A Rundown of Canon at Photokina

[Ruined]

But I don't think the GH5 will be here before the 7DII nor have I said that Canon has no "flaws" (like the mentioned 18mp sensor), I just wanted to show that Canon is not the only one staying with old technologies

You got that wrong.
I said the GH5 will be here before Canon updates the 7D MK2 (aka 7D MKIII).

With smartphones and m43 cameras adding 4K i don´t get why Canon sticks to HD.
Well yes.. so they don´t cut into their cinema line. :

As a customer and amateur i don´t have to approve that.
I rather buy a GH4 for video then. And Canon gets no money at all.

After all that talk abot how great the 7D MK2 will be (especially for video) don´t you think (if the rumors are true) that many will be dissapointed?

Oh, this is a very, very simple answer.

Regardless of what the TV manufacturers wish you would believe, 4K is a gimmick for every environment except a large commercial theater. It is a way to try and sell consumers another piece of electronic equipment with exciting specifications that has no benefit.

Given the eye's resolving power and the average distance people sit from a TV, you need a bare minimum of 120" screen size to even physically see any difference at all - and even in that case, the difference is minute that would rarely be detected. In reality, 4k is only useful for large commercial theaters which have screen sizes many times that size.

So, going back to your answer, why does an under $2000 APS-C professional camera not have 4k? Well, most likely because if someone is filming something for a large commercial theater they are going to use something a bit better than a $2000 APS-C DSLR; if the filmmaker does use an APS-C DSLR because quality is not a priority, then obviously 4k doesn't matter either. So, Canon is simply focusing on putting out a product with features that will actually be used by professionals in this price bracket, i.e. sports and birding. 4K would go unused by a professional in this type of camera.

And, why do smartphones and Panasonics have 4k? Because it is a gimmick feature they can try to lure consumers to their product with, even if it has no benefit to that consumer in any application they could possibly use it in - except possibly that Panasonic could further profit by selling you a 4K tv so you can display your videos in native 4K (that in reality looks no better than 1080p even in a home theater). Still, with some juicy marketing the consumer will think they have the next best thing and revel that they did their research to get the latest and greatest technology; they will think that they got this great new feature even the expensive 7D2 does not have! Unfortunately for that consumer, they were duped.

 

[Marauder]

As for products that 'lack spark', that's completely subjective. Their products spark enough interest to keep them the market leader...

Sounds eeriely familiar to the talk about Nokia. Could even be a verbatim quote...

"Spark" is a relative term. A brand new 65 point AF with all cross-type points is market-leading and it's the feature that "sparks" for me. I don't give a rat's furry behind about 4k video. I do understand how video shooters are disappointed, but I'd say that to imply the product is going to fail because it's not targeted at your market is narrow minded. The camera is clearly being aimed at the wildlife/action/sport photographer and Canon is wisely giving us the features that will "spark" for us.

 

[Gantz]

But I don't think the GH5 will be here before the 7DII nor have I said that Canon has no "flaws" (like the mentioned 18mp sensor), I just wanted to show that Canon is not the only one staying with old technologies

You got that wrong.
I said the GH5 will be here before Canon updates the 7D MK2 (aka 7D MKIII).

With smartphones and m43 cameras adding 4K i don´t get why Canon sticks to HD.
Well yes.. so they don´t cut into their cinema line. :

As a customer and amateur i don´t have to approve that.
I rather buy a GH4 for video then. And Canon gets no money at all.

After all that talk abot how great the 7D MK2 will be (especially for video) don´t you think (if the rumors are true) that many will be dissapointed?

Oh, this is a very, very simple answer.

Regardless of what the TV manufacturers wish you would believe, 4K is a gimmick for every environment except a large commercial theater. It is a way to try and sell consumers another piece of electronic equipment with exciting specifications that has no benefit.

Given the eye's resolving power and the average distance people sit from a TV, you need a bare minimum of 120" screen size to even physically see any difference at all - and even in that case, the difference is minute that would rarely be detected. In reality, 4k is only useful for large commercial theaters which have screen sizes many times that size.

So, going back to your answer, why does an under $2000 APS-C professional camera not have 4k? Well, most likely because if someone is filming something for a large commercial theater they are going to use something a bit better than a $2000 APS-C DSLR; if the filmmaker does use APS-C because quality is not a priority, then obviously 4k doesn't matter either. So, Canon is simply focusing on putting out a product with features that will actually be used by professionals in this price bracket, i.e. sports and birding. 4K would go unused by a professional in this type of camera.

And, why do smartphones and Panasonics have 4k? Because it is a gimmick feature they can try to lure consumers to their product with, even if it has no benefit to that consumer in any application they could possibly use it in - except possibly that Panasonic could further profit by selling you a 4K tv so you can display your videos in native 4K (that in reality looks no better than 1080p). Still, with some juicy marketing the consumer will think they have the next best thing and revel that they did their research to get the latest and greatest technology; they will think that they got this great new feature even the expensive 7D2 does not have! Unfortunately for that consumer, they were duped.

I agree about 4K TV´s under 60-70" are useless.
But it does not have to be 120 inch.

http://www.cnet.com/news/why-4k-tvs-are-stupid-still/

But it is not a question what makes sense for YOU and what does not.

Canon will not drop the 4K cinema line just because you think 4K is nonsense, right?

On the other side, other brands offer 4K in consumer products. It´s a fact.

So why does Canon not?
Will someone please bring the "4K video will be expensive" argument now. :

I would be happy to be able to extract 4K stills from my videos! Extremely happy!
Even when i don´t have a 70 inch 4K TV yet.

 

[Ruined]

But I don't think the GH5 will be here before the 7DII nor have I said that Canon has no "flaws" (like the mentioned 18mp sensor), I just wanted to show that Canon is not the only one staying with old technologies

You got that wrong.
I said the GH5 will be here before Canon updates the 7D MK2 (aka 7D MKIII).

With smartphones and m43 cameras adding 4K i don´t get why Canon sticks to HD.
Well yes.. so they don´t cut into their cinema line. :

As a customer and amateur i don´t have to approve that.
I rather buy a GH4 for video then. And Canon gets no money at all.

After all that talk abot how great the 7D MK2 will be (especially for video) don´t you think (if the rumors are true) that many will be dissapointed?

Oh, this is a very, very simple answer.

Regardless of what the TV manufacturers wish you would believe, 4K is a gimmick for every environment except a large commercial theater. It is a way to try and sell consumers another piece of electronic equipment with exciting specifications that has no benefit.

Given the eye's resolving power and the average distance people sit from a TV, you need a bare minimum of 120" screen size to even physically see any difference at all - and even in that case, the difference is minute that would rarely be detected. In reality, 4k is only useful for large commercial theaters which have screen sizes many times that size.

So, going back to your answer, why does an under $2000 APS-C professional camera not have 4k? Well, most likely because if someone is filming something for a large commercial theater they are going to use something a bit better than a $2000 APS-C DSLR; if the filmmaker does use APS-C because quality is not a priority, then obviously 4k doesn't matter either. So, Canon is simply focusing on putting out a product with features that will actually be used by professionals in this price bracket, i.e. sports and birding. 4K would go unused by a professional in this type of camera.

And, why do smartphones and Panasonics have 4k? Because it is a gimmick feature they can try to lure consumers to their product with, even if it has no benefit to that consumer in any application they could possibly use it in - except possibly that Panasonic could further profit by selling you a 4K tv so you can display your videos in native 4K (that in reality looks no better than 1080p). Still, with some juicy marketing the consumer will think they have the next best thing and revel that they did their research to get the latest and greatest technology; they will think that they got this great new feature even the expensive 7D2 does not have! Unfortunately for that consumer, they were duped.

I agree about 4K TV´s under 60-70" are useless.
But it does not have to be 120 inch.

http://www.cnet.com/news/why-4k-tvs-are-stupid-still/

But it is not a question what makes sense for YOU and what does not.

Canon will not drop the 4K cinema line just because you think 4K is nonsense, right?

On the other side, other brands offer 4K in consumer products. It´s a fact.

I would be happy to be able to extract 4K stills from my videos.
Even when i don´t have a 4K TV yet.

Canon won't drop the 4K cinema line because those cameras are actually used by professionals that will play in commercial theaters. The Canon cinema line cameras have the ergonomics, features, and quality that makes sense for a commercial movie, while the 7D2 will not.

Yes, other brands do offer 4K for consumers - as it is a fairly easy gimmick to sell people on even if it has no benefit.

So I think you answered your own question; the 7D2 is designed to be a professional camera, not a consumer camera. Professionals will not use 4k video on the 7D2, they will go with a Canon cinema, red 4k, or equivalent because those cameras have the ergonomics, features, and quality for a commercial film. On the other hand, consumers may buy a 4K device because of the marketing; thus you see non-professional consumer products including the feature as a marketing upsell. No more, no less.

Also, excellent source you quoted there with the chart - the incredibly well known expert Carlton Bale aka "random wordpress guy with a blog who likes Excel". lol. Joe Kane of DVE backs up my 120" statement, he is a bit more of a trusted source I think... And cnet in a discussion about professional equipment? Really? Are you going to post Consumer Electronics' thoughts as a source next?

If they have you sold on thinking your next 70" TV is really going to show the 4K difference, by all means I do not mean to tell you how to spend your money as a consumer. But the 7D2 is a professional camera, I would prefer Canon budgets it so that its features are geared towards professionals and not whiz-bang consumer features that have no use other than ticking a marketing checkbox.

Joe Kane: 4K requires 1.8 * picture height maximum seating distance to start seeing the 4K difference, meaning for your 70" example you must be seated at most 5.1 feet away from the screen to see any difference with 4k!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EM-_Fv5h6sc

Without burning out your retinas from sitting so close to the screen, realistically you need around 120". In an interview with AVS, Joe Kane specifically stated that 120" is the recommended minimum size to start seeing the 4K difference (see 24:45):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZqhA3iIHm4

 

[Loswr]

...they still have no good ultrawide zoom.

You're right...the new EF 16-35mm f/4L IS not a 'good' UWA zoom, it's an excellent UWA zoom.

You may have a different view what a ultrawide zoom is.
But afaik an ultrawide zoom does not start at 16mm.

It´s more like a 12-24mm i am talking about.

By convention, ultrawide angle is a focal length shorter than the short dimension of the sensor, so anything wider than 24mm on FF; wide angle is 24-35mm. 16-35, 17-40 are ultrawide zooms by the standard definition. It seems you have a different definition than everyone else.

Also, while I assumed you meant a rectilinear UWA zoom, Canon also has the excellent (unique and innovative, too) 8-15mm fisheye zoom.

 

[rowlandw]

New battery? Why not the battery for the current 7D and 6D? Why does Canon make slight variations of batteries within the same families of cameras (I can't use my s90 battery in my s100)? It wouldn't be to make money on unnecessary battery/charger purchases, would it?

 

[Gantz]

...they still have no good ultrawide zoom.

You're right...the new EF 16-35mm f/4L IS not a 'good' UWA zoom, it's an excellent UWA zoom.

You may have a different view what a ultrawide zoom is.
But afaik an ultrawide zoom does not start at 16mm.

It´s more like a 12-24mm i am talking about.

By convention, ultrawide angle is a focal length shorter than the short dimension of the sensor, so anything wider than 24mm on FF; wide angle is 24-35mm. 16-35, 17-40 are ultrawide zooms by the standard definition. It seems you have a different definition than everyone else.

Also, while I assumed you meant a rectilinear UWA zoom, Canon also has the excellent (unique and innovative, too) 8-15mm fisheye zoom.

I have edited my post long before you made this one .. why do you quote the old?
Tyring to gain a point?

You may have a different view what a ultrawide zoom is.
But afaik an ultrawide zoom does not start at 16mm.

Ok after wikipedia it is, at least on FF.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra_wide_angle_lens

But it´s more like a 12-24mm i am talking about.

 

[Gantz]

So I think you answered your own question; the 7D2 is designed to be a professional camera, not a consumer camera. Professionals will not use 4k video on the 7D2, they will go with a Canon cinema, red 4k, or equivalent because those cameras have the ergonomics, features, and quality for a commercial film. On the other hand, consumers may buy a 4K device because of the marketing; thus you see non-professional consumer products including the feature as a marketing upsell. No more, no less.

The 5D MK2 was used by professional filmmaker, so what makes you so sure the 7D MK2 would not?

The GH4 is used by professionals.

And what about extracting still frames?

Are you actually doing Video or your arguing purely from a photographers viewpoint?

 

[Lawliet]

Yes, other brands do offer 4K for consumers - as it is a fairly easy gimmick to sell people on even if it has no benefit.

You're forgetting how bad for example canons HD video is in terms of actual detail retention. An artefact of the whole reading only parts of the sensor thing.
Even if you don't have/take advantage of a 4K-device for output rescaling the footage will get it closer to actual 4:4:4 without unwarrented blur for common fullHD.

 

[Lee Jay]

New battery? Why not the battery for the current 7D and 6D? Why does Canon make slight variations of batteries within the same families of cameras (I can't use my s90 battery in my s100)? It wouldn't be to make money on unnecessary battery/charger purchases, would it?

My guess, based on the name and Canon's history of adding an "N" to the end of a battery name is that this battery will be compatible with the older version, and all of this is to comply with new safety rules in Japan on the charger and battery.

 

[Gantz]

Also, excellent source you quoted there with the chart - the incredibly well known expert Carlton Bale aka "random wordpress guy with a blog who likes Excel"... lol.

Yeah well we all know you are the great expert. 8)

http://carltonbale.com/does-4k-resolution-matter/

Who are you? :
It´s so easy to post as anonymous on internet forums disregarding others, isn´t it?

And cnet in a discussion about professional equipment? Really?

Actually read it before building an opinion, will you?

You can quote and repeat other peoples thoughts and findings better than anyone on the internet im sure about that (and impressed). Still you should read them first.

Be it 120 inch and not 70 inch that it becomes visible.. so what?

Still doesn´t changes a thing about the fact that i can not extract 4K stills from a 7D MK2 video.

 

[Lee Jay]

Also, while I assumed you meant a rectilinear UWA zoom, Canon also has the excellent (unique and innovative, too) 8-15mm fisheye zoom.

I think they messed that one up. When Pentax did a zoom fisheye for full-frame, it was a 17-28. When they did it for crop (also available as a Tokina), it was a 10-17.

The Canon is basically a circular fish and a full-frame fish in one lens for full-frame. I have no need of such a thing. For crop, it's more interesting as it's more of a full-frame fish to a rectilinear (with defishing) ultrawide. That's what I actually wanted, but for full-frame. So, to me, it should have been something like 15-25. As it is, it's too slow, too wide, and too expensive to be interesting to this fish lover, so I kept my (at the time) $370 optically excellent Sigma 15mm/2.8 fisheye.

 

[Don Haines]

New battery? Why not the battery for the current 7D and 6D? Why does Canon make slight variations of batteries within the same families of cameras (I can't use my s90 battery in my s100)? It wouldn't be to make money on unnecessary battery/charger purchases, would it?

My guess, based on the name and Canon's history of adding an "N" to the end of a battery name is that this battery will be compatible with the older version, and all of this is to comply with new safety rules in Japan on the charger and battery.

New battery, slightly better capacity.... You can use the old LP-E6 in the camera.

When you consider that the 5D2, 5D3, 6D, 7D, 60D, and 70D all use the same battery, I would not complain about slight variations in batteries among their DSLRs

 

[Lawliet]

New battery, slightly better capacity.... You can use the old LP-E6 in the camera.

And an opportunity to mess with 3rd party products - a few angles in the smart communication, if we take the ink cardridges as a reference.

 

[Loswr]

I have edited my post long before you made this one .. why do you quote the old?
Tyring to gain a point?

I quoted your post, start a reply, I finished it a while later. Sorry, but life happens.

 

[Gantz]

I have edited my post long before you made this one .. why do you quote the old?
Tyring to gain a point?

I quoted your post, start a reply, I finished it a while later. Sorry, but life happens.

And i thought you live here..

 

[heptagon]

4k for recording is not the same as 4k for playback.

Just compare mushy compressed 1080p with RAW 1080p. Having the option of using 4k for recording, then cropping (e.g. stabilization) and downscaling the compressed version of the video stream would be a very sensible option in many cases to produce high quality 1080p. So, no, it is not only a gimmick for people who know what they do with video.

 

[Gantz]

4k for recording is not the same as 4k for playback.

Just compare mushy compressed 1080p with RAW 1080p. Having the option of using 4k for recording, then cropping (e.g. stabilization) and downscaling the compressed version of the video stream would be a very sensible option in many cases to produce high quality 1080p. So, no, it is not only a gimmick for people who know what they do with video.

+1

And again, i have to stress it, i can´t count how often i wish i could extract high-res frames from video footage.

After all the "7D MK2 will be the video monster" rumors this is disappointing.

 

[Lawliet]

So, no, it is not only a gimmick for people who know what they do with video.

Let's not forget chromakeying - greenscreen is well within the reach of student&hobby productions - getting rid of those halos is so much easier if you're allowed to have masks without a multiple pixel wide blur.

Would the 8MP-sensor in the C100/C300 be in there if aquiring that additional data wouldn't make sense in the first place? The very same rationale applies to other cameras independent of the shell they're housed in.

 

[NancyP]

Won't it be nice when the announcement is made? Then we can be rude to each other over actual specs, not just imagined specs.