it by 6 stops and push it back up in post.

Neuro, you are so wrong on that one......

First.... no Canon shoots 4K, only Sony. Canon only claims they shoot 4K in a few models because to admit otherwise would mean immediate and irrevocable doom for Canon. (YAPOD)

Second..... if you are shooting Sony, you can underexpose by 5 stops ( not 6, 5! ) and bring it back in post

Third..... The second point only holds when shooting RAW uncompressed video.... of course, at 24Mb per frame and 60Fps you fill up that 512Gbyte memory card in 6 minutes.... but hey, this is the price to pay for not knowing how to set your exposure and if people don't like it then Boo! Hoo! go set it right!

Fourth.... If Canon really was that good, it would mean that the DXO site would be temporally off-line while they invented a new anti-Canon ratting system (ratting is NOT a typo of rating)

I stand sit corrected, thanks Don.

 

[gargamel]

See "Canon destroys Nikon..." and compare the figures with the figures in the diagrams posted by Woody. The diagram for 2014 shows 43.3% for Canon. 2010 it was 44.5%.

Wow, isn't it fun to distort the picture? You deliberately presented skewed data to distort the picture for your own purpose.

See how Canon and Nikon's market shares fluctuate in the interchangeable lens market:

2006: Canon 47%, Nikon 33%, Sony 6%
2007: Canon 42%, Nikon 40%, Sony ??
2008: Canon 38%, Nikon 37%, Sony 13%
2009: ??
2010: Canon 44.5%, Nikon 29.8%, Sony 11.9%
2011: Canon 47.5%, Nikon 31% (Thom Hogan's estimates and CIPA figures)
2012: Canon 40.6%, Nikon 34.7% (Thom Hogan's estimates and CIPA figures)
2013: ??
2014: Canon 43.3%, Nikon 32.1%, Sony 13.0%

Well, in your previous post you provided diagrams showing Canon's market share in arbitrarily selected years. From these two diagrams it might be concluded that Canon's market share had beein quickly increasing ever since. Now, who distorted the picture? Which is far from reality, of course, as the figures you provide now, clearly show. I only responded to this, I did not start it, and personally I don't actually care about this sort of figures, at al Anyhow thanks for providing the more complete information, now.

gartgamel

 

[gargamel]

Though Gargamel misunderstands the data he's citing, he does not appear to be a troll.

Agree with both. I must say, I love that his 'evidence' for Canon's purported disappointment with 6D sales is a CR1 rumor that was reblogged by an Oregon boudoir photographer. Now that's reliable information!

First, I clearly separated authoritative and unauthoritative sources in my post, and never made the claim that any of the latter is "reliable information". So, please, stop suggesting something else to readers of this thread.

Second, "unreliable" doesn't necessarily mean "wrong". The almost permanent sales support in the form of cashback, bundles ("value packs") and permanently lowered prices certainly don't indicate that the 6D is selling itself.

Third, up to now you are not really participating in the discussion. You think; my arguments are wrong? I can live with that. Just provide evidence. instead you prefer enjoying your arrogance, and blaming and bashing others. I kindly ask you to

1. Read carefully before you write.
2. Think twice, what message you want to get over.
3. Stop intentionally misinterpreting what others say.
4. Support your statements with references and reveal your sources.

If you need help, contact your counsellor.

gargamel

 

[Woody]

• Well, in your previous post you provided diagrams showing Canon's market share in arbitrarily selected years. From these two diagrams it might be concluded that Canon's market share had beein quickly increasing ever since. Now, who distorted the picture? Which is far from reality, of course, as the figures you provide now, clearly show. I only responded to this, I did not start it, and personally I don't actually care about this sort of figures, at al Anyhow thanks for providing the more complete information, now.
  gartgamel

  
  The diagrams were used to simply dispel the nonsensical statement you made below; there was no other intention.
  
  

  ... their market share is shrinking...

  
  You, on the other hand, wanted to use the figures from 2010 and 2014 alone to prove, once again, that Canon's market share is shrinking.
  
  

  • "[Canon's]market share is shrinking, too..."

  ... The diagram for 2014 shows 43.3% for Canon. 2010 it was 44.5%.

 

[Orangutan]

Though Gargamel misunderstands the data he's citing, he does not appear to be a troll.

Agree with both. I must say, I love that his 'evidence' for Canon's purported disappointment with 6D sales is a CR1 rumor that was reblogged by an Oregon boudoir photographer. Now that's reliable information!

First, I clearly separated authoritative and unauthoritative sources in my post, and never made the claim that any of the latter is "reliable information". So, please, stop suggesting something else to readers of this thread.

Second, "unreliable" doesn't necessarily mean "wrong". The almost permanent sales support in the form of cashback, bundles ("value packs") and permanently lowered prices certainly don't indicate that the 6D is selling itself.

Third, up to now you are not really participating in the discussion. You think; my arguments are wrong? I can live with that. Just provide evidence.

There is much wrong with your post, but I'll focus on a few pieces.

You made strong, affirmative statements based largely on very poor sources. Recognizing poor sources generally should occur before you write so you can omit those sources entirely. While none of us have (demonstrable) access to truly authoritative information, most do make an effort to rely on something much more solid than the speculations of another poster.

While it's true that unreliable doesn't mean wrong, it does mean "waste of time."

You use weak sources to support your claims, then expect others to use reliable sources to refute them. Really??!!! That won't fly.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Though Gargamel misunderstands the data he's citing, he does not appear to be a troll.

Agree with both. I must say, I love that his 'evidence' for Canon's purported disappointment with 6D sales is a CR1 rumor that was reblogged by an Oregon boudoir photographer. Now that's reliable information!

First, I clearly separated authoritative and unauthoritative sources in my post, and never made the claim that any of the latter is "reliable information". So, please, stop suggesting something else to readers of this thread.

Second, "unreliable" doesn't necessarily mean "wrong". The almost permanent sales support in the form of cashback, bundles ("value packs") and permanently lowered prices certainly don't indicate that the 6D is selling itself.

Third, up to now you are not really participating in the discussion. You think; my arguments are wrong? I can live with that. Just provide evidence. instead you prefer enjoying your arrogance, and blaming and bashing others. I kindly ask you to

1. Read carefully before you write.
2. Think twice, what message you want to get over.
3. Stop intentionally misinterpreting what others say.
4. Support your statements with references and reveal your sources.

If you need help, contact your counsellor.

gargamel

Ok, let's see what I read:

Canon's sales are shrinking, their market share is shrinking, too, just like the whole camera market is shrinking. The only segment that is growing is the segment of mirrorless cameras. Add that about 1-2 years ago we heard (I think it was here, at CR) that Canon wasn*t too happy with 6D sales. Now, as business man; what would you conclude?

That's a blend of some correct information, some totally wrong information, and some pure speculation. But you are making conclusions based on that, and you believe them to be correct.

When you next visit your therapist, be sure to have your metacognition assessed.

 

[neuroanatomist]

By the way, here's a quick plot of the CIPA data on mirrorless units shipped since they started tracking subsegments of the ILC market in 2012. For all those claiming the MILC market is growing, you're technically correct - it grew a whole 1.7% in 2015 (after shrinking each of the prior two years). At that growth rate, assuming it's maintained (hey, one year makes a trend, right?), the MILC market might even grow all the way back up to 2012 levels in a few years!

 

[Luds34]

I have to wonder how many of the "4K is everything" people actually shoot video.

From my limited experience, it seems like 4K would be very important for editing but not all that critical for a final product.
...

I have to wonder how many who say that have actually seen good 4k video on a good 4k display. The difference from good HD is enormous. The difference from the traditional blurry Canon SLR HD is absolutely gigantic.

The 5DSR doubled the number of pixels over 5DIII. 4k quadruples the number of pixels over HD. It's like having reduced vision and putting on glasses for the first time.

I've watched 4K videos - but at reduced quality, as my laptop is only 2560x1600. They can look dazzling - at first, and in comparison to lower resolutions. But just as with HD, a lot of the time, you can't tell the difference. Or rather, your eyes adjust, and it's only when swapping between different resolutions that you notice.

When HD came along, we were told it was like looking through a window - so clear and crisp. Except it's not. 4K is sharper, but it's not the be all and end all. What matters to me, and to most people, is content. I'd rather watch a show I enjoy in SD than something boring in HD. Not to mention, a lot of channels still don't broadcast in HD for free here (in the UK) - and somehow we manage. I don't think 4K will be mainstream for a while yet.

None of this is to say it's bad to have it - it's great to have more of most things. But claiming it's something particularly special, a deal breaker, a life-changing thing, is just the same old hyperbole.

To my mind, it all comes down to the bitrate.... Nobody broadcasts uncompressed video.... Nobody puts an uncompressed movie onto a DVD... and to my mind, visually there is very little difference between 2K video and 4K video at the same bitrate.

Since both broadcast and cable feeds are already at the limits of their data rate, and since DVDs (including Blu-Ray) are also hitting the same wall, going to 4K will have no practical effect on the quality of video delivered to the consumer. The distribution pipeline is full and it does not even come close to meeting the needs of 2K, so 4K is a laugh..... Of course, those 10 minute "demo" DVDs are different, they have the bitrate cranked up to consume the entire DVD with just the short clip and the subject matter is carefully chosen. Making your evaluation based on that is a bit like deciding which pickup to buy based on the TV commercials where they do things that no sane person would ever do, and when what you really needed was a minivan to fit the kids.

That's for distribution, production is different. 4K and higher bitrate encoding allows much more data to be collected. You get more detail. You get more cropping and framing. You can average out noise. You have more tools to deal with moiré. You can do post-production steady-cam and still have full 2K HD left over... Yes, it also eats up memory a lot faster, but from a production point of view this makes as much sense as a still shooter deciding to change from shooting jpg to shooting RAW.

Amen. Just as too many folks around here are worrying about megapixels for stills (and at least those pixels from the file perspective are created equally) I don't get all this hype for 4k. The bitrate and compression used is huge. Even the 1080p signals I get today from my provider are less then optimal. In fact, I can tell which stations are the "important" ones, as the ESPNs of the world look a lot better then a kids cartoon channel.

It certainly has gotten better, compression algorithms, bandwidth, etc. but I can recall 10 years ago where it wasn't uncommon to see that beautiful 720p or 1080i picture get horribly pixelated during times of a lot of action and/or changing sceen info. One of my favorites was watching an HD concert during a heavy strobe lighting scene or something and watching the picture just fall apart. I recall contrasting that with a well mastered DVD (480p) that while it was limited to a fixed amount of data for the whole movie, was not bandwidth limited like the HD signal coming down the cable pipe. This meant crazy actions scenes would shoot up the bitrate quite high and end up with a much better picture, even if it was lower resolution.

 

[kubelik]

yeah, they hype about 4K is ... well, mostly hype. I'm not a saying it doesn't have a place, or that it doesn't have a future. clearly, it does.

but I'll weigh in as a typical consumer (DSLR-toting hobbyist photographer who mostly shoots video for family events/to record the kids growing up) and say that, frankly, I have essentially zero use for 4K in my everyday life. I think the thing that gets lost a lot of times when looking at spec sheets and everybody egging on each others' GAS is how this stuff really gets used.

what do you actually do with your videos? (again, not to you pros out there, to the laypeople that I suspect make up a significant portion of those claiming that Canon is dead/dying due to being behind the curve on 4K) for me, I have family spread out between the US Eastern shore, the US west coast, southeast asia, and China. 1080p stuff I can rapidly dump from a G7x to a cell phone and then upload onto multiple sharing apps, while we're still out on vacation, and not have to bring a laptop or even a tablet. there's rarely opportunities for everyone to get around a 65" 4K TV to view video of the kids ... and even if there were, I really don't think anyone would give a hoot if it was in 4K versus 1080p.

the other thing that people tout 4K over is the whole "have you SEEN a 4K TV and how awesome it looks?" the answer to that is, yes. I cruise my local Best Buy frequently to see goods in person before buying. the real question is, "have you stood at a realistic viewing distance and compared a reasonable-sized 4K TV against a 1080p TV simultaneously?"

because at any sort of reasonable viewing distance (over 8' based on a normal family room layout), on any sort of reasonable sized TV (60" or less) ... there's really not much between the two. contrast ratio, color depth, and motion clarity all matter WAY more than the slight uptick in resolution. 4K TVs look mindblowing from about 2' away like you view them when you're at Best Buy. put it in a realistic living room environment and there's not much to write home about. I recently had friends purchase a gigantic, top of the line, 75" 4K TV, and then come over and ask me how large my 6 year old, 55" 1080p Samsung TV was. having been to their house before, I knew exactly why they were asking. in my family room, the TV is about 9 feet away from the couches, but in their family room, it's easily 14 feet away. I told them they could have saved a lot of money by moving some furniture.

lastly, if I were to shoot 4K video more often ... now I gotta upgrade monitors. which means I need to upgrade my graphics card. which means I need a new power supply. and get more storage (even more if I want to maintain redundancy). not to mention the new TV. it adds up. I'm a gear-head as a much as the next guy, but I have to evaluate the cost of going 4K in terms of opportunity cost. do I get more benefit out of upgrading to 4K-capable or saving up for a 300mm f/2.8L II? do I get more benefit out of upgrading to 4K or being able to afford upgrading from my 5D Mk III to a new Mk IV when it gets released? do I get more benefit out of upgrading to 4K or spending that money on a really nice vacation with lots of great photo and video opportunities?

also, neuro - keep fighting the good fight, man. I'm always amazed at your endless patience playing the whack-a-mole game with folks who are just making up faux numbers and statistics and then drawing fanciful conclusions from them. spread that real knowledge!

 

[unfocused]

...I think the thing that gets lost a lot of times when looking at spec sheets and everybody egging on each others' GAS is how this stuff really gets used...

This is a great post.

 

[Luds34]

the other thing that people tout 4K over is the whole "have you SEEN a 4K TV and how awesome it looks?" the answer to that is, yes. I cruise my local Best Buy frequently to see goods in person before buying. the real question is, "have you stood at a realistic viewing distance and compared a reasonable-sized 4K TV against a 1080p TV simultaneously?"

because at any sort of reasonable viewing distance (over 8' based on a normal family room layout), on any sort of reasonable sized TV (60" or less) ... there's really not much between the two. contrast ratio, color depth, and motion clarity all matter WAY more than the slight uptick in resolution. 4K TVs look mindblowing from about 2' away like you view them when you're at Best Buy. put it in a realistic living room environment and there's not much to write home about. I recently had friends purchase a gigantic, top of the line, 75" 4K TV, and then come over and ask me how large my 6 year old, 55" 1080p Samsung TV was. having been to their house before, I knew exactly why they were asking. in my family room, the TV is about 9 feet away from the couches, but in their family room, it's easily 14 feet away. I told them they could have saved a lot of money by moving some furniture.

Yep, I agree with this. Not saying it doesn't or won't have it's place at some point, but yes, generally speaking, when looking at typical viewing distances and average eye sight the benefit of the resolution bump will be little to none. Of course, those other things, like color, contrast, etc. are all going to be better with newer and higher end sets so one does get that.

Of course that brings up a whole other point, 4k content. I was out with a sales guy who was kind of bragging about his new 4k TV and how he wanted to be future proof, treat himself to a "good" TV, etc. Of course there is basically zero 4k content available at the moment. So he may have been better off saving a couple grand, picking up a 1080p set for $700 and in a few years and buying the 4k set then (Again for probably $700) when there is a chance of there being more native content to consume.

To each their own but I'd argue too many consumers do get wrapped up with the spec sheet and keeping up with the Joneses.

 

[neuroanatomist]

To each their own but I'd argue too many consumers do get wrapped up with the spec sheet and keeping up with the Joneses.

Not so sure. I think too many forum dwellers get wrapped up with spec sheets. Consumers buy what works, and the Joneses are probably shooting Canon anyway.