A Rundown of Canon at Photokina

[Canon1]

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.

I'm not a video guy and don't quite understand this one. If you are shooting at say 30fps (or whatever) wouldn't an extracted still have a relatively slow shutter speed of say 1/30 sec or something only marginally faster? An extracted image would only work if it was pulled out of a static moment in the scene at the same time the camera is held extremely stable. This is my assumption and may well be incorrect.... I just assume that the frame "shutter speed" so to speak would be too slow to provide much benefit as a single frame still image.

 

[Lee Jay]

I'm not a video guy and don't quite understand this one. If you are shooting at say 30fps (or whatever) wouldn't an extracted still have a relatively slow shutter speed of say 1/30 sec or something only marginally faster?

Video is often shot at "180°" shutter, which means at a shutter speed equal to twice the frame rate. So, 30fps video would be shot at 1/60th. But this is done often, not always, and it's certainly not required. You can shoot 30fps at 1/4000th if you want to. The video tends to look jumpy but the stills have much lower motion blur.

This is why shooting video and expecting to extract stills isn't a great idea unless you're planning one or the other uses for the video. If you plan to use the video for video, shoot at slow shutter speeds and wider framing. If you plan to extract stills, use faster shutter speeds and tighter framing.

 

[Canon1]

I'm not a video guy and don't quite understand this one. If you are shooting at say 30fps (or whatever) wouldn't an extracted still have a relatively slow shutter speed of say 1/30 sec or something only marginally faster?

Video is often shot at "180°" shutter, which means at a shutter speed equal to twice the frame rate. So, 30fps video would be shot at 1/60th. But this is done often, not always, and it's certainly not required. You can shoot 30fps at 1/4000th if you want to. The video tends to look jumpy but the stills have much lower motion blur.

This is why shooting video and expecting to extract stills isn't a great idea unless you're planning one or the other uses for the video. If you plan to use the video for video, shoot at slow shutter speeds and wider framing. If you plan to extract stills, use faster shutter speeds and tighter framing.
[/quote]

Thanks for the explanation. So basically the ability to pull high res still from a video feed is really not as exciting as it sounds. You are best to choose either slow frame speeds for smooth video or shoot photos if you want great stills. Maybe for some there is a balance in the middle where video is not compromised, yet frame capture speeds are fast enough to provide a quality still. I'm assuming that there is also a balance between buffer clearance and memory capacity with all of this as well.

 

[Gantz]

Well as he said it depends on what you do.
A telephoto lens is not bad because you prefer wideangel motivs.

And the ability to pull high-res frames beats the opposit all the time.
Nothing comes for free that´s sure.

Google the topic and you will find many examples where it worked very well.

 

[Lee Jay]

Thanks for the explanation. So basically the ability to pull high res still from a video feed is really not as exciting as it sounds. You are best to choose either slow frame speeds for smooth video or shoot photos if you want great stills.

Well, that depends. Even 4k frames are only 8MP and 16:9 aspect ratio. Pulling a 4:5 aspect ratio still from those is going to leave you with something like a 5.8MP still - not bad, but not great compared to an actual still. It's also probably going to be pulled from a pretty highly compressed source (video), not a less compressed (JPEG) or raw source. However, you might be able to shoot them at 30fps which is something even a 1Dx can't come close to doing.

So, it depends.

 

[Gantz]

Thanks for the explanation. So basically the ability to pull high res still from a video feed is really not as exciting as it sounds. You are best to choose either slow frame speeds for smooth video or shoot photos if you want great stills.

Well, that depends. Even 4k frames are only 8MP and 16:9 aspect ratio. Pulling a 4:5 aspect ratio still from those is going to leave you with something like a 5.8MP still - not bad, but not great compared to an actual still. It's also probably going to be pulled from a pretty highly compressed source (video), not a less compressed (JPEG) or raw source. However, you might be able to shoot them at 30fps which is something even a 1Dx can't come close to doing.

So, it depends.

Right and if you in NEED of pulling a frame... you know a blurry picture is still better than no picture at all.

Would i prefer to have a perfect still, sure.

 

[unfocused]

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.

You win best comment of the day!

 

[cnardo]

+1

 

[Marauder]

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.

You win best comment of the day!

LOL :

 

[Light Sculptor]

Made me laugh too!

If the 400 DO II is for real, I can't wait to hear about it. I have the current Mk 1 version.

 

[CarlMillerPhoto]

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.

You think professionals who capture in 4k always intend to deliver in 4k?
Aren't you aware of the framing abilities 4k offers if you deliver in 1080p?
Aren't you aware of the sharpness, noise, and color space benefits of downsampling 4k to 1080p?
You think professionals would not use 4k if it were in the 7d2?
You think professionals didn't use the 5d and 7d?
You think professionals aren't using the GH4?
You think professionals aren't using the A7s?
You think professionals aren't using the Black Magic 4K Camera?
But most of all, you think professionals don't want something from Canon that can compete with the performance of the above cameras at a similar price-point?!?!

Maybe you think the only video "professionals" are those working in Hollywood on giant blockbusters. Just as the only "professional" photogs are those shooting for NatGeo and Sports Illustrated, right?

 

[Lee Jay]

We had a pro videographer for a week-long shoot at work a few weeks ago. Camera choice? 7D. He did have an assistant who was using a RED Scarlet.

 

[Tugela]

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.

Have you ever actually watched real 4K footage on a 4K display??? (and I am not talking up the upscaled HD movies they play on 4K TV display sets in stores). I keep hearing this nonsense that "you can't see the difference". And most of it is apparently from people who haven't actually bothered to look.

I have a 1440p monitor, and even on that there is a clear and obvious difference in video quality watching real 4K footage on it compared to corresponding HD footage. There is simply no comparison at all, once you shoot in 4K you can't go back to HD because it looks so crude.

Investing the 7D2 in HD technology rather than 4K means that it is being tied to the past rather than being a tool for the future. People are going to have this thing for 3 years, and in that time even basic point and shoots will be recording much better video because of that. If the 7D2 only has HD modes, the video function is not a serious feature of the camera.

 

[Lee Jay]

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.

1) You obviously haven't done the math.
2) The "size" that matters is the angle your display subtends in your field of vision. The computer screen I'm presently typing on subtends a larger angle in my vision than the big screen in a movie theater when I'm sitting about 1/3 of the way back from the screen.
3) Even if what you said were true, which it isn't, what would prevent me from just sitting closer?
4) Even if I don't deliver in 4k, 4k capture would make it far easier to deliver sharp, stabilized and cropped full-HD than full-HD capture does.

 

[NancyP]

Seriously, I was out shooting with the 60D last weekend, and it really is a wonderful camera for many purposes. I look forward to the 7D2, hoping that it will have 7D build quality and updated AF, fps rate, big buffer, and decent IQ at ISO 800 and 1600 (better than the 60D, at any rate - I don't expect it to have a 6D grade high-ISO sensor).

We should enjoy the cameras we have, look forward to updating features we need or want, and be polite to fellow readers and commenters.

 

[tayassu]

Seriously, I was out shooting with the 60D last weekend, and it really is a wonderful camera for many purposes. I look forward to the 7D2, hoping that it will have 7D build quality and updated AF, fps rate, big buffer, and decent IQ at ISO 800 and 1600 (better than the 60D, at any rate - I don't expect it to have a 6D grade high-ISO sensor).

We should enjoy the cameras we have, look forward to updating features we need or want, and be polite to fellow readers and commenters.

You're right a 1000 times. I apologize if I was in any way too harsh during the discussion. :-\
I love my 7D exactly as you love your 60D, they are great cameras!

 

[kevl]

Here's hoping these are not the actual specs for the 7DII I was hoping to put this body in my bag as a second camera.

 

[Etienne]

Here's hoping these are not the actual specs for the 7DII I was hoping to put this body in my bag as a second camera.

I'll be interested if it turns out to be a mini 1Dx

 

[Canon1]

I wonder when it will be officially announced. Tomorrow as initially rumored or if Canon can successfully hold out until the 15th.

Any news CR guy?

 

[ahsanford]

Here's hoping these are not the actual specs for the 7DII I was hoping to put this body in my bag as a second camera.

I'll be interested if it turns out to be a mini 1Dx

That's been the $64,000 question for the last year. Is this going to be a $1500-1700 camera many expect it to be or is it going to be some crop pro beast for wildlife and birding for north of $2k? Is Canon going to make a top of the line 'reach camera'?

The sensor, the focusing system, the burst rate / buffer size and build quality will determine that. If you believe the current CR specs, the burst rate and AF system, F/8 on the center, etc. would imply this will be a very high end rig. But a pop-up flash does not scream 'built for the tundra'. And we know next to nothing about the sensor.

So the jury is still out in my book.

- A