DSLR with 4k video features or a cheaper version without video ?

[bitm2007]

A poll is above

 

[Random Orbits]

Is the question 4K video versus 2K video, or 4K versus NO video? If it's no video, might as well get rid of live view and the rear LCD and put on a huge ISO dial (like the Leica), but I don't think many people will go for that. So if you require live view, you already need much of video capability that you're trying to get rid of.

 

[Loswr]

Is the question 4K video versus 2K video, or 4K versus NO video?

+1, and if the answer is no video the poll is moot becuase that's about as likely as pigs flying in hell. Except for the Nikon Df, and we know what a smashing commercial success that was.

 

[3kramd5]

What are "4k video features"?

If you mean dedicated hardware which serves only something to do with 4k video (encoding chips, for example), the lack of a mirror, etc., then sure I'll take a cheaper version without video.

But largely video features, 4k or otherwise, are firm/software and shouldn't significantly add cost.

 

[crazyrunner33]

I'm a video producer, I shoot 4K for commercials and news gathering, even though I'm posting to 1080 the majority of the time. 4K source footage looks a lot better when displayed on a 1080 format than 1080 source footage. It also gives me the easy flexibility to cut in and out, instead of having to reshoot the interview with different angles, or carry multiple cameras. Shooting in 4K also allows me to use the footage for a few more years. I love the DSLR form factor because I can keep a low profile during major news events, plus, the size gives me the flexibility to be a lot more mobile.

I wish Canon would take note from Sony, making it possible to add XLR through an adapter on a hot shoe would make the cameras a lot more usable. Some people complain about MJPEG, but the MJPEG is fine. The reason it is used is because it doesn't require as much encoding power, and it keeps the heat down in the camera. Plus, the MJPEG plays back a lot easier on older computers than H.265.

I understand that Canon doesn't want to cannibalize their sales by offering 4K in their smaller options. But they're only forcing me to ride out my older 5D Mark III for a longer period of time as a stills camera, I've bought into Panasonic to hold me over until Canon can get their act together. The GH5 with internal 10 bit 4K will be my next run and gun shooter if Canon doesn't step up.

 

[3kramd5]

there won't be a cheaper one because the reduced features will equal fewer sales meaning higher price to recoup R&D costs.

That's a question of design. A smart designer could, in theory, facilitate different hardware configurations running on the same base system. Witness different memory capacities in phones and tablets which have the same motherboard. One COULD design a camera motherboard with all the electrical hooks necessary for dedicated video hardware, and only populate said hardware (with its associated firmware) on certain models. Doing so may increase development costs somewhat, but would mitigate the need to design two independent systems.

 

[Besisika]

I wish, I understood the purpose of the pool.

 

[Loswr]

I wish, I understood the purpose of the pool poll.

It's like voting in an election in the US – you have to make what amounts to a binary choice without really knowing the details about the options.

At least in this poll, you don't have to live with the outcome.

 

[Don Haines]

My vote is:

3) A peanut butter sandwich

 

[Loswr]

My vote is:

3) A peanut butter sandwich

That gets my vote for US President, too.

 

[Don Haines]

My vote is:

3) A peanut butter sandwich

That gets my vote for US President, too.

You people be careful down there..... you might end up with extra nutty!

 

[In-The-Dark]

The poll could maybe include an option for "DSLR with Full HD features only".

Uneducated guess - should be cheaper than a DSLR with 4K features, "half-baked" version or otherwise.