4K Video Capture Coming to the EOS 5D Mark IV? [CR1]

[Canon Rumors Guy]

<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/07/4k-video-capture-coming-to-the-eos-5d-mark-iv-cr1/"></g:plusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/07/4k-video-capture-coming-to-the-eos-5d-mark-iv-cr1/">Tweet</a></div>
<p>The EOS 5D Mark IV received a mention recently as possibly being announced in early 2015. One of the features mentioned as a possibility is 4K video capture. Although, I’m pretty sure every future Canon DSLR is going to be rumored to shoot 4K video.</p>
<p><strong>CR’s Take

</strong>If the EOS 5D Mark IV is coming in early 2015 as this rumor suggests, then I cannot see 4K being a part of the feature set. I don’t think we’ll see 4K video recording in a “prosumer” level DSLR from Canon until the technology moves down the Cinema EOS line.</p>
<p>I asked someone in the know recently if Canon had market research on who buys the EOS 5D Mark III and for what purpose. I was told that the videographer focused purchaser of the EOS 5D Mark III was less than 10% of the total sales. The camera is, and has always been, for the still photographer.</p>
<p>If Canon wants to grow in cinema and 4K capture, and they do, then they have a whole new line of cameras that is one generation into its existence to add these and other features to at various price points.</p>
<p>My 2 cents anyway…. :)</p>
<p>Source: [<a href="http://www.canonwatch.com/canon-eos-5d-mark-iv-come-4k/" target="_blank">CW</a>] via [<a href="http://blog.planet5d.com/2014/07/canon-5d-mark-iv-might-feature-4k-video/?hvid=4bop0K" target="_blank">P5D</a>]</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I tend to agree with that. Pro level 4K is a far cry from the low end 4K that some cameras claim. It does not really matter if its there or not to me, after all, I don't have to use it, and, if its going to sell more cameras, then that will drop the price.

There are a lot of people who think they want video in a DSLR, but the number who actually do it on a commercial basis is pretty limited.

 

[brianftpc]

I think putting 4k in a sub 4,000 camera would cause canon to become its own competition with their cinema line of cameras. Im sure they will PURPOSELY handicap it and the 1Dx mkII in some way to stop this from happening. For example the 1Dx has compressed video out through its HDMI port and I therefor cant do a live video stream with it because the image is cropped. I am in that low percentage that does video with their DSLR however I dont give a damn about 4K. I care about 1080p low light and continuous autofocus. I feel like at the moment 4K is just a gimic or part of a spec war just to match what the competition has. I dont have a single client that can watch 4k and its surprising how many dont even have a blu-ray player.

I believe the Sony Alpha a7S and Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH4 will force canon's hand to put 4K into their cheaper cameras for competition's sake. Im glad theres some actually competition to force canon to make some decent improvements instead of letting them try to pull every dollar they can out of your pockets with very small improvements from generation to generation. However 4k is not an upgrade that matters to me at all. I currently own a 1Dx and if the 1Dx mkII has continuous video autofocus and equal or better low light capability I will be in line for a preorder.

 

[RustyTheGeek]

Hmm... Hello 1 TB CF Cards!

 

[geonix]

I think putting 4k in a sub 4,000 camera would cause canon to become its own competition with their cinema line of cameras. Im sure they will PURPOSELY handicap it and the 1Dx mkII in some way to stop this from happening. For example the 1Dx has compressed video out through its HDMI port and I therefor cant do a live video stream with it because the image is cropped. I am in that low percentage that does video with their DSLR however I dont give a damn about 4K. I care about 1080p low light and continuous autofocus. I feel like at the moment 4K is just a gimic or part of a spec war just to match what the competition has. I dont have a single client that can watch 4k and its surprising how many dont even have a blu-ray player.

I believe the Sony Alpha a7S and Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH4 will force canon's hand to put 4K into their cheaper cameras for competition's sake. Im glad theres some actually competition to force canon to make some decent improvements instead of letting them try to pull every dollar they can out of your pockets with very small improvements from generation to generation. However 4k is not an upgrade that matters to me at all. I currently own a 1Dx and if the 1Dx mkII has continuous video autofocus and equal or better low light capability I will be in line for a preorder.

I agree, especially on the second part. All the time people talk about canon not wanting to create competion with their own EOS C lineup and therefore restraining from putting too much high-end features into their prosumer (or whatever) cameras.
If canon really thinks that way, they are not very clever. The biggest competitors to canon are not their own products. But Nikon, Sony, Pentax and Panasonic. If all others put 1080p 60fps (or soon 4k) as standard in their cameras, canon would be stupid not to follow up. Regardless of how long they planned to 'protect' ther high-price products.

We will soon see how canon positions the 7D replacement in the market. On viedeo features I hope it will finally provide 1080p 60fps. On 4k I also agree with brianftpc.

 

[dash2k8]

My company was an early adopter of shooting video on Canon DSLRs (5D2, 7D, then 650D, 70D...) and invested a lot of money into this for great results. But now our cameras are looking like Ford Model T's compared to the Ferrari's coming from other brands (Sony's A7S, Panasonic's GH4). It pains us to see Canon so complacent in an area that they pioneered. Now it's not even an option to stay with Canon. For less money we can get much better video with the GH4 and A7S, and we're going to switch soon.

Some may argue that these DSLRs weren't made for video in the first place. That's sour grape talk. Look at the huge market of video accessories that the 5D2 created and tell me it's not a segment that's worth exploring at a competitive price point.

We'll still stay with Canon for stills since there are no complaints there. But there are clearly better options for video.

 

[Don Haines]

I asked someone in the know recently if Canon had market research on who buys the EOS 5D Mark III and for what purpose. I was told that the videographer focused purchaser of the EOS 5D Mark III was less than 10% of the total sales. The camera is, and has always been, for the still photographer.

What was the proportion for 5D Mark II sales (for video)?

To put another perspective on this, if you want to experiment with 4K video or start building your 4K catalogue then you're forced into buying Panasonic or Sony.

I don't know..... but the percentage of 5D mark 1 sales for video was 0 ....

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Hmm... Hello 1 TB CF Cards!

Nah, it will take way less space than Magic Lantern RAW does. One just hopes they don't cripple the crap out of it and that ML RAW on 5D3 isn't overall better than 4k on 5D4. Canon has been going for a very nasty, fake, plasticky and soft look SOOC, it needs to end.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

My company was an early adopter of shooting video on Canon DSLRs (5D2, 7D, then 650D, 70D...) and invested a lot of money into this for great results. But now our cameras are looking like Ford Model T's compared to the Ferrari's coming from other brands (Sony's A7S, Panasonic's GH4). It pains us to see Canon so complacent in an area that they pioneered. Now it's not even an option to stay with Canon. For less money we can get much better video with the GH4 and A7S, and we're going to switch soon.

Some may argue that these DSLRs weren't made for video in the first place. That's sour grape talk. Look at the huge market of video accessories that the 5D2 created and tell me it's not a segment that's worth exploring at a competitive price point.

We'll still stay with Canon for stills since there are no complaints there. But there are clearly better options for video.

Exactly, Canon is bean counting themselves out of the revolution they accidentally created.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

I asked someone in the know recently if Canon had market research on who buys the EOS 5D Mark III and for what purpose. I was told that the videographer focused purchaser of the EOS 5D Mark III was less than 10% of the total sales. The camera is, and has always been, for the still photographer.

What was the proportion for 5D Mark II sales (for video)?

To put another perspective on this, if you want to experiment with 4K video or start building your 4K catalogue then you're forced into buying Panasonic or Sony.

One thing that seemed interesting was that as soon as ML RAW came out the 5D3 stopped falling in price and went back to full MSRP for a while.

Also had they shipped it with better video to start I imagine it would have been more than 10%, with ease.

 

[RLPhoto]

If it is 4K, They will make loads of money but If its not, They have much more to lose.

 

[ecka]

I think putting 4k in a sub 4,000 camera would cause canon to become its own competition with their cinema line of cameras. Im sure they will PURPOSELY handicap it and the 1Dx mkII in some way to stop this from happening. For example the 1Dx has compressed video out through its HDMI port and I therefor cant do a live video stream with it because the image is cropped. I am in that low percentage that does video with their DSLR however I dont give a damn about 4K. I care about 1080p low light and continuous autofocus. I feel like at the moment 4K is just a gimic or part of a spec war just to match what the competition has. I dont have a single client that can watch 4k and its surprising how many dont even have a blu-ray player.

I believe the Sony Alpha a7S and Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH4 will force canon's hand to put 4K into their cheaper cameras for competition's sake. Im glad theres some actually competition to force canon to make some decent improvements instead of letting them try to pull every dollar they can out of your pockets with very small improvements from generation to generation. However 4k is not an upgrade that matters to me at all. I currently own a 1Dx and if the 1Dx mkII has continuous video autofocus and equal or better low light capability I will be in line for a preorder.

4K down-sampled to 1080p makes massive difference compared to Canon's ordinary 1080p and makes it look like an up-sampled 720p. There is a simple reason for that, dividing resolution by 4 almost eliminates the softness from false color produced by Bayer filter color-guessing technology (some call it - spatial resolution). So, you don't need a blu-ray player, or even a 4K display to enjoy UHD goodness . It's not a gimic.

 

[InterMurph]

I think putting 4k in a sub 4,000 camera would cause canon to become its own competition with their cinema line of cameras.

They don't want to cannibalize the sales of their expensive cinema cameras.

That's a common strategy, and the companies that have used that strategy all have one thing in common: their sales were cannibalized by their competition, instead of by themselves.

Panasonic and Sony are going after Canon video shooters. If Canon won't give us 4K, or even sharp 1080p, then we will get it elsewhere. I am about to buy a GH4 for my video work, even though I won't be able to use my L lenses with it.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I asked someone in the know recently if Canon had market research on who buys the EOS 5D Mark III and for what purpose. I was told that the videographer focused purchaser of the EOS 5D Mark III was less than 10% of the total sales. The camera is, and has always been, for the still photographer.

What was the proportion for 5D Mark II sales (for video)?

To put another perspective on this, if you want to experiment with 4K video or start building your 4K catalogue then you're forced into buying Panasonic or Sony.

There were a ton of 5D MK II's sold because of video, and the first thing that most users found was that they could not edit the files, even viewing then took some high end hardware.

However, to be fair, the comment had to do with the number of Cinema photographers, not the number making home videos, or doing it as a hobby. I think that the total number of those wanting to do DSLR video was high.

Its also likely that many would rush out and buy a 4K camera, and repeat the cycle of not being able to view or edit it on ordinary home computers. But, the number buying one for cinema production would be small because there are now many excellent options where there were no low cost large format options when the MK II arrived.

 

[Policar]

My company was an early adopter of shooting video on Canon DSLRs (5D2, 7D, then 650D, 70D...) and invested a lot of money into this for great results. But now our cameras are looking like Ford Model T's compared to the Ferrari's coming from other brands (Sony's A7S, Panasonic's GH4). It pains us to see Canon so complacent in an area that they pioneered. Now it's not even an option to stay with Canon. For less money we can get much better video with the GH4 and A7S, and we're going to switch soon.

Some may argue that these DSLRs weren't made for video in the first place. That's sour grape talk. Look at the huge market of video accessories that the 5D2 created and tell me it's not a segment that's worth exploring at a competitive price point.

We'll still stay with Canon for stills since there are no complaints there. But there are clearly better options for video.

Canon didn't abandon their video market at all. They have the most successful line of cinema cameras going (no, I don't have sales figures, but based on what I see at and hear from rental houses and owner/ops). The C300 is very affordable but if you are looking to buy multiple bodies the C100 is ok, too...

I don't see why people think Canon has abandoned this market. They haven't at all. The video quality on the next round of 7Ds is irrelevant, although they will be used as b cams, because they are already good enough for broadcast for stealing shots. The majority of the broadcast market will go to Arri with Canons on the low end and as additional unit cameras.

The video quality of the C500 successor and C300 successor will be what to watch... this is where Canon's "cinema" video market is and if the C500 is excellent they might be able to reclaim a bit of market share from Arri, which controls both broadcast and theatrical.

The C100 is the low end of its owner/op market, displacing the 5D II, which accidentally catered to this market, and is popular for wedding videography and low end corporate/web.

The A7s and GH4 are probably fine hybrid cameras, but it seems odd to switch when Canon has the healthiest ecosystem and best (and uniquely, delightfully single-purpose) products and by far the cheapest professional cinema camera with the C300. (The F5 is not cheap!)

 

[brianwallace21]

My hunch is that Canon will take the Sony route and go with 4K over HDMI out and skip the internal recording completely. The GH4 has internal, but it's highly compressed 4:2:0. Even Canon knows that H.264 internal recording is less than ideal and added an all-I frame format on the 5DIII and 70D specifically for video. My hunch is they put 4K in via HDMI and save themselves the hassle of high bit rate video.

Also - Canon does have a 4K option out there - the 1D C is a 4K internal recording camera - granted, it comes at a steep price.

 

[klickflip]

My experience is 5D III is for stills more than video , most other pro photographers I know have a 5D III or 1Dx and Video friends are happy with their 5D II. Some might get a 6D as replacement or backup and many have 7D as B cam including many midsize production campaniles but when it comes to mid to high end commercial productions they all use Red, and for many docus, run n gun or lower end productions its quicker and cheaper to use a sony or panasonic dedicated HD video cam .

However I am sensor jealous of the sony 36 MP sensor. Recently hired D800 for a job and shot at iso 2500 and the results were much much better than using a 5D III, though normally I shoot iso 100-400 and tests I did for tonal gradient sensitive still life the D800 is great ... however Canon is still way ahead because of its L pimes nothing nikon has quite gives the special look of a 1.2 L in tests I did and not just wide open but i won't bore you about that. ( yet to test the Nikon 58mm 1.4 or sigma 50 1.4 art , that looks promising )

Interestingly most of my video friends have passed on canon L and gone for 70s / 80s nikon & zeiss primes or for more of a look older olympus & minolta primes that flare and are quite soft.

Stuck in hard place these days, would love the D800 sensor in canon but cannot give up my L primes for anything.
Clients are asking for bigger files these days so often a 5D III file is seen as lower res, which may force my hand to a D810 next year if Canon does not bring out anything comparable.

Hopefully 4K uncompresed video and more importantly 40MP and 13 + stops DR for the 5D III.... but may be a long wait.

 

[dash2k8]

Canon didn't abandon their video market at all. They have the most successful line of cinema cameras going (no, I don't have sales figures, but based on what I see at and hear from rental houses and owner/ops). The C300 is very affordable but if you are looking to buy multiple bodies the C100 is ok, too...

I don't see why people think Canon has abandoned this market. They haven't at all. The video quality on the next round of 7Ds is irrelevant, although they will be used as b cams, because they are already good enough for broadcast for stealing shots. The majority of the broadcast market will go to Arri with Canons on the low end and as additional unit cameras.

The video quality of the C500 successor and C300 successor will be what to watch... this is where Canon's "cinema" video market is and if the C500 is excellent they might be able to reclaim a bit of market share from Arri, which controls both broadcast and theatrical.

The C100 is the low end of its owner/op market, displacing the 5D II, which accidentally catered to this market, and is popular for wedding videography and low end corporate/web.

The A7s and GH4 are probably fine hybrid cameras, but it seems odd to switch when Canon has the healthiest ecosystem and best (and uniquely, delightfully single-purpose) products and by far the cheapest professional cinema camera with the C300. (The F5 is not cheap!)

Thank you for your reply. Yes, upgrading to the C series is definitely an option, but my gripe/complaint is that Canon has stopped innovating their DSLR video capabilities. They teased us with the 5D2 and then continuously dropped the ball on every single DSLR since on the video front. Not everyone can afford C series cameras and cine lenses. Why couldn't Canon continue the revolution they started? What was wrong with making the 5D3 even more awesome for video? I do not believe Canon thinks video is unimportant. I think they're just protecting their more expensive products by gutting the lower-end ones. Our company is not a full movie studio so moving up to an army of C300's isn't feasible (a few C100's, perhaps). IMO, Canon has indeed abandoned the DLSR video market in favor of greener pastures (can't blame them for wanting to make a profit). If Sony and Panasonic can do this (and they also make pro cameras), why can't Canon?

When I referred to the A7S and GH4, I was purely referring to them as video cameras (serious still shooters would wisely go with other options). These two absolutely kill the 5D3 and have advantages over the 1DX (low light / continuous autofocus / better audio solutions / 4k 4:2:2 recording).

 

[dash2k8]

My hunch is that Canon will take the Sony route and go with 4K over HDMI out and skip the internal recording completely. The GH4 has internal, but it's highly compressed 4:2:0. Even Canon knows that H.264 internal recording is less than ideal and added an all-I frame format on the 5DIII and 70D specifically for video. My hunch is they put 4K in via HDMI and save themselves the hassle of high bit rate video.

Also - Canon does have a 4K option out there - the 1D C is a 4K internal recording camera - granted, it comes at a steep price.

I'm sure you know this already, just wanted to reiterate that the GH4 has 4:2:2 over HDMI.

 

[Policar]

Canon didn't abandon their video market at all. They have the most successful line of cinema cameras going (no, I don't have sales figures, but based on what I see at and hear from rental houses and owner/ops). The C300 is very affordable but if you are looking to buy multiple bodies the C100 is ok, too...

I don't see why people think Canon has abandoned this market. They haven't at all. The video quality on the next round of 7Ds is irrelevant, although they will be used as b cams, because they are already good enough for broadcast for stealing shots. The majority of the broadcast market will go to Arri with Canons on the low end and as additional unit cameras.

The video quality of the C500 successor and C300 successor will be what to watch... this is where Canon's "cinema" video market is and if the C500 is excellent they might be able to reclaim a bit of market share from Arri, which controls both broadcast and theatrical.

The C100 is the low end of its owner/op market, displacing the 5D II, which accidentally catered to this market, and is popular for wedding videography and low end corporate/web.

The A7s and GH4 are probably fine hybrid cameras, but it seems odd to switch when Canon has the healthiest ecosystem and best (and uniquely, delightfully single-purpose) products and by far the cheapest professional cinema camera with the C300. (The F5 is not cheap!)

Thank you for your reply. Yes, upgrading to the C series is definitely an option, but my gripe/complaint is that Canon has stopped innovating their DSLR video capabilities. They teased us with the 5D2 and then continuously dropped the ball on every single DSLR since on the video front. Not everyone can afford C series cameras and cine lenses. Why couldn't Canon continue the revolution they started? What was wrong with making the 5D3 even more awesome for video? I do not believe Canon thinks video is unimportant. I think they're just protecting their more expensive products by gutting the lower-end ones. Our company is not a full movie studio so moving up to an army of C300's isn't feasible (a few C100's, perhaps). IMO, Canon has indeed abandoned the DLSR video market in favor of greener pastures (can't blame them for wanting to make a profit). If Sony and Panasonic can do this (and they also make pro cameras), why can't Canon?

When I referred to the A7S and GH4, I was purely referring to them as video cameras (serious still shooters would wisely go with other options). These two absolutely kill the 5D3 and have advantages over the 1DX (low light / continuous autofocus / better audio solutions / 4k 4:2:2 recording).

The 5D Mark III was definitely designed with decent video in mind. If it weren't for Canon's poor debayer algorithm (which plagues their JPEGS, too) it would have really great video, maybe the best of any affordable dSLR. You can see the potential in what people do with the raw video. It's not bad at all, just soft and without a lot of extra features.

Other leaders in the stills market have poor video, too: the D800 is by all accounts not excellent. Fuji makes amazing cameras, but they have poor video. Leica has poor video. I haven't heard great things about Pentax's video.

Canon had surprisingly success with the 5D Mark II and split its line: dSLR-style video cameras and dSLRs. Canon makes amazing cinema cameras... and clearly the form factor is inspired by dSLRs. Other market leaders make video-specific cameras, too. The Alexa is video only. The red (not doing quite as well) is marketed as both stills and video but is really just video. Sony's professional offerings are video only.

Sony and Panasonic are not market leaders so they have to make alternative and hybrid products. Both have major flaws... the GH4 has skew and poor audio; the A7s has TONS of skew and poor battery life. Both are ergonomically awkward. If you're a business and you can afford a $2500 camera but not a $5000 camera, that's a deeper issue than Sony having slightly better video quality than Canon. (Because the 1080p out of the A7s is not leagues ahead of the 5D Mark III; it has much, much more skew, slightly better resolution, and significantly better DR.)

Just get a C300.

It has a lot of awesome features way beyond what the 5D Mark II offered.