What’s next from Canon in 2020?

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
1,907
1,040
DSLR also don't show the true DOF for certain apertures because the focusing screen tends to increase it. Only in LiveView or an EVF will DOF preview really do what it is supposed to.
Unless the EVF has the same resolution the final image, you're not getting a "true" DoF preview. Blur too small to see on a scaled down version seen in the EVF may be large enough to see on the full resolution image.
 

Joules

EOS 7D MK II
Jul 16, 2017
619
576
Hamburg, Germany
Unless the EVF has the same resolution the final image, you're not getting a "true" DoF preview. Blur too small to see on a scaled down version seen in the EVF may be large enough to see on the full resolution image.
Sure, but in case of an OVF the DOF you're seeing is altered beyond just the viewing dependent aspect.

I didn't say you're getting true DOF on an EVF, but that the DOF buttons does what it's supposed to do. That is, show how the image looks at the given aperture and view size.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pj1974
Feb 17, 2020
3
0
Jared Polin had a video last week where he had a Hoodman Loupe over the screen of the 1Dx3 in LiveView, and he came away very impressed with the shots he was getting shooting a woman college basketball game, and extrapolating that to what he thinks Canon can do on the mirrorless front.

I guess I don't know what to think with sensor heating issues and it's effect on image noise and sensor life. Do you think Canon has an improved heat sink, like some of the astro-conversions? Battery life isn't as big of a deal to me, my LowePro Whistler 450 has enough space to tuck 4 spare batteries;)

My most pressing question is the price of the new RF 100-500, I'm thinking $2399 or $2599. The RF 24-105 f/4 was $100 cheaper on sale than the EF, which I didn't understand, but happily enjoyed. If the EF 100-400 list price is $2199, I'm assuming the new lens will be a bit more, but maybe Canon will quiet the 7.1 folks by just a modest increase, instead of the $600 difference for the 70-200. I hate all the suspense.
 

jeffa4444

EOS 6D MK II
Feb 28, 2013
1,476
116
66
Impractical to view is not the same thing as impractical for capture before post processing. With 8K, cropping, panning/scanning, etc. are all on the table before outputting to 4K, 2K, or even FHD.
I think your trying to teach me to suck eggs! Were renting Red 8K cameras
Impractical to view is not the same thing as impractical for capture before post processing. With 8K, cropping, panning/scanning, etc. are all on the table before outputting to 4K, 2K, or even FHD.
I think your trying to teach me to suck eggs! We rent Red 8K cameras Im well aware as Ive stated that oversampling / pan & scan are available to those that chose to shoot full 8K (which often they dont). My point was outputting 8K as a viewable image is impractical unless you know something I dont?
 

Kit.

EOR R
Apr 25, 2011
1,700
1,048
I think your trying to teach me to suck eggs! We rent Red 8K cameras Im well aware as Ive stated that oversampling / pan & scan are available to those that chose to shoot full 8K (which often they dont).
Then what did agitate you so much in this post?

My point was outputting 8K as a viewable image is impractical unless you know something I dont?
Your point was irrelevant, unless one really needs to output the captured 8k as a 8k viewable image (for example, for security applications).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Clark

jeffa4444

EOS 6D MK II
Feb 28, 2013
1,476
116
66
Then what did agitate you so much in this post?


Your point was irrelevant, unless one really needs to output the captured 8k as a 8k viewable image (for example, for security applications).
Its not irrelevant when TV companies are trying to sell consumers 8K TVs without them understanding the limitations, its not irrelevant when movie theatres will not be able to handle 8K content yet producers are being told they are future proofing.

Refresh rates, and wider color gamut are worthwhile investments, 8K origination for oversampling but people need to understand the physical limitations of the human eye and viewing distances. Security applications by comparison to domestic is a much smaller market and even then it only relates to using specific enhancing technology most ordinary people would not need.
 

CanonFanBoy

Really O.K. Boomer
Jan 28, 2015
4,701
2,621
Irving, Texas
Its not irrelevant when TV companies are trying to sell consumers 8K TVs without them understanding the limitations, its not irrelevant when movie theatres will not be able to handle 8K content yet producers are being told they are future proofing.

Refresh rates, and wider color gamut are worthwhile investments, 8K origination for oversampling but people need to understand the physical limitations of the human eye and viewing distances. Security applications by comparison to domestic is a much smaller market and even then it only relates to using specific enhancing technology most ordinary people would not need.
So what are the limitations again? If I am sitting 10' from a 55" screen that is outputting my 720, 1080, 2k, 4k, or 8k... what are the limitations to me as a consumer at those various outputs if I happen to have an 8k television? Are you saying I will see no difference? After all, I won't be in a theater and viewing from 100' away or changing my viewing distance at all. My viewing distance is a permanent constant. After that is considered, then what is the benefit to the content producer? I'll see no difference in video between my 1080 vs 8k SOOC? My assumption is that the bigger the screen the higher the resolution needs to be to look good.

My present screen is just 1080, which looks great to me. However, I am comparing to what I was used to watching on a CRT television or projection TV for most of my life. Big 4k televisions can be had now for under $500. I would imagine 8k will get cheap too. It's funny because I can remember when 1080 HD DVD players were going for near $1,000 20 years ago.
 
Last edited:

Kit.

EOR R
Apr 25, 2011
1,700
1,048
Its not irrelevant when TV companies are trying to sell consumers 8K TVs without them understanding the limitations, its not irrelevant when movie theatres will not be able to handle 8K content yet producers are being told they are future proofing.
Are you talking about... Sony?

As far as I know, Canon is not a TV company or a movie producer.
 
  • Love
Reactions: Michael Clark

slclick

135L
Dec 17, 2013
3,872
1,675
So what are the limitations again? If I am sitting 10' from a 55" screen that is outputting my 720, 1080, 2k, 4k, or 8k... what are the limitations to me as a consumer at those various outputs if I happen to have an 8k television? Are you saying I will see no difference? After all, I won't be in a theater and viewing from 100' away or changing my viewing distance at all. My viewing distance is a permanent constant. After that is considered, then what is the benefit to the content producer? I'll see no difference in video between my 1080 vs 8k SOOC? My assumption is that the bigger the screen the higher the resolution needs to be to look good.

My present screen is just 1080, which looks great to me. However, I am comparing to what I was used to watching on a CRT television or projection TV for most of my life. Big 4k televisions can be had now for under $500. I would imagine 8k will get cheap too. It's funny because I can remember when 1080 HD DVD players were going for near $1,000 20 years ago.
What is really being broadcast in 8K at this point to take advantage of your screen rez handling it? 4K broadcasting is still not at the saturation level.
 

CanonFanBoy

Really O.K. Boomer
Jan 28, 2015
4,701
2,621
Irving, Texas
What is really being broadcast in 8K at this point to take advantage of your screen rez handling it? 4K broadcasting is still not at the saturation level.
Yeah, but that is not my question. My question has to do with video I "might" take with an 8k or even 4k camera and playing it back on my television... which isn't 4k right now, but might be by Christmas. I just saw a 55" 4k UHD TV in Walmart for $398. Am I to understand that if I shoot in 4k on an R5 (no crop) that the picture wouldn't be any better than if I had shot at 1080 if played back on a 4k TV? That's what I am getting at since it seems a bunch of us now have the capability to shoot 4k and that 4k televisions are getting dirt cheap compared to 3 years ago. I should have been more clear, but I assumed that what was being said was that there is no advantage to 8k camera video for a consumer. Isn't there if that consumer is playing back on an 8k TV? All this talk about viewing distance vs human eye resolution, when most everyone at home is sitting 10-15" from the screen, is getting a little cumbersome on my brain. It is like reading about DR. I won't be broadcasting or have my video shown in theaters. Like most everyone else here, my stuff will be shown at home.
 
Last edited:

Kit.

EOR R
Apr 25, 2011
1,700
1,048
Yeah, but that is not my question. My question has to do with video I "might" take with an 8k or even 4k camera and playing it back on my television... which isn't 4k right now, but might be by Christmas. I just saw a 55" 4k UHD TV in Walmart for $398. Am I to understand that if I shoot in 4k on an R5 (no crop) that the picture wouldn't be any better than if I had shot at 1080 if played back on a 4k TV?
My laptop screen is 4k and I'm nearsighted, so if I want to say "your non-4k youtube video looks like crap", I have every right to do so, especially if the video was shot at 24p.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: CanonFanBoy

SecureGSM

2 x 5D IV
Feb 26, 2017
1,741
667
So what are the limitations again? If I am sitting 10' from a 55" screen that is outputting my 720, 1080, 2k, 4k, or 8k... what are the limitations to me as a consumer at those various outputs if I happen to have an 8k television? Are you saying I will see no difference? After all, I won't be in a theater and viewing from 100' away or changing my viewing distance at all. My viewing distance is a permanent constant. After that is considered, then what is the benefit to the content producer? I'll see no difference in video between my 1080 vs 8k SOOC? My assumption is that the bigger the screen the higher the resolution needs to be to look good.

My present screen is just 1080, which looks great to me. However, I am comparing to what I was used to watching on a CRT television or projection TV for most of my life. Big 4k televisions can be had now for under $500. I would imagine 8k will get cheap too. It's funny because I can remember when 1080 HD DVD players were going for near $1,000 20 years ago.
Hey, DVD was a 720i resolution capable. No 1080P at the time. :)
Pal/secam/ntsc. BluRay was an 1080p tech initially and then they upgraded standard to 2K.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pj1974

jeffa4444

EOS 6D MK II
Feb 28, 2013
1,476
116
66
So what are the limitations again? If I am sitting 10' from a 55" screen that is outputting my 720, 1080, 2k, 4k, or 8k... what are the limitations to me as a consumer at those various outputs if I happen to have an 8k television? Are you saying I will see no difference? After all, I won't be in a theater and viewing from 100' away or changing my viewing distance at all. My viewing distance is a permanent constant. After that is considered, then what is the benefit to the content producer? I'll see no difference in video between my 1080 vs 8k SOOC? My assumption is that the bigger the screen the higher the resolution needs to be to look good.

My present screen is just 1080, which looks great to me. However, I am comparing to what I was used to watching on a CRT television or projection TV for most of my life. Big 4k televisions can be had now for under $500. I would imagine 8k will get cheap too. It's funny because I can remember when 1080 HD DVD players were going for near $1,000 20 years ago.
The average US TV size is 60" = optimum viewing distances as follows, 1080P 7.7ft, 4K 4ft, 8K 2ft
 
  • Haha
Reactions: slclick