Why I Switched from Sony to Canon by Armando Ferreira

Besisika

How can you stand out, if you do like evrybdy else
Mar 25, 2014
638
26
Montreal
Mikehit said:
dash2k8 said:
If you need 4k,
That is my biggest question in these discussions - how many need 4K and how many want it because it is the new cool tech?
From what I see customers don't give a damn if something is 4k or high-res 1080. And watching in youtube who can see the difference? Given most pros use 1080 for things like films and documentaries and no-one watches those and whines about lack of detail. This looks to me like a guy who knows what is good enough and what customers will accept.
Yes, some people need it but 'most'......m'eh.
The answer is simple, you need a 4K camera and not necessarily 4K footage. Two totally different things.
Look at behind the scene of your favorite directors for the past year or two and tell me any that doesn't use an external recorder, unless using a big camera?
Canon 1080P footage are soft (don't get me wrong - I am a Canon fan), while 1080P on an Atomos via HDMI is really fantastic. C100 and C100 II are built that way; these are 4K camera but record in 1080P, bypassing the need for an external recorder. That's why they are so popular; you have everything you need in one body.
On the other hand a 5D III output to the same Atomos delivers the same poor result as internal recording.
When I first got my 1DX II, I did enough test under different conditions to convince myself for the need to rig a Ninja plus 2-3 big Sony batteries around.

Additionally, sometimes you record in 4K so that you can stabilize, zoom in or pan/tilt in post, but your result is still 1080P.

It is not exactly, but similar to shooting photos in raw but publishing in JPG. Why don't you shoot straight in JPG? Why not buy a camera that shoot only in JPG and no raw? You know the answer.
 

privatebydesign

Would you take advice from a cartoons stuffed toy?
Jan 29, 2011
7,788
876
119
transpo1 said:
Mikehit said:
dash2k8 said:
If you need 4k,
That is my biggest question in these discussions - how many need 4K and how many want it because it is the new cool tech?
From what I see customers don't give a damn if something is 4k or high-res 1080. And watching in youtube who can see the difference? Given most pros use 1080 for things like films and documentaries and no-one watches those and whines about lack of detail. This looks to me like a guy who knows what is good enough and what customers will accept.
Yes, some people need it but 'most'......m'eh.
Sigh...it’s the same old argument. Name brand OEM 4K TV’s are down to $400 or less this holiday season. We’re just talking about image quality and future proofing at this point with so many 4K TVs being sold. It’s embarrassing for Canon that so few of their cameras have this technology.

Not to mention you fundamentally don’t understand how 4K is used in web video. Much of 4K is used to recrop / reframe and for extra resolution for a 1080p finish. That nice, crisp 1080p video you like? Shot in 4K.

Thankfully, now with the vlog-crowd starting to use 4K on the GH5 and assorted Sonys, it will only be a matter of time before Canon is forced to include more competitive 4K in its stills lineup. And then we can put this to bed.
Sigh, that’s the same old come back. It doesn’t matter how cheap the TV set or proliferation of capable cameras, what matters is the capacity to deliver to a wide enough audience to finance the billions of dolars needed for delivery infrastructure mprovements.

Very few people, a tiny percentage of the population, have internet service capable of delivering reliable 4K, because of that there is still very little 4K content available. Anybody can make 4K content, of varying qualities, but doing anything with it is still far from easy.

So bloggers make 4K, who can watch it?
So shoot 4K to crop, correct, downsample, why not shoot 2.5 or 3k to do that?
A cropped FF sensor at 4K is still giving a larger sensor area than most crop sensor 4K capable cameras, why do people miss this?
On a vertical based system, video, why did we go from vertical measurements (720, 1080) to horizontal ones (4K, 8k)?
 

Etienne

EOS 6D MK II
Sep 19, 2010
1,359
155
Ottawa Ontario
The video makes excellent points, and great points in the comments here as well.

I sold my 5D3 two months ago and decided not to get the 5D4. The 5D4 is expensive but I would have bought it if it had a swivel screen and an additional more compressed 4K codec. They may seem like small things to some people, but they are huge to me. I am often operating 2 or 3 cameras at the same time and need to see the screens quickly.

I also love the DPAF, so I bought three new Canons: T7i, 77D, and M6 ... mostly because of DPAF and my Canon glass. For 1080p to Youtube these cameras do a good job, they are easy to use, DPAF eliminates most of my focus anxiety, and the footage needs very little color correcting.

But I'll probably still go with the Sony A7s III when it comes out, or A7rIII if it takes too long, because they are lighter than the 5D4, at least have a flip screen, and offer decent 4K options. But a Canon 5D with a full swivel screen would probably have won out for me ... the swivel IS that important.
 

Mikehit

EOS 5D MK IV
Jul 28, 2015
3,213
398
transpo1 said:
Sigh...it’s the same old argument. Name brand OEM 4K TV’s are down to $400 or less this holiday season. We’re just talking about image quality and future proofing at this point with so many 4K TVs being sold. It’s embarrassing for Canon that so few of their cameras have this technology.

Not to mention you fundamentally don’t understand how 4K is used in web video. Much of 4K is used to recrop / reframe and for extra resolution for a 1080p finish. That nice, crisp 1080p video you like? Shot in 4K.

Thankfully, now with the vlog-crowd starting to use 4K on the GH5 and assorted Sonys, it will only be a matter of time before Canon is forced to include more competitive 4K in its stills lineup. And then we can put this to bed.
Maybe if they used their cameras like proper professionals they would not need to rely on cropping and such like. ;D ;D ;D


...before Canon is forced to include more competitive 4K in its stills lineup.
My 5D4 already shoots 4k stills ;D ::)
 

Woody

EOS 6D MK II
Jul 20, 2010
1,138
41
Etienne said:
But a Canon 5D with a full swivel screen would probably have won out for me ... the swivel IS that important.
The 6D Mark II has a fully articulate screen. ::)
 

horshack

EOS T7i
Feb 4, 2013
78
1
privatebydesign said:
Very few people, a tiny percentage of the population, have internet service capable of delivering reliable 4K, because of that there is still very little 4K content available. Anybody can make 4K content, of varying qualities, but doing anything with it is still far from easy.
4K streaming requires 15-25 Mbps/sec. According to the FCC's most recent Broadband Progress Report, 37% of Americans have active broadband internet connections of 25Mbps or more. Here's the breakdown by state - states with an asterisk do not report the information:

Alabama 25%
Alaska 3%
Arizona 45%
Arkansas 24%
California 43%
Colorado 52%
Connecticut 43%
Delaware *
District of Columbia *
Florida 37%
Georgia 35%
Hawaii *
Idaho 25%
Illinois 40%
Indiana 30%
Iowa 6%
Kansas 26%
Kentucky 8%
Louisiana 36%
Maine 13%
Maryland 59%
Massachusetts 68%
Michigan 40%
Minnesota 42%
Mississippi 26%
Missouri 27%
Montana *
Nebraska 34%
Nevada *
New Hampshire 56%
New Jersey 58%
New Mexico 30%
New York 39%
North Carolina 16%
North Dakota 45%
Ohio 11%
Oklahoma 34%
Oregon 49%
Pennsylvania 46%
Rhode Island *
South Carolina 23%
South Dakota 40%
Tennessee 40%
Texas 26%
Utah 41%
Vermont 51%
Virginia 53%
Washington 52%
West Virginia 46%
Wisconsin 24%
Wyoming 46%

Source: https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-16-6A1.pdf
 

transpo1

EOS 7D MK II
Jan 12, 2011
743
90
privatebydesign said:
transpo1 said:
Mikehit said:
dash2k8 said:
If you need 4k,
That is my biggest question in these discussions - how many need 4K and how many want it because it is the new cool tech?
From what I see customers don't give a damn if something is 4k or high-res 1080. And watching in youtube who can see the difference? Given most pros use 1080 for things like films and documentaries and no-one watches those and whines about lack of detail. This looks to me like a guy who knows what is good enough and what customers will accept.
Yes, some people need it but 'most'......m'eh.
Sigh...it’s the same old argument. Name brand OEM 4K TV’s are down to $400 or less this holiday season. We’re just talking about image quality and future proofing at this point with so many 4K TVs being sold. It’s embarrassing for Canon that so few of their cameras have this technology.

Not to mention you fundamentally don’t understand how 4K is used in web video. Much of 4K is used to recrop / reframe and for extra resolution for a 1080p finish. That nice, crisp 1080p video you like? Shot in 4K.

Thankfully, now with the vlog-crowd starting to use 4K on the GH5 and assorted Sonys, it will only be a matter of time before Canon is forced to include more competitive 4K in its stills lineup. And then we can put this to bed.
Sigh, that’s the same old come back. It doesn’t matter how cheap the TV set or proliferation of capable cameras, what matters is the capacity to deliver to a wide enough audience to finance the billions of dolars needed for delivery infrastructure mprovements.

Very few people, a tiny percentage of the population, have internet service capable of delivering reliable 4K, because of that there is still very little 4K content available. Anybody can make 4K content, of varying qualities, but doing anything with it is still far from easy.

So bloggers make 4K, who can watch it?
So shoot 4K to crop, correct, downsample, why not shoot 2.5 or 3k to do that?
A cropped FF sensor at 4K is still giving a larger sensor area than most crop sensor 4K capable cameras, why do people miss this?
On a vertical based system, video, why did we go from vertical measurements (720, 1080) to horizontal ones (4K, 8k)?
Anybody can shoot 5K or 6K stills but really- who needs them? Most web images do not need to be of that quality. A tiny percentage of the population have internet service capable of delivering those stills or have the 5K displays capable of delivering them. Do you see how this works? :)

Why not shoot 2.5K or 3K stills since you will only export it in 2K res and then view it on your non-4K or 5K display? It really doesn’t matter. Again- see how this works?

And we didn’t change- vertical measurements are still used for 4K and UHD- such as 2160p, etc. Your anti-4K bias is showing.
 

transpo1

EOS 7D MK II
Jan 12, 2011
743
90
Mikehit said:
transpo1 said:
Sigh...it’s the same old argument. Name brand OEM 4K TV’s are down to $400 or less this holiday season. We’re just talking about image quality and future proofing at this point with so many 4K TVs being sold. It’s embarrassing for Canon that so few of their cameras have this technology.

Not to mention you fundamentally don’t understand how 4K is used in web video. Much of 4K is used to recrop / reframe and for extra resolution for a 1080p finish. That nice, crisp 1080p video you like? Shot in 4K.

Thankfully, now with the vlog-crowd starting to use 4K on the GH5 and assorted Sonys, it will only be a matter of time before Canon is forced to include more competitive 4K in its stills lineup. And then we can put this to bed.
Maybe if they used their cameras like proper professionals they would not need to rely on cropping and such like. ;D ;D ;D


...before Canon is forced to include more competitive 4K in its stills lineup.
My 5D4 already shoots 4k stills ;D ::)
Funny stuff! Not that I agree, but funny
 

privatebydesign

Would you take advice from a cartoons stuffed toy?
Jan 29, 2011
7,788
876
119
horshack said:
privatebydesign said:
Very few people, a tiny percentage of the population, have internet service capable of delivering reliable 4K, because of that there is still very little 4K content available. Anybody can make 4K content, of varying qualities, but doing anything with it is still far from easy.
4K streaming requires 15-25 Mbps/sec. According to the FCC's most recent Broadband Progress Report, 37% of Americans have active broadband internet connections of 25Mbps or more. Here's the breakdown by state - states with an asterisk do not report the information:

Alabama 25%
Alaska 3%
Arizona 45%
Arkansas 24%
California 43%
Colorado 52%
Connecticut 43%
Delaware *
District of Columbia *
Florida 37%
Georgia 35%
Hawaii *
Idaho 25%
Illinois 40%
Indiana 30%
Iowa 6%
Kansas 26%
Kentucky 8%
Louisiana 36%
Maine 13%
Maryland 59%
Massachusetts 68%
Michigan 40%
Minnesota 42%
Mississippi 26%
Missouri 27%
Montana *
Nebraska 34%
Nevada *
New Hampshire 56%
New Jersey 58%
New Mexico 30%
New York 39%
North Carolina 16%
North Dakota 45%
Ohio 11%
Oklahoma 34%
Oregon 49%
Pennsylvania 46%
Rhode Island *
South Carolina 23%
South Dakota 40%
Tennessee 40%
Texas 26%
Utah 41%
Vermont 51%
Virginia 53%
Washington 52%
West Virginia 46%
Wisconsin 24%
Wyoming 46%

Source: https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-16-6A1.pdf
Those figures are utter bullsh!t. I have 100Mbps service, which pans out with speed testing software, I can’t stream 4K reliably from YouTube or Netflix, indeed auto play on YouTube normally defaults to 720 even when 1080, 1440 and 4K are available, I can play 4k sometimes, but not regularly or reliably, indeed I went back to non 4K Netflix subscription because of the limited programs available and the fact that I couldn’t watch them when I wanted to.
 

privatebydesign

Would you take advice from a cartoons stuffed toy?
Jan 29, 2011
7,788
876
119
transpo1 said:
privatebydesign said:
transpo1 said:
Mikehit said:
dash2k8 said:
If you need 4k,
That is my biggest question in these discussions - how many need 4K and how many want it because it is the new cool tech?
From what I see customers don't give a damn if something is 4k or high-res 1080. And watching in youtube who can see the difference? Given most pros use 1080 for things like films and documentaries and no-one watches those and whines about lack of detail. This looks to me like a guy who knows what is good enough and what customers will accept.
Yes, some people need it but 'most'......m'eh.
Sigh...it’s the same old argument. Name brand OEM 4K TV’s are down to $400 or less this holiday season. We’re just talking about image quality and future proofing at this point with so many 4K TVs being sold. It’s embarrassing for Canon that so few of their cameras have this technology.

Not to mention you fundamentally don’t understand how 4K is used in web video. Much of 4K is used to recrop / reframe and for extra resolution for a 1080p finish. That nice, crisp 1080p video you like? Shot in 4K.

Thankfully, now with the vlog-crowd starting to use 4K on the GH5 and assorted Sonys, it will only be a matter of time before Canon is forced to include more competitive 4K in its stills lineup. And then we can put this to bed.
Sigh, that’s the same old come back. It doesn’t matter how cheap the TV set or proliferation of capable cameras, what matters is the capacity to deliver to a wide enough audience to finance the billions of dolars needed for delivery infrastructure mprovements.

Very few people, a tiny percentage of the population, have internet service capable of delivering reliable 4K, because of that there is still very little 4K content available. Anybody can make 4K content, of varying qualities, but doing anything with it is still far from easy.

So bloggers make 4K, who can watch it?
So shoot 4K to crop, correct, downsample, why not shoot 2.5 or 3k to do that?
A cropped FF sensor at 4K is still giving a larger sensor area than most crop sensor 4K capable cameras, why do people miss this?
On a vertical based system, video, why did we go from vertical measurements (720, 1080) to horizontal ones (4K, 8k)?
Anybody can shoot 5K or 6K stills but really- who needs them? Most web images do not need to be of that quality. A tiny percentage of the population have internet service capable of delivering those stills or have the 5K displays capable of delivering them. Do you see how this works? :)

Why not shoot 2.5K or 3K stills since you will only export it in 2K res and then view it on your non-4K or 5K display? It really doesn’t matter. Again- see how this works?

And we didn’t change- vertical measurements are still used for 4K and UHD- such as 2160p, etc. Your anti-4K bias is showing.
I deliver full sized images all the time, after shooting RAW I optimize and deliver full size jpegs, my clients demand it. Typical file size is a few Mb which is easily handled even by modest internet speeds.

I’m not anti 4K, I have 4K 60fps capable cameras. I am realistic about the market penetration the delivery problem poses. I can deliver 4K video files to my clients, they can’t then get those files to their customers easily or reliably, it doesn’t matter what hosting they use, their clients simply can’t view it reliably.

We did change, 4K and 8k is a horizontal pixel count, 720, 1080 is a vertical pixel/line count.
 

horshack

EOS T7i
Feb 4, 2013
78
1
privatebydesign said:
horshack said:
privatebydesign said:
Very few people, a tiny percentage of the population, have internet service capable of delivering reliable 4K, because of that there is still very little 4K content available. Anybody can make 4K content, of varying qualities, but doing anything with it is still far from easy.
4K streaming requires 15-25 Mbps/sec. According to the FCC's most recent Broadband Progress Report, 37% of Americans have active broadband internet connections of 25Mbps or more. Here's the breakdown by state - states with an asterisk do not report the information:

Alabama 25%
Alaska 3%
Arizona 45%
Arkansas 24%
California 43%
Colorado 52%
Connecticut 43%
Delaware *
District of Columbia *
Florida 37%
Georgia 35%
Hawaii *
Idaho 25%
Illinois 40%
Indiana 30%
Iowa 6%
Kansas 26%
Kentucky 8%
Louisiana 36%
Maine 13%
Maryland 59%
Massachusetts 68%
Michigan 40%
Minnesota 42%
Mississippi 26%
Missouri 27%
Montana *
Nebraska 34%
Nevada *
New Hampshire 56%
New Jersey 58%
New Mexico 30%
New York 39%
North Carolina 16%
North Dakota 45%
Ohio 11%
Oklahoma 34%
Oregon 49%
Pennsylvania 46%
Rhode Island *
South Carolina 23%
South Dakota 40%
Tennessee 40%
Texas 26%
Utah 41%
Vermont 51%
Virginia 53%
Washington 52%
West Virginia 46%
Wisconsin 24%
Wyoming 46%

Source: https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-16-6A1.pdf
Those figures are utter bullsh!t. I have 100Mbps service, which pans out with speed testing software, I can’t stream 4K reliably from YouTube or Netflix, indeed auto play on YouTube normally defaults to 720 even when 1080, 1440 and 4K are available, I can play 4k sometimes, but not regularly or reliably, indeed I went back to non 4K Netflix subscription because of the limited programs available and the fact that I couldn’t watch them when I wanted to.
So we should rely on your sample size of one? I stream 4K vlogs every day off YouTube.
 

Mikehit

EOS 5D MK IV
Jul 28, 2015
3,213
398
horshack said:
Those figures are utter bullsh!t. I have 100Mbps service, which pans out with speed testing software, I can’t stream 4K reliably from YouTube or Netflix, indeed auto play on YouTube normally defaults to 720 even when 1080, 1440 and 4K are available, I can play 4k sometimes, but not regularly or reliably, indeed I went back to non 4K Netflix subscription because of the limited programs available and the fact that I couldn’t watch them when I wanted to.
So we should rely on your sample size of one? I stream 4K vlogs every day off YouTube.
[/quote]

So you will know then how many people actually watch in 4K reliably but put up with any shortfall because of the content of the video. Or do they watch in 720 in 'autoplay'? or 1080? Do you know this for sure?
I doubt many of your viewers even understand the difference or would recognise the difference if they saw it.
 

privatebydesign

Would you take advice from a cartoons stuffed toy?
Jan 29, 2011
7,788
876
119
How many people do you know who can get 4K reliably? I know a couple. Sure I, and the people I know, are not a large sample size.

But I get 100Mbps and do not get reliable 4K delivery, which means your FCC figures are bullsh!t, 25Mbps service is not capable of reliable 4K delivery, heck my single sample proves 4 times that isn’t.

Find me one single individual on the planet who has 25Mbps service and gets 4K streamed reliably!
 

jayphotoworks

EOS 80D
Aug 11, 2016
188
57
privatebydesign said:
How many people do you know who can get 4K reliably? I know a couple. Sure I, and the people I know, are not a large sample size.

But I get 100Mbps and do not get reliable 4K delivery, which means your FCC figures are bullsh!t, 25Mbps service is not capable of reliable 4K delivery, heck my single sample proves 4 times that isn’t.

Find me one single individual on the planet who has 25Mbps service and gets 4K streamed reliably!
That's not entirely fair. I've delivered finished 4K content for local distribution within hotel elevator/guest suites and 4K content for live events, etc. It isn't strictly just about streaming formats. Granted, that's just one use case and won't apply to all, but not everyone is strictly delivering for streaming media. In regards to streaming media, local markets may also differ. In Toronto, I can get up to 90Mbps on LTE via Telus on my smartphone and 150Mbps at home and I'm not using our local ISP's highest tier either which goes up to 1000Mbps.

But beyond the discussion for 4K delivery, there are other creative advantages acquiring content in 4K for delivery in 2K as mentioned in this thread. Some of the higher end systems are multi-aspect and multi-format in excess of 4K in the case of Red's 8K Helium sensor and Sony's 6K Venice sensor. This allows maximum latitude in the acquisition process and subsequent editing suite when deciding your final aspect and delivery format.
 

jeffa4444

EOS 6D MK II
Feb 28, 2013
1,430
86
65
Here in the UK I have Virgin Media (Liberty Media) 200Mbps service and averagely I can watch Netflix 4K content without issue. There are exceptions however if a number of my neighbours are equally watching the same content I can get drop outs but this in practise is rare. The real issue is the limited amount of content that is actually 4K all new Netflix Originals shows are but most old ones and most movies are definitely not 4K.

As to Canon I'm a Canon fan but I do have frustrations such as when you mix shooting with the 5DS and the 6D MKII as I did yesterday different control layout and a d-pad rather than the joystick slow you down when fighting daylight & in a hurry I think all full frame cameras should have the same control layout the cost difference is really not an issue at that level (7D MKII and 6D MKII the latter is more expensive yet the 7D MKII has a joystick). I find that kind of hobbling irritating.
 

Talys

Canon 6DII
Feb 16, 2017
2,058
329
Vancouver, BC
Mikehit said:
horshack said:
Those figures are utter bullsh!t. I have 100Mbps service, which pans out with speed testing software, I can’t stream 4K reliably from YouTube or Netflix, indeed auto play on YouTube normally defaults to 720 even when 1080, 1440 and 4K are available, I can play 4k sometimes, but not regularly or reliably, indeed I went back to non 4K Netflix subscription because of the limited programs available and the fact that I couldn’t watch them when I wanted to.
So we should rely on your sample size of one? I stream 4K vlogs every day off YouTube.
So you will know then how many people actually watch in 4K reliably but put up with any shortfall because of the content of the video. Or do they watch in 720 in 'autoplay'? or 1080? Do you know this for sure?
I doubt many of your viewers even understand the difference or would recognise the difference if they saw it.
[/quote]

It's less about 100Mbps as it is about sustained data rate and buffer size. Especially on cable modems, both advertised and benchmark speeds are a representation of burstable speeds rather than sustained speeds, and publically available benchmarks rarely tell you how bad your internet transfer speed can be over a 2 hour period (the length of a movie).

With cable, you are dealing with a decent pipe that is shared with a large potential number of users; the problem is that, especially at peak times, it's possible for your service to periodically drop below whatever data rate your streaming service needs, briefly.

This is less of an issue with fiber, though of course, congestion is still possible anywhere along the route.

It also depends greatly on your equipment and your ISP's: even with a gigantic pipe, if you're streaming Netflix, you can flood your network with legitimate traffic (like backing up a 6TB hard drive full of photography over the network. To prevent that, you need a QoS (quality of service) switch, which will ensure that certain routes get what they need. The easiest way to achieve that is to be watching 4k TV over your internet provider's TV service, because usually that uses bandwidth reserved for television. Otherwise, you need to set up a QoS channel on your router, if it's supported.
 
Dec 12, 2014
1
0
I have a 5D Mark IV and bought it for the stills first! and video second!...That being said I have no problems with the camera for the video use that I do use it for. I have seriously stopped worrying about the people out there saying canon should have made this the next best thing after the much applauded 5D mark II video beast!

Frankly, don't care! If I want to shoot video I will either get a full blown video camera or deal with what comes out of my Mark IV! I am glad to see that some people have their priorities straight and they have embraced the camera for what it is. This is not to say it's perfect! it's not! it gets the job done! Plain and simple! Looking at the Sonys and Fujis out there and seeing the churn that they are causing in the market makes me sad as people are jumping on the "New hotness!" to make up for their lack of skill! Low cost throw away cameras is what I call them.

I think we should all be on Canon to improve its photo game and push them to get back out ahead of the pack in innovation there. In the end, none of us are going to buy their cameras just for video alone. Give us tools with more features and YES! But remember we are photographers first! Simply put I would be happy to have 4K if I had better dynamic range out of my Mark IV Give stills cameras that and give the Cinema line something like 8K and that will draw a line in the sand! Canon gets to keep its Cinema line prices and we get our DSLR back to shooting at the top of the game again.
 

stevelee

FT-QL
Jul 6, 2017
1,231
264
Davidson, NC
My dumb question for the day: If a professional is buying a camera to shoot video, why wouldn't he/she buy a video camera instead of a DSLR? Are there advantages to using that still camera for video that outweigh the advantages of a video camera?
 

Mikehit

EOS 5D MK IV
Jul 28, 2015
3,213
398
The Sony 4k-lovers do People do seem to be missing the main point of the video. The video guy loves shooting 4k (note: 'loves' not 'needs') but as a pro he has to balance the different strengths. And for him, the ease of Canon colours, Canon DPAF and menus override (for him) any advantage of 4k. It is compromise he is happy with.
His needs override the desire of the technology.
 

stevelee

FT-QL
Jul 6, 2017
1,231
264
Davidson, NC
I don't recall viewing 4K streaming ever, unless it was on YouTube.

For Netflix et. al., how well does the compressed 4K compare to compressed 1080p at similar bitrates? Has anybody seen any measurements? How about satellite and cable?

At some point the compression artifacts would negate (or more than negate) the advantages of more resolution. How near that point does the present real world results come?

My TV is a 46" 1080p set that I watch from 10+ feet away. I don't want anything bigger hogging up the room. Just the regular 1080i and 720p compressed feeds on cable look fine from that distance. (They are mathematically equivalent anyway in terms of data.) I can tell some difference when I watch a 1080p Blu-Ray, and maybe even when I see the less-compressed 1080i OTA. I do sometimes watch YouTube videos at their highest resolution full screen on my 5K monitor from two feet away. Upscaled 1080p doesn't look bad at all, usually.

I ask these questions out of some curiosity, not so much as making a case for or against any format on one's camera. But I do think it is reasonable in the discussion not to ignore bitrates and the level of compression that all media will have, however it gets to our screens.

When I shoot video with my iPhone 6S, I always shoot 4K. Since it is a fixed focal length, I need the resolution to zoom in on things in the editing process. The result is not as good as shooting 1080p with one of my Canons in the first place, but often close enough for my purposes.