Back & Forth, No 4K for EOS 5D Mark IV?

[gsealy]

Like most people here, i'll switch from canon to another platform if they decide to don't add 4K to their cameras. I hadn't bought their 5D3 for the same reason.

I see you are new to posting, so you might have missed the poll that says that the majority of folks here are NOT interested in 4K and only 33% say they are. So most people here are not switching to another platform. If it is so important for you, by all means, switch!

Considering less than 1% of households have a 4K TV and various industry experts predict 4K will become affordable for the masses in 10 to 12 years, the users on this forum are probably not representative of the average DSLR buyer.

Speaking as someone who works in broadcasting and who has to consider the implications of changing formats and 4K TV adoption, here's my take.

For 2014, 20% of all global TV sales were 4K. Projections from major manufacturers are expecting sales to double year over year from 2014 to 2015 and the same again into 2016. (Specific projections not available at the moment beyond 2016).

In terms of market penetration, 4K TV is expected to have similar (and possibly accelerated growth) as compared to the adoption of HDTV. Initial sales curves are already bearing this out. In the 5 years from the introduction of HDTV, household HDTV penetration topped 43% (106.5M total TV households / 46M HDTV households).

In terms of the affordability statistic you mention, I would LOVE to see specific sources because nowhere have I seen anything even REMOTELY that pessimistic. Most analysts expect prices to be within a 20% premium of HDTV sets within 2-3 years with parity expected around 4-5 years. Heck, you can buy 4K TVs in the range of 50 inches now for under $500. (http://www.walmart.com/ip/39664946?u1=VlQwcC1Bb0tNckFBQURkbDlxWUFBQUF4&oid=368707.1&wmlspartner=NKa3hZyYoHA&sourceid=33265407533303424077&affillinktype=10&veh=aff)

The main debate here is the intelligence of the BUSINESS decision by Canon to either include or exclude 4K functionality from the next 5D series camera. You'd have a pretty hard time convincing me its not a net negative for Canon to exclude the functionality.

Deja vu... I swear I have read this somewhere else... perhaps in the same thread???
Just so you know... 20% global sales is probably about the same as or less than 1% of households.

Unless you are thinking that every 100 households that you visit, 20 of them will have 4K TVs...
If thats what you truly think, I suggest that you visit a 100 of your friends and family, and check their TV sets. If you don't have 100 friends/family, at least go around the neighborhood. 20% is a lot... thats 1 in every 5.

If TV replacement rates are averageing 7-8 years, and the majority of HD sets out there are approaching that age, it follows that a majority will be replaced in the next 4 years or so. If 20% of sets being sold today are 4K, and that number is expected to rapidly increase in the next two years, it will end up that 4K will have very significant market penetration in the next few years. 50% in the next 4 years is entirely a reasonable number.

When you are doing projections you need to consider where the market is going, not where it has been or currently is.

Even though there are many 4K TVs out there, so what? You still need a way to get the content there. I have DirectTV and they still have some SD channels. So we won't see generally provided broadcast 4K for a while. Internet? Most people do not have the bandwidth to stream it. That leaves 4K players, and how exactly do you create the disks? Or distribute them? As it is right now true 4K can only be delivered from the big movie people on disks. Because they have the money to do it. Maybe there are people that want to take 4K videos of their baby or pets, or a family function. That's cool. But as far as the necessity of buying 4K cameras and all that goes with it for the purpose of making money, it just isn't there generally speaking.

 

[gjones5252]

This is turning into a silly discussion. I agree with previous posters saying that the negative viewpoint about 4k is mostly coming from photographers.
I do both photography and videography and often at the same time. I would greatly benefit from having 4k.
There are two ways my media is delivered. Either on massive screens that are using either led or multiple projectors or by internet.
These screen have higher resolution the 1920x1080 and it would be awesome to see it in a high resolution. When my pictures come up on the screen they look amazing because the resolution is higher than the screen. If i only delivered then pictures that were around 1920 x1080 they would not look nearly as good.

As far a internet delivery 4k still has advantages. Post stabilization. I mostly work in run and gun environments and I would have no worries about having extra stabilization opportunities.
ALso 4k looks great when it is then output at 1080p.

Crazy viewpoint but I am thinking about even getting a XC10!! I often have to cover conferences and I would be able to use this as a main event recording cam on a tripod. And it gives me multiple angles. I want wide angle? boom 100% view. I want to zoom in and scan around so it looks like i had a camera operator back there the whole time. Best part is its all still in 1080.

There are far to many people complaining about what in the long run is essentially an amazing thing.
If your a photographer stop complaining. This whole video thing hasnt in fact added cost to your camera, but more than likely has increased the sales of canon products dramatically. More sale+more r+d=more developments=better end product for all involved.

If your a videographer stop complaining. If you dont need and arent getting certain features then dont use the ones you dont need and find the accessories to solve the ones you dont have. You chose Canon for reliability, lenses, and quality. Be happy your getting those every day. Not everyone else is as lucky.

This forum used to be a lot more positive with just one or two people getting in fights with Neuro. Now its like the most negative place to hear about canon stuff.

 

[RLPhoto]

This is turning into a silly discussion. I agree with previous posters saying that the negative viewpoint about 4k is mostly coming from photographers.
I do both photography and videography and often at the same time. I would greatly benefit from having 4k.
There are two ways my media is delivered. Either on massive screens that are using either led or multiple projectors or by internet.
These screen have higher resolution the 1920x1080 and it would be awesome to see it in a high resolution. When my pictures come up on the screen they look amazing because the resolution is higher than the screen. If i only delivered then pictures that were around 1920 x1080 they would not look nearly as good.

As far a internet delivery 4k still has advantages. Post stabilization. I mostly work in run and gun environments and I would have no worries about having extra stabilization opportunities.
ALso 4k looks great when it is then output at 1080p.

Crazy viewpoint but I am thinking about even getting a XC10!! I often have to cover conferences and I would be able to use this as a main event recording cam on a tripod. And it gives me multiple angles. I want wide angle? boom 100% view. I want to zoom in and scan around so it looks like i had a camera operator back there the whole time. Best part is its all still in 1080.

There are far to many people complaining about what in the long run is essentially an amazing thing.
If your a photographer stop complaining. This whole video thing hasnt in fact added cost to your camera, but more than likely has increased the sales of canon products dramatically. More sale+more r+d=more developments=better end product for all involved.

If your a videographer stop complaining. If you dont need and arent getting certain features then dont use the ones you dont need and find the accessories to solve the ones you dont have. You chose Canon for reliability, lenses, and quality. Be happy your getting those every day. Not everyone else is as lucky.

This forum used to be a lot more positive with just one or two people getting in fights with Neuro. Now its like the most negative place to hear about canon stuff.

Skip the XC10, Get a panasonic FZ1000 for 800$.

 

[Ebrahim Saadawi]

This is turning into a silly discussion. I agree with previous posters saying that the negative viewpoint about 4k is mostly coming from photographers.
I do both photography and videography and often at the same time. I would greatly benefit from having 4k.
There are two ways my media is delivered. Either on massive screens that are using either led or multiple projectors or by internet.
These screen have higher resolution the 1920x1080 and it would be awesome to see it in a high resolution. When my pictures come up on the screen they look amazing because the resolution is higher than the screen. If i only delivered then pictures that were around 1920 x1080 they would not look nearly as good.

As far a internet delivery 4k still has advantages. Post stabilization. I mostly work in run and gun environments and I would have no worries about having extra stabilization opportunities.
ALso 4k looks great when it is then output at 1080p.

Crazy viewpoint but I am thinking about even getting a XC10!! I often have to cover conferences and I would be able to use this as a main event recording cam on a tripod. And it gives me multiple angles. I want wide angle? boom 100% view. I want to zoom in and scan around so it looks like i had a camera operator back there the whole time. Best part is its all still in 1080.

There are far to many people complaining about what in the long run is essentially an amazing thing.
If your a photographer stop complaining. This whole video thing hasnt in fact added cost to your camera, but more than likely has increased the sales of canon products dramatically. More sale+more r+d=more developments=better end product for all involved.

If your a videographer stop complaining. If you dont need and arent getting certain features then dont use the ones you dont need and find the accessories to solve the ones you dont have. You chose Canon for reliability, lenses, and quality. Be happy your getting those every day. Not everyone else is as lucky.

This forum used to be a lot more positive with just one or two people getting in fights with Neuro. Now its like the most negative place to hear about canon stuff.

Skip the XC10, Get a panasonic FZ1000 for 800$.

-Broadcast approved codec

-4:2:2 305mbps vs 24mbps 4:2:0

-Rotating grip

-Stronger built (chuck states it's 1dx/c100/300 build materiel)

-Canon Log vs horribly baked-in profiles

-12 stops of DR vs 10

-Dual media Slots

-A video optimized sensor from the ground up with native 4K readout (no downscaling/lineskipping/binning), larger photosites meaning better lowlight performane too, it just has a different image league ad different sensor from the fz1000, just because they share the approximate size!

-Much less rolling shutter

-The lens optical quality is said to be high-end L league performance but video optimized and shows no breathing, it's not just the numbers on the barrel that determines glass.

-AF is perfect vs unusable

-10bit 4:2:2 HDMI output

It baffles me how all over the web people are implying it's a comparable camera to the fz1000 and rx10 just because they have a similarly sized sensor! Look at the above specs, a completely different league of camera from the still great rx1000&rx10