Canon EOS 5D Mark IV To Feature 4K Video?

[Northstar]

Why do they bother making video cameras if video is such a big deal on SLRs? I hate the fact I had to spend so much extra for a feature I've used once on my 5D3.


Why can't they just split the lines properly and sell each one at a reasonable price?

Video in a DSLR is a high demand item, and has likely reduced the price of a 5D2 and 5D3 because of the bigger sales volume. The feature sells cameras. and high volume reduces prices.
You could have bought a 5D Classic when they came out for $3600 with no video. With inflation, that would have been a lot more in today's dollars.

There is also the Nikon Df with no video which sells for $3,000 when you can buy a D800 right now for $2100. That's $900 more for no video!

Spot on Spokane!

 

[CarlMillerPhoto]

My fear is that the 4k it delivers will be marginally better than 5D3 ML RAW and that ML RAW for 1080p won't be possible on the new 5D4.

I hope they notice that as soon as ML RAW came out the 5D3 prices, which had been sinking a lot, shoot right back up to MSRP at most stores for some time. And stop crippling everything to pieces. It's a joke how much better ML gets out of the 5D3 than the Canon firmware alone.

I partitulary hate how Canon has pushed DIGIC processing more and more to the DNR everything to mush that a few studios sadly use on blu-rays at times. As soon as an area doesn't have brightness and extreme contrast DIGIC just turns things to 100% mush. But even in the crisp areas I don't know what they are doing. Sometimes I swear Canon marketing literally had them add a minor Gaussian blur filter in the video output stage. But it might just well be that DIGIC video processing is THAT bad. Maybe it is, there must be some reason they suck with old Canon video processing chips for the C100 and all instead of using any of the much newer DIGICs to read the sensor and do basic processing.

Anyway one would hope they are smart and give the 5D4 1080p RAW out natively and 4k compressed, but a good quality 4k and not low color and not mush and hopefully 10bits. Giving it all the hardware can do is the way to take the world by storm again. Video world moves fast and the film guys don't get into fanboy nonsense and unless Canon pushes max fast they won't ever make a big splash in low to mid-end again.

+10. ML really did save the Mark III for video shooters.

However, I doubt Canon will put Raw functionality into the Mark IV, and in my opinion they don't have to. If they give it clean and detailed 4k internal recording, 10bit 4:2:2 output, and non-mushy 1080p with at least 60p that's all it will take. They could leave ISO performance the same (Mark III blows the Gh4 out of the water in that area) and leave the stills features untouched (although they'll obviously have to update something to make it viable). Heck, if they don't make things impossible to hack they wouldn't even have to bother adding focus peaking/zebras/etc. and could just assume ML would do that work for them (and maybe that could be the way they "protect" their cinema line). Raw is awesome, but the workflow and storage requirements make it less appealing, especially if you have 4k and 10 bit 4:2:2 output as an option.

Whatever they do, I hope they keep the LP-E6 battery and at least one CF (dual CF preferred, though).

 

[Daniel Flather]

And, I have no idea whether adding and upping the video features on a DSLR increases the cost or helps pay for the R&D for features that still photographers are coming to love (e.g., live view).

Live View comfortably predated video.

My 50D had live view.

 

[privatebydesign]

And, I have no idea whether adding and upping the video features on a DSLR increases the cost or helps pay for the R&D for features that still photographers are coming to love (e.g., live view).

Live View comfortably predated video.

My 50D had live view.

So did/does the 40D, and the 1D MkIII predated both of them and that does too.

 

[jrista]

And, I have no idea whether adding and upping the video features on a DSLR increases the cost or helps pay for the R&D for features that still photographers are coming to love (e.g., live view).

Live View comfortably predated video.

So did/does the 40D, and the 1D MkIII predated both of them and that does too.

My 50D had live view.

(This is in response to the whole entire quoted chain of posts above, not just the latest post by pbd.)

While Live View came along a good while ago, I'd offer that it is a very primitive form of "video." There was certainly additional R&D invested into developing that (assuming that is even the real foundation of DSLR video) into something that gave the 5D II it's epic sales numbers and cinematographers cause to use it in major TV and Movie productions. I don't think we got HD video "for free" just because we had Live View.

I also honestly don't know if Canon's R&D budget for DSLR video really takes anything away from R&D for stills or not. It certainly seems logical to think so in one context...when thinking only about the photography division of Canon. Canon is a large company, though, and they have long had a video/camcorder division. Who is to say, when you expand the context within which logic applies, that DSLR's aren't simply benefiting from a separate R&D budget, and that the video features were getting are actually fairly cheap because Canon already does R&D into that, and they have a well established body of experience there?

I haven't used the video features of my DSLR much, however the 7D was never really geared for it. Now that I have a 5D III, I may well start using the video features for wildlife stuff. I am not sure if I'd really appreciate still photography R&D budget being used for video features if that is where Canon is primarily spending the budget...however on the other hand, video is now an endemic feature of DSLRs. Canon has the benefit of a large R&D budget in general to produce highly integrated product lines. If they were to lose competitiveness because of the removal of video features...that too could hurt their ability to fund improvements for still photography.

Honestly, I don't think we can really know how video features in a DSLR affect Canon's progress on stills features. I think video is now a standard part of the package. I don't think that is going to change any time soon. We have no real evidence that it's hurting their still photography features, however it certainly expands the marketability of the products. If there is anything Canon is good at, it's maintaining and expanding their customer base...and that can only have a positive effect on their final revenues and R&D budgets in the end. So I consider video in a DSLR a good thing....long term, it just means more features overall, a larger customer base, and more funds that allow Canon to keep making better products in the future.

 

[privatebydesign]

I have no doubt that the push to video in the C line, not their consumer video camera line, along with a plethora of specialist CN-E enses have seriously impacted the stills orientated camera R&D potential.

I believe Canon see video as the DSLR saviour, and maybe it is, but their very heavy push above the stills market has had repercussions.

We have had interminable delays with some lenses where the CN-E line gets major new lenses at the drop of a hat, a complete abandonment of the "studio" stills orientated pro camera when the C line gets massive upgrades via firmware and hardware. Apart from the RT flash system, that is damn good, I can't think of one innovative Canon feature in recent years that isn't video centric. Good but slow IS primes with STM, video, dual pixel AF, video, etc etc.

Sure the 16-35 f4 IS, the 24-70 MkII, and the 70-200 IS MkII are sterling lenses though they are just as useful to wedding video shooters, but where are the 35L MkII (the C line got their 35mm T1.5 ages ago and there is no way that is a tweeked MkI 1.4), the bread an butter stills 100-400 MkII, a 400 f5.6 with IS, the stills market based 45mm and 90mm TS-E MkII's, I'll tell you where they are, they are in B&H under the Cine line banner.

Stills have jumped the shark as far as Canon are concerned, surveillance video cameras, bread and butter TV, documentary and news video are the next cash cows and the niche is studio/movie video. Stills Explorers of Light are getting dumped for videographers, the TV ads are pushing quality video as the core selling point of DSLR's.

 

[jrista]

I have no doubt that the push to video in the C line, not their consumer video camera line, along with a plethora of specialist CN-E enses have seriously impacted the stills orientated camera R&D potential.

I believe Canon see video as the DSLR saviour, and maybe it is, but their very heavy push above the stills market has had repercussions.

We have had interminable delays with some lenses where the CN-E line gets major new lenses at the drop of a hat, a complete abandonment of the "studio" stills orientated pro camera when the C line gets massive upgrades via firmware and hardware. Apart from the RT flash system, that is damn good, I can't think of one innovative Canon feature in recent years that isn't video centric. Good but slow IS primes with STM, video, dual pixel AF, video, etc etc.

Sure the 16-35 f4 IS, the 24-70 MkII, and the 70-200 IS MkII are sterling lenses though they are just as useful to wedding video shooters, but where are the 35L MkII (the C line got their 35mm T1.5 ages ago and there is no way that is a tweeked MkI 1.4), the bread an butter stills 100-400 MkII, a 400 f5.6 with IS, the stills market based 45mm and 90mm TS-E MkII's, I'll tell you where they are, they are in B&H under the Cine line banner.

Stills have jumped the shark as far as Canon are concerned, surveillance video cameras, bread and butter TV, documentary and news video are the next cash cows and the niche is studio/movie video. Stills Explorers of Light are getting dumped for videographers, the TV ads are pushing quality video as the core selling point of DSLR's.

Everything you say is very true, so far, for RELEASED products.

Your ignoring all the patent filings and that one major upcoming product release that could very well change that, in a big way. Since the introduction of the 7D, Canon has filed a number of still photography sensor patents, including layered sensors and recently a portraiture sensor. They have filed a good number of DO lens patents, as well as a number of patents for other lenses. There were certainly also a couple DPAF patents in there as well, however that improves both video and live view focus, so it isn't purely a video only feature. With the release of the 1D X and 5D III, we saw the introduction of a radically redesigned new 61pt AF system, and a new metering system for the 1D X. (We never saw patents on those ahead of time...they just showed up in the final products, to everyone's pleasure and surprise.) Canon has also released patents related to readout technology a few times over the last 2-3 years...including an on-die, dual-scale CP-ADC patent, a power source decoupling patent (might have the potential to eliminate dark current noise), etc.

The 7D II has the potential to change a lot for stills photographers. Canon has mentioned on a couple occasions that they are working on other sensor IQ improvements. That includes some kind of thermal regulation of the sensor (again, could reduce dark current noise), and probably a fab process shrink.

So sure...all of the recently released products from Canon have been video related. But there is plenty of evidence that Canon has continued to innovate on the still photography front the last few years as well. The only difference is that we haven't seen any of those still photography innovations actually land on a shelf in a product....YET.

 

[Tugela]

My fear is that the 4k it delivers will be marginally better than 5D3 ML RAW and that ML RAW for 1080p won't be possible on the new 5D4.

I hope they notice that as soon as ML RAW came out the 5D3 prices, which had been sinking a lot, shoot right back up to MSRP at most stores for some time. And stop crippling everything to pieces. It's a joke how much better ML gets out of the 5D3 than the Canon firmware alone.

I partitulary hate how Canon has pushed DIGIC processing more and more to the DNR everything to mush that a few studios sadly use on blu-rays at times. As soon as an area doesn't have brightness and extreme contrast DIGIC just turns things to 100% mush. But even in the crisp areas I don't know what they are doing. Sometimes I swear Canon marketing literally had them add a minor Gaussian blur filter in the video output stage. But it might just well be that DIGIC video processing is THAT bad. Maybe it is, there must be some reason they suck with old Canon video processing chips for the C100 and all instead of using any of the much newer DIGICs to read the sensor and do basic processing.

Anyway one would hope they are smart and give the 5D4 1080p RAW out natively and 4k compressed, but a good quality 4k and not low color and not mush and hopefully 10bits. Giving it all the hardware can do is the way to take the world by storm again. Video world moves fast and the film guys don't get into fanboy nonsense and unless Canon pushes max fast they won't ever make a big splash in low to mid-end again.

+10. ML really did save the Mark III for video shooters.

However, I doubt Canon will put Raw functionality into the Mark IV, and in my opinion they don't have to. If they give it clean and detailed 4k internal recording, 10bit 4:2:2 output, and non-mushy 1080p with at least 60p that's all it will take. They could leave ISO performance the same (Mark III blows the Gh4 out of the water in that area) and leave the stills features untouched (although they'll obviously have to update something to make it viable). Heck, if they don't make things impossible to hack they wouldn't even have to bother adding focus peaking/zebras/etc. and could just assume ML would do that work for them (and maybe that could be the way they "protect" their cinema line). Raw is awesome, but the workflow and storage requirements make it less appealing, especially if you have 4k and 10 bit 4:2:2 output as an option.

Whatever they do, I hope they keep the LP-E6 battery and at least one CF (dual CF preferred, though).

Why wouldn't they include something like zebras and peaking? Those functions were included in consumer products at least as old as the HF-S10, so it is not something reserved for professional products. They didn't leave it out because they were "protecting" anything, they most likely left it out because they knew that video was included in the 5D as a sort of toy, since at the time any serious video work would have been done on dedicated video camera. Even the 70D does not have a serious video mode, although they included some experimental technology in it. That is no longer the case, and if video is included as a serious function on upcoming high end models it is almost certain that those tools will be present as well.

 

[privatebydesign]

Well we can only judge on what we can buy

As for the patents, Canon have been very aggressive patent registerers for a very long time, which is comical when you examine their early history, but that aside, patents do not products make, we have had rumours of hundreds of them over the years here and few see the light of day, we all know Canon are innovative and do a lot of R&D but most of the time companies patent to penis block anybody else.

They have struggled to make DO lenses work from the word go, they seem to be convinced there is something there and won't let it die but we are not there yet, the 70-300 DO is the biggest piece of $1,400 crap ever, I'd love to know sales figures for the 400 DO.

I still don't see how DPAF helps SLR stills shooters.

As for AF and metering, well they introduced the 45 point AF back in 2000, so it isn't like they didn't have time to put a bit more thought into it, though it isn't "radically" different is it? Dedicated processor and all but the same contrast detect chip behind a sub mirror arrangement since in body AF started. Nikon have had colour sensitive metering for years, and not just in the one top of the line body.

As for the 7D MkII having potential, I must, respectfully, disagree, even if it bests the D7100 in sensor metrics by a half stop or so, so what? That makes it slightly worse on overall image IQ than the 6D.

Don't get me wrong, I am not picking a fight and I am not out to bash Canon, I just see the last few years developments with my eyes wide open, stills are not the driving force they were even five years ago when the 7D made such an impact. In my opinion stills are not seen to be the future by Canon.

If the products haven't landed on a shelf yet then all the R&D in the world is no use to me.

The other truth is that stills are a very mature market, the quality and capability we have now vastly out strip most users needs, the 5D MkIII is probably the most complete stills shooters camera ever and Canon clearly don't believe in much higher MP, DR, blah blah sensor specs at this point. I believe we are on a technology plateau with no signs of the next BIG thing.

For me personally, put the 5D MkIII sensor in the 1Dx MkII, get me those TS-E lenses and I don't care, I'll be retired before my customers or I need more than that.

 

[jrista]

Well we can only judge on what we can buy

As for the patents, Canon have been very aggressive patent registerers for a very long time, which is comical when you examine their early history, but that aside, patents do not products make, we have had rumours of hundreds of them over the years here and few see the light of day, we all know Canon are innovative and do a lot of R&D but most of the time companies patent to penis block anybody else.

They have struggled to make DO lenses work from the word go, they seem to be convinced there is something there and won't let it die but we are not there yet, the 70-300 DO is the biggest piece of $1,400 crap ever, I'd love to know sales figures for the 400 DO.

I still don't see how DPAF helps SLR stills shooters.

As for AF and metering, well they introduced the 45 point AF back in 2000, so it isn't like they didn't have time to put a bit more thought into it, though it isn't "radically" different is it? Dedicated processor and all but the same contrast detect chip behind a sub mirror arrangement since in body AF started. Nikon have had colour sensitive metering for years, and not just in the one top of the line body.

As for the 7D MkII having potential, I must, respectfully, disagree, even if it bests the D7100 in sensor metrics by a half stop or so, so what? That makes it slightly worse on overall image IQ than the 6D.

Don't get me wrong, I am not picking a fight and I am not out to bash Canon, I just see the last few years developments with my eyes wide open, stills are not the driving force they were even five years ago when the 7D made such an impact. In my opinion stills are not seen to be the future by Canon.

If the products haven't landed on a shelf yet then all the R&D in the world is no use to me.

The other truth is that stills are a very mature market, the quality and capability we have now vastly out strip most users needs, the 5D MkIII is probably the most complete stills shooters camera ever and Canon clearly don't believe in much higher MP, DR, blah blah sensor specs at this point. I believe we are on a technology plateau with no signs of the next BIG thing.

For me personally, put the 5D MkIII sensor in the 1Dx MkII, get me those TS-E lenses and I don't care, I'll be retired before my customers or I need more than that.

Very true, patent's don't make a product. My point was only that there is an R&D budget for still photography at Canon, and money is clearly being spent there. Patents do need to actually make their way into a product on a shelf to be meaningful, though...your dead-on there.

I really wonder why Canon doesn't bring more of their innovations into being...almost smacks of Nokia a few years ago...they had a MASSIVE patent library, but it was just IP...they didn't wield it and make competitive products with that technology...and look where they are now... Guess that's the most concerning thing about Canon. They have some amazing technology...but they aren't using it...so it isn't making money.

I still don't see how DPAF helps SLR stills shooters.

I can see it being very useful for focusing landscape shots, which I've always focused manually in live view. DPAF could automate that process.

The other truth is that stills are a very mature market, the quality and capability we have now vastly out strip most users needs, the 5D MkIII is probably the most complete stills shooters camera ever and Canon clearly don't believe in much higher MP, DR, blah blah sensor specs at this point. I believe we are on a technology plateau with no signs of the next BIG thing.

I don't know if I agree with that. DR is obviously a VERY important thing to photographers these days. It is single-handedly the most controversial and common subject when it comes to Canon vs. the others. Even if it isn't as important as many individuals and certain organizations seem to insist, it's clearly a sticking point, and clearly a perception issue between Canon and their customers. I have a hard time believing Canon doesn't know that...not after the last two years and all the debates and conversations and reviews and videos that cover the topic of how much better Nikon/Sony DR is than Canon's.

For Canon to ignore that, and release ANOTHER product without an improvement in that area....well, I think we could actually see some REAL brand migration over the next few years if the 7D II (and worse, the 5D IV/1D X II) hit the streets without a DR improvement. It may not actually matter in most cases, but it matters perceptually...and I think the companies reputation would actually finally be hurt by them not showing any real interest in their sensor IQ. I've seen Canon respond directly to the loudest demands from their customer base in the past. The 1D X and 5D III are exemplary examples of that, in multiple ways. Canon can't ignore the demand for better DR. It would be reputation damaging...

(My words above certainly don't mean Canon is actually going to do anything about it...I guess there is a very good chance they won't...but I do indeed believe it would be damaging to their reputation in the long run if they ignored the single most important demand of their customers after so many years of having that demand levied.)

 

[Lawliet]

5) The "Canon needs to protect the 1DC" argument also shouldn't prevent a 4K-capable 7D II. The 1DC isn't a new camera.

The "Protect the 1Dc"-angle is odd even if one thinks only in the present. Why? Because the 1Dc always felt like a kludge to me. Basically as if they wanted to release something 4k-capable and put the feature into the only still camera that has more or less enough processing power to do it.
The 5D3 got its horizontal resolution as a multiple of fullHD, I'd expect similar considerations for a designed as such 4K-camera.

 

[garyknrd]

Well we can only judge on what we can buy

As for the patents, Canon have been very aggressive patent registerers for a very long time, which is comical when you examine their early history, but that aside, patents do not products make, we have had rumours of hundreds of them over the years here and few see the light of day, we all know Canon are innovative and do a lot of R&D but most of the time companies patent to penis block anybody else.

They have struggled to make DO lenses work from the word go, they seem to be convinced there is something there and won't let it die but we are not there yet, the 70-300 DO is the biggest piece of $1,400 crap ever, I'd love to know sales figures for the 400 DO.

I still don't see how DPAF helps SLR stills shooters.

As for AF and metering, well they introduced the 45 point AF back in 2000, so it isn't like they didn't have time to put a bit more thought into it, though it isn't "radically" different is it? Dedicated processor and all but the same contrast detect chip behind a sub mirror arrangement since in body AF started. Nikon have had colour sensitive metering for years, and not just in the one top of the line body.

As for the 7D MkII having potential, I must, respectfully, disagree, even if it bests the D7100 in sensor metrics by a half stop or so, so what? That makes it slightly worse on overall image IQ than the 6D.

Don't get me wrong, I am not picking a fight and I am not out to bash Canon, I just see the last few years developments with my eyes wide open, stills are not the driving force they were even five years ago when the 7D made such an impact. In my opinion stills are not seen to be the future by Canon.

If the products haven't landed on a shelf yet then all the R&D in the world is no use to me.

The other truth is that stills are a very mature market, the quality and capability we have now vastly out strip most users needs, the 5D MkIII is probably the most complete stills shooters camera ever and Canon clearly don't believe in much higher MP, DR, blah blah sensor specs at this point. I believe we are on a technology plateau with no signs of the next BIG thing.

For me personally, put the 5D MkIII sensor in the 1Dx MkII, get me those TS-E lenses and I don't care, I'll be retired before my customers or I need more than that.

Very true, patent's don't make a product. My point was only that there is an R&D budget for still photography at Canon, and money is clearly being spent there. Patents do need to actually make their way into a product on a shelf to be meaningful, though...your dead-on there.

I really wonder why Canon doesn't bring more of their innovations into being...almost smacks of Nokia a few years ago...they had a MASSIVE patent library, but it was just IP...they didn't wield it and make competitive products with that technology...and look where they are now... Guess that's the most concerning thing about Canon. They have some amazing technology...but they aren't using it...so it isn't making money.

I still don't see how DPAF helps SLR stills shooters.

I can see it being very useful for focusing landscape shots, which I've always focused manually in live view. DPAF could automate that process.

The other truth is that stills are a very mature market, the quality and capability we have now vastly out strip most users needs, the 5D MkIII is probably the most complete stills shooters camera ever and Canon clearly don't believe in much higher MP, DR, blah blah sensor specs at this point. I believe we are on a technology plateau with no signs of the next BIG thing.

I don't know if I agree with that. DR is obviously a VERY important thing to photographers these days. It is single-handedly the most controversial and common subject when it comes to Canon vs. the others. Even if it isn't as important as many individuals and certain organizations seem to insist, it's clearly a sticking point, and clearly a perception issue between Canon and their customers. I have a hard time believing Canon doesn't know that...not after the last two years and all the debates and conversations and reviews and videos that cover the topic of how much better Nikon/Sony DR is than Canon's.

For Canon to ignore that, and release ANOTHER product without an improvement in that area....well, I think we could actually see some REAL brand migration over the next few years if the 7D II (and worse, the 5D IV/1D X II) hit the streets without a DR improvement. It may not actually matter in most cases, but it matters perceptually...and I think the companies reputation would actually finally be hurt by them not showing any real interest in their sensor IQ. I've seen Canon respond directly to the loudest demands from their customer base in the past. The 1D X and 5D III are exemplary examples of that, in multiple ways. Canon can't ignore the demand for better DR. It would be reputation damaging...

(My words above certainly don't mean Canon is actually going to do anything about it...I guess there is a very good chance they won't...but I do indeed believe it would be damaging to their reputation in the long run if they ignored the single most important demand of their customers after so many years of having that demand levied.)

As a birder, and having shot with the latest Sony APS-C sensor. I am waiting for the next crop sensor camera from Canon.
I am just blow away with the new sensors. It really is amazing.
With the way I shoot. Shooting with the new sensors has given me so much exposure leeway, and increased ISO performance. It has increased my keeper rate dramatically.

I really have my fingers crossed and hope Canon will deliver. If not? I personally will start seriously looking for alternatives. But, I don't want to. Come on Canon....

 

[Lightmaster]

As a birder, and having shot with the latest Sony APS-C sensor. I am waiting for the next crop sensor camera from Canon.
......

If not? I personally will start seriously looking for alternatives.

and what lens would you use?

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

My fear is that the 4k it delivers will be marginally better than 5D3 ML RAW and that ML RAW for 1080p won't be possible on the new 5D4.

I hope they notice that as soon as ML RAW came out the 5D3 prices, which had been sinking a lot, shoot right back up to MSRP at most stores for some time. And stop crippling everything to pieces. It's a joke how much better ML gets out of the 5D3 than the Canon firmware alone.

I partitulary hate how Canon has pushed DIGIC processing more and more to the DNR everything to mush that a few studios sadly use on blu-rays at times. As soon as an area doesn't have brightness and extreme contrast DIGIC just turns things to 100% mush. But even in the crisp areas I don't know what they are doing. Sometimes I swear Canon marketing literally had them add a minor Gaussian blur filter in the video output stage. But it might just well be that DIGIC video processing is THAT bad. Maybe it is, there must be some reason they suck with old Canon video processing chips for the C100 and all instead of using any of the much newer DIGICs to read the sensor and do basic processing.

Anyway one would hope they are smart and give the 5D4 1080p RAW out natively and 4k compressed, but a good quality 4k and not low color and not mush and hopefully 10bits. Giving it all the hardware can do is the way to take the world by storm again. Video world moves fast and the film guys don't get into fanboy nonsense and unless Canon pushes max fast they won't ever make a big splash in low to mid-end again.

+10. ML really did save the Mark III for video shooters.

However, I doubt Canon will put Raw functionality into the Mark IV, and in my opinion they don't have to. If they give it clean and detailed 4k internal recording, 10bit 4:2:2 output, and non-mushy 1080p with at least 60p that's all it will take. They could leave ISO performance the same (Mark III blows the Gh4 out of the water in that area) and leave the stills features untouched (although they'll obviously have to update something to make it viable). Heck, if they don't make things impossible to hack they wouldn't even have to bother adding focus peaking/zebras/etc. and could just assume ML would do that work for them (and maybe that could be the way they "protect" their cinema line). Raw is awesome, but the workflow and storage requirements make it less appealing, especially if you have 4k and 10 bit 4:2:2 output as an option.

Whatever they do, I hope they keep the LP-E6 battery and at least one CF (dual CF preferred, though).

I just can't see Canon being 'daring' or smart enough to 'dare' put 10bit internal recording though or fixing up DIGIC so that it doesn't go all plasticky on everything. But what you suggest would be VERY nice, 10bits 4:2:2 4k that is crisp and keeps the fine detail and noise and doesn't do the nasty stuff that digic does even at ISO100.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

My fear is that the 4k it delivers will be marginally better than 5D3 ML RAW and that ML RAW for 1080p won't be possible on the new 5D4.

I hope they notice that as soon as ML RAW came out the 5D3 prices, which had been sinking a lot, shoot right back up to MSRP at most stores for some time. And stop crippling everything to pieces. It's a joke how much better ML gets out of the 5D3 than the Canon firmware alone.

I partitulary hate how Canon has pushed DIGIC processing more and more to the DNR everything to mush that a few studios sadly use on blu-rays at times. As soon as an area doesn't have brightness and extreme contrast DIGIC just turns things to 100% mush. But even in the crisp areas I don't know what they are doing. Sometimes I swear Canon marketing literally had them add a minor Gaussian blur filter in the video output stage. But it might just well be that DIGIC video processing is THAT bad. Maybe it is, there must be some reason they suck with old Canon video processing chips for the C100 and all instead of using any of the much newer DIGICs to read the sensor and do basic processing.

Anyway one would hope they are smart and give the 5D4 1080p RAW out natively and 4k compressed, but a good quality 4k and not low color and not mush and hopefully 10bits. Giving it all the hardware can do is the way to take the world by storm again. Video world moves fast and the film guys don't get into fanboy nonsense and unless Canon pushes max fast they won't ever make a big splash in low to mid-end again.

+10. ML really did save the Mark III for video shooters.

However, I doubt Canon will put Raw functionality into the Mark IV, and in my opinion they don't have to. If they give it clean and detailed 4k internal recording, 10bit 4:2:2 output, and non-mushy 1080p with at least 60p that's all it will take. They could leave ISO performance the same (Mark III blows the Gh4 out of the water in that area) and leave the stills features untouched (although they'll obviously have to update something to make it viable). Heck, if they don't make things impossible to hack they wouldn't even have to bother adding focus peaking/zebras/etc. and could just assume ML would do that work for them (and maybe that could be the way they "protect" their cinema line). Raw is awesome, but the workflow and storage requirements make it less appealing, especially if you have 4k and 10 bit 4:2:2 output as an option.

Whatever they do, I hope they keep the LP-E6 battery and at least one CF (dual CF preferred, though).

Why wouldn't they include something like zebras and peaking? Those functions were included in consumer products at least as old as the HF-S10, so it is not something reserved for professional products. They didn't leave it out because they were "protecting" anything, they most likely left it out because they knew that video was included in the 5D as a sort of toy, since at the time any serious video work would have been done on dedicated video camera. Even the 70D does not have a serious video mode, although they included some experimental technology in it. That is no longer the case, and if video is included as a serious function on upcoming high end models it is almost certain that those tools will be present as well.

They shouldn't, but you fail to understand the level to which bean counting marketing droids have power and taken over so many companies these days all they believe is in making sure things are dumbed down and 'safe' enough to not 'scare' and 'confuse' the user and to protect this that and every stupid higher end thing which will never sell 1/10th as much as a full pitch could in a revolutionary lower space.

 

[msm]

... Guess that's the most concerning thing about Canon. They have some amazing technology...but they aren't using it...so it isn't making money. ...

I just want to comment this. You assume that they have some amazing technology. How do you know it is amazing? If it really was amazing and they could make money on it, it should make it's way out into real products. If it doesn't we can only assume it doesn't perform competitively. Maybe they patent ideas in case they may be used in the future if they manage to overcome some hurdles which make them infeasible today.

Like the demoed 120mp sensor we read about earlier, does anyone outside Canon actually know how it performed? Seems like many just assume it was great, for all I know it could have been terrible.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Well we can only judge on what we can buy

As for the patents, Canon have been very aggressive patent registerers for a very long time, which is comical when you examine their early history, but that aside, patents do not products make, we have had rumours of hundreds of them over the years here and few see the light of day, we all know Canon are innovative and do a lot of R&D but most of the time companies patent to penis block anybody else.

They have struggled to make DO lenses work from the word go, they seem to be convinced there is something there and won't let it die but we are not there yet, the 70-300 DO is the biggest piece of $1,400 crap ever, I'd love to know sales figures for the 400 DO.

I still don't see how DPAF helps SLR stills shooters.

As for AF and metering, well they introduced the 45 point AF back in 2000, so it isn't like they didn't have time to put a bit more thought into it, though it isn't "radically" different is it? Dedicated processor and all but the same contrast detect chip behind a sub mirror arrangement since in body AF started. Nikon have had colour sensitive metering for years, and not just in the one top of the line body.

As for the 7D MkII having potential, I must, respectfully, disagree, even if it bests the D7100 in sensor metrics by a half stop or so, so what? That makes it slightly worse on overall image IQ than the 6D.

Don't get me wrong, I am not picking a fight and I am not out to bash Canon, I just see the last few years developments with my eyes wide open, stills are not the driving force they were even five years ago when the 7D made such an impact. In my opinion stills are not seen to be the future by Canon.

If the products haven't landed on a shelf yet then all the R&D in the world is no use to me.

The other truth is that stills are a very mature market, the quality and capability we have now vastly out strip most users needs, the 5D MkIII is probably the most complete stills shooters camera ever and Canon clearly don't believe in much higher MP, DR, blah blah sensor specs at this point. I believe we are on a technology plateau with no signs of the next BIG thing.

For me personally, put the 5D MkIII sensor in the 1Dx MkII, get me those TS-E lenses and I don't care, I'll be retired before my customers or I need more than that.

Very true, patent's don't make a product. My point was only that there is an R&D budget for still photography at Canon, and money is clearly being spent there. Patents do need to actually make their way into a product on a shelf to be meaningful, though...your dead-on there.

I really wonder why Canon doesn't bring more of their innovations into being...almost smacks of Nokia a few years ago...they had a MASSIVE patent library, but it was just IP...they didn't wield it and make competitive products with that technology...and look where they are now... Guess that's the most concerning thing about Canon. They have some amazing technology...but they aren't using it...so it isn't making money.

I still don't see how DPAF helps SLR stills shooters.

I can see it being very useful for focusing landscape shots, which I've always focused manually in live view. DPAF could automate that process.

The other truth is that stills are a very mature market, the quality and capability we have now vastly out strip most users needs, the 5D MkIII is probably the most complete stills shooters camera ever and Canon clearly don't believe in much higher MP, DR, blah blah sensor specs at this point. I believe we are on a technology plateau with no signs of the next BIG thing.

I don't know if I agree with that. DR is obviously a VERY important thing to photographers these days. It is single-handedly the most controversial and common subject when it comes to Canon vs. the others. Even if it isn't as important as many individuals and certain organizations seem to insist, it's clearly a sticking point, and clearly a perception issue between Canon and their customers. I have a hard time believing Canon doesn't know that...not after the last two years and all the debates and conversations and reviews and videos that cover the topic of how much better Nikon/Sony DR is than Canon's.

For Canon to ignore that, and release ANOTHER product without an improvement in that area....well, I think we could actually see some REAL brand migration over the next few years if the 7D II (and worse, the 5D IV/1D X II) hit the streets without a DR improvement. It may not actually matter in most cases, but it matters perceptually...and I think the companies reputation would actually finally be hurt by them not showing any real interest in their sensor IQ. I've seen Canon respond directly to the loudest demands from their customer base in the past. The 1D X and 5D III are exemplary examples of that, in multiple ways. Canon can't ignore the demand for better DR. It would be reputation damaging...

(My words above certainly don't mean Canon is actually going to do anything about it...I guess there is a very good chance they won't...but I do indeed believe it would be damaging to their reputation in the long run if they ignored the single most important demand of their customers after so many years of having that demand levied.)

+1

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Well we can only judge on what we can buy

As for the patents, Canon have been very aggressive patent registerers for a very long time, which is comical when you examine their early history, but that aside, patents do not products make, we have had rumours of hundreds of them over the years here and few see the light of day, we all know Canon are innovative and do a lot of R&D but most of the time companies patent to penis block anybody else.

They have struggled to make DO lenses work from the word go, they seem to be convinced there is something there and won't let it die but we are not there yet, the 70-300 DO is the biggest piece of $1,400 crap ever, I'd love to know sales figures for the 400 DO.

I still don't see how DPAF helps SLR stills shooters.

As for AF and metering, well they introduced the 45 point AF back in 2000, so it isn't like they didn't have time to put a bit more thought into it, though it isn't "radically" different is it? Dedicated processor and all but the same contrast detect chip behind a sub mirror arrangement since in body AF started. Nikon have had colour sensitive metering for years, and not just in the one top of the line body.

As for the 7D MkII having potential, I must, respectfully, disagree, even if it bests the D7100 in sensor metrics by a half stop or so, so what? That makes it slightly worse on overall image IQ than the 6D.

Don't get me wrong, I am not picking a fight and I am not out to bash Canon, I just see the last few years developments with my eyes wide open, stills are not the driving force they were even five years ago when the 7D made such an impact. In my opinion stills are not seen to be the future by Canon.

If the products haven't landed on a shelf yet then all the R&D in the world is no use to me.

The other truth is that stills are a very mature market, the quality and capability we have now vastly out strip most users needs, the 5D MkIII is probably the most complete stills shooters camera ever and Canon clearly don't believe in much higher MP, DR, blah blah sensor specs at this point. I believe we are on a technology plateau with no signs of the next BIG thing.

For me personally, put the 5D MkIII sensor in the 1Dx MkII, get me those TS-E lenses and I don't care, I'll be retired before my customers or I need more than that.

Very true, patent's don't make a product. My point was only that there is an R&D budget for still photography at Canon, and money is clearly being spent there. Patents do need to actually make their way into a product on a shelf to be meaningful, though...your dead-on there.

I really wonder why Canon doesn't bring more of their innovations into being...almost smacks of Nokia a few years ago...they had a MASSIVE patent library, but it was just IP...they didn't wield it and make competitive products with that technology...and look where they are now... Guess that's the most concerning thing about Canon. They have some amazing technology...but they aren't using it...so it isn't making money.

I still don't see how DPAF helps SLR stills shooters.

I can see it being very useful for focusing landscape shots, which I've always focused manually in live view. DPAF could automate that process.

The other truth is that stills are a very mature market, the quality and capability we have now vastly out strip most users needs, the 5D MkIII is probably the most complete stills shooters camera ever and Canon clearly don't believe in much higher MP, DR, blah blah sensor specs at this point. I believe we are on a technology plateau with no signs of the next BIG thing.

I don't know if I agree with that. DR is obviously a VERY important thing to photographers these days. It is single-handedly the most controversial and common subject when it comes to Canon vs. the others. Even if it isn't as important as many individuals and certain organizations seem to insist, it's clearly a sticking point, and clearly a perception issue between Canon and their customers. I have a hard time believing Canon doesn't know that...not after the last two years and all the debates and conversations and reviews and videos that cover the topic of how much better Nikon/Sony DR is than Canon's.

For Canon to ignore that, and release ANOTHER product without an improvement in that area....well, I think we could actually see some REAL brand migration over the next few years if the 7D II (and worse, the 5D IV/1D X II) hit the streets without a DR improvement. It may not actually matter in most cases, but it matters perceptually...and I think the companies reputation would actually finally be hurt by them not showing any real interest in their sensor IQ. I've seen Canon respond directly to the loudest demands from their customer base in the past. The 1D X and 5D III are exemplary examples of that, in multiple ways. Canon can't ignore the demand for better DR. It would be reputation damaging...

(My words above certainly don't mean Canon is actually going to do anything about it...I guess there is a very good chance they won't...but I do indeed believe it would be damaging to their reputation in the long run if they ignored the single most important demand of their customers after so many years of having that demand levied.)

As a birder, and having shot with the latest Sony APS-C sensor. I am waiting for the next crop sensor camera from Canon.
I am just blow away with the new sensors. It really is amazing.
With the way I shoot. Shooting with the new sensors has given me so much exposure leeway, and increased ISO performance. It has increased my keeper rate dramatically.

I really have my fingers crossed and hope Canon will deliver. If not? I personally will start seriously looking for alternatives. But, I don't want to. Come on Canon....

+1

 

[jrista]

... Guess that's the most concerning thing about Canon. They have some amazing technology...but they aren't using it...so it isn't making money. ...

I just want to comment this. You assume that they have some amazing technology. How do you know it is amazing? If it really was amazing and they could make money on it, it should make it's way out into real products. If it doesn't we can only assume it doesn't perform competitively. Maybe they patent ideas in case they may be used in the future if they manage to overcome some hurdles which make them infeasible today.

Like the demoed 120mp sensor we read about earlier, does anyone outside Canon actually know how it performed? Seems like many just assume it was great, for all I know it could have been terrible.

I'm not assuming. I know for a fact. How? Because I've READ the patents. Canon DOES have some really amazing technology. Many of Canon's patents are similar (but not identical to) patents from Sony and Aptina. The only real difference, as far as I can tell, is Sony and Aptina are actually turning their patents into actual products. Canon...well, so far at least, they seem to just sit on them. I'm hoping that changes with the 7D II.

One of the ones I hope they actually implement is their Dual-Scale CP-ADC patent, as based on the patent it sounds like the closest thing to the Sony Exmor design I've found. If Canon can bring Exmor-like technology to their own cameras, even if it isn't quite as good, it will still be better than what they have.

I also believe that patent is the same technology that Canon used in the 120mp APS-H prototype sensor. We actually know how that performed as well, because Canon published a press release describing it's performance. They described the architecture of the sensor, which clearly stated some kind of hyperparallel on-die processing (i.e. CDS, ADC, etc.) That is exactly what CP-ADC is. The thing operated at 9.5fps, and it really doesn't matter if it had small pixels, because fundamental IQ is related to total sensor area and Q.E., not pixel area. It would have been at least as good as the 1D IV at the time, and any APS-H sensor will have better IQ than an APS-C sensor in identical framing situations. At 120mp, the thing cranked out more resolution than any larger format sensor on the planet...until and since.

 

[msm]

... Guess that's the most concerning thing about Canon. They have some amazing technology...but they aren't using it...so it isn't making money. ...

I just want to comment this. You assume that they have some amazing technology. How do you know it is amazing? If it really was amazing and they could make money on it, it should make it's way out into real products. If it doesn't we can only assume it doesn't perform competitively. Maybe they patent ideas in case they may be used in the future if they manage to overcome some hurdles which make them infeasible today.

Like the demoed 120mp sensor we read about earlier, does anyone outside Canon actually know how it performed? Seems like many just assume it was great, for all I know it could have been terrible.

I'm not assuming. I know for a fact. How? Because I've READ the patents. Canon DOES have some really amazing technology. Many of Canon's patents are similar (but not identical to) patents from Sony and Aptina. The only real difference, as far as I can tell, is Sony and Aptina are actually turning their patents into actual products. Canon...well, so far at least, they seem to just sit on them. I'm hoping that changes with the 7D II.

One of the ones I hope they actually implement is their Dual-Scale CP-ADC patent, as based on the patent it sounds like the closest thing to the Sony Exmor design I've found. If Canon can bring Exmor-like technology to their own cameras, even if it isn't quite as good, it will still be better than what they have.

I also believe that patent is the same technology that Canon used in the 120mp APS-H prototype sensor. We actually know how that performed as well, because Canon published a press release describing it's performance. They described the architecture of the sensor, which clearly stated some kind of hyperparallel on-die processing (i.e. CDS, ADC, etc.) That is exactly what CP-ADC is. The thing operated at 9.5fps, and it really doesn't matter if it had small pixels, because fundamental IQ is related to total sensor area and Q.E., not pixel area. It would have been at least as good as the 1D IV at the time, and any APS-H sensor will have better IQ than an APS-C sensor in identical framing situations. At 120mp, the thing cranked out more resolution than any larger format sensor on the planet...until and since.

Do these patent descriptions quantify the real performance?