More Hints of GH4 Competitor From Canon

[StudentOfLight]

My guess is three new 4K-capable ENG cameras:
XA30, Entry-level option
XF-200, Indie news/film
XF-400, Mainstream news

 

[Etienne]

My guess is three new 4K-capable ENG cameras:
XA30, Entry-level option
XF-200, Indie news/film
XF-400, Mainstream news

XF-200 has been out for almost a year, but basically that's been their model line up for years now.

 

[pwp]

To keep the price competitive it might even end up being a fixed lens compact, with a good zoom lens, using a 1" sensor.

I hope not ... the 1" sensor is too small. APS-C as a minimum I hope.

Assuming this rumor does have legs, APS-C would deliver an immediate point of advantage over the MFT GH4 sensor. This would trump the GH4's only real weak spot, modest high iso performance.

A 1" sensor would match the GH4 at best.

-pw

 

[pwp]

Internal recording for 4K can get really expensive and then the cards only hold a limited amount.

I wouldn't call the GH4 with internal 4K expensive. It's a bargain.
Interestingly on my GH4, the file size of 5 minutes of 4K is almost precisely the same as 5 minutes of 1080p on my 5D MkIII.

-pw

 

[Etienne]

Internal recording for 4K can get really expensive and then the cards only hold a limited amount.

I wouldn't call the GH4 with internal 4K expensive. It's a bargain.
Interestingly on my GH4, the file size of 5 minutes of 4K is almost precisely the same as 5 minutes of 1080p on my 5D MkIII.

-pw

File size is greatly affected by bit rate and other settings, like ALL-I, will greatly increase file size on the 5D3. I'm sure there are many settings on the GH4 that will drive file size up or down as well.

 

[PureClassA]

Internal recording for 4K can get really expensive and then the cards only hold a limited amount.

I wouldn't call the GH4 with internal 4K expensive. It's a bargain.
Interestingly on my GH4, the file size of 5 minutes of 4K is almost precisely the same as 5 minutes of 1080p on my 5D MkIII.

-pw

File size is greatly affected by bit rate and other settings, like ALL-I, will greatly increase file size on the 5D3. I'm sure there are many settings on the GH4 that will drive file size up or down as well.

Indeed. And if the GH4 is putting THAT much compression into it's internal codec that a resolution FOUR times greater than a 5D3 is being squashed to the same file size, that camera is leaving an enormous amount of information on the cutting room floor. If there isn't a better codec available internally than that, then a Shogun or 7Q+ is almost a total necessity for pro work with it, which makes it's proclaimed advantage over the A7s somewhat moot.

 

[Etienne]

Internal recording for 4K can get really expensive and then the cards only hold a limited amount.

I wouldn't call the GH4 with internal 4K expensive. It's a bargain.
Interestingly on my GH4, the file size of 5 minutes of 4K is almost precisely the same as 5 minutes of 1080p on my 5D MkIII.

-pw

File size is greatly affected by bit rate and other settings, like ALL-I, will greatly increase file size on the 5D3. I'm sure there are many settings on the GH4 that will drive file size up or down as well.

Indeed. And if the GH4 is putting THAT much compression into it's internal codec that a resolution FOUR times greater than a 5D3 is being squashed to the same file size, that camera is leaving an enormous amount of information on the cutting room floor. If there isn't a better codec available internally than that, then a Shogun or 7Q+ is almost a total necessity for pro work with it, which makes it's proclaimed advantage over the A7s somewhat moot.

Good point!
I think the A7s is a better choice either way.

 

[PureClassA]

Internal recording for 4K can get really expensive and then the cards only hold a limited amount.

I wouldn't call the GH4 with internal 4K expensive. It's a bargain.
Interestingly on my GH4, the file size of 5 minutes of 4K is almost precisely the same as 5 minutes of 1080p on my 5D MkIII.

-pw

File size is greatly affected by bit rate and other settings, like ALL-I, will greatly increase file size on the 5D3. I'm sure there are many settings on the GH4 that will drive file size up or down as well.

Indeed. And if the GH4 is putting THAT much compression into it's internal codec that a resolution FOUR times greater than a 5D3 is being squashed to the same file size, that camera is leaving an enormous amount of information on the cutting room floor. If there isn't a better codec available internally than that, then a Shogun or 7Q+ is almost a total necessity for pro work with it, which makes it's proclaimed advantage over the A7s somewhat moot.

Good point!
I think the A7s is a better choice either way.

I don't own either, but I really want an A7S strictly for video plus the Shogun. I've held off on buying one because at the rate Sony changes models, I expect to see an A7S II announced later this year, hoping it at least goes to global shutter. I can live without internal 4k given all the other major advantages it has over the GH4. That said, now with Canon specializing models, I want to see what they announce on a Cinema 5 body. Again, an A7s package with the necessary metabones for all my L glass is $3000. $5000 if I get a Shogun. If Canon makes 4K with internal recording for $3500-$4000, I'm going Canon. I could put off the Shogun, and I'd much rather have a native EF mount on a super rugged weather sealed body with the tracking ability of DPAF assuming the video performance is great. Body-Based IS (like the A7II) will come to the A7S II but it's never as effective as having IS built custom for each lens. The Black Magic Cinema 4k at $3000 is a HUGELY attractive option with ProRes and RAW ability built in with a native EF mount.... but oh the FPN they keep pretending isn't there. That's a total deal killer. If they can fix that issue, it would be a golden machine. Obviously the bottom line is no camera will ever be the most perfect device but as of right now, the A7S comes by far the closest.

 

[Etienne]

Internal recording for 4K can get really expensive and then the cards only hold a limited amount.

I wouldn't call the GH4 with internal 4K expensive. It's a bargain.
Interestingly on my GH4, the file size of 5 minutes of 4K is almost precisely the same as 5 minutes of 1080p on my 5D MkIII.

-pw

File size is greatly affected by bit rate and other settings, like ALL-I, will greatly increase file size on the 5D3. I'm sure there are many settings on the GH4 that will drive file size up or down as well.

Indeed. And if the GH4 is putting THAT much compression into it's internal codec that a resolution FOUR times greater than a 5D3 is being squashed to the same file size, that camera is leaving an enormous amount of information on the cutting room floor. If there isn't a better codec available internally than that, then a Shogun or 7Q+ is almost a total necessity for pro work with it, which makes it's proclaimed advantage over the A7s somewhat moot.

Good point!
I think the A7s is a better choice either way.

I don't own either, but I really want an A7S strictly for video plus the Shogun. I've held off on buying one because at the rate Sony changes models, I expect to see an A7S II announced later this year, hoping it at least goes to global shutter. I can live without internal 4k given all the other major advantages it has over the GH4. That said, now with Canon specializing models, I want to see what they announce on a Cinema 5 body. Again, an A7s package with the necessary metabones for all my L glass is $3000. $5000 if I get a Shogun. If Canon makes 4K with internal recording for $3500-$4000, I'm going Canon. I could put off the Shogun, and I'd much rather have a native EF mount on a super rugged weather sealed body with the tracking ability of DPAF assuming the video performance is great. Body-Based IS (like the A7II) will come to the A7S II but it's never as effective as having IS built custom for each lens. The Black Magic Cinema 4k at $3000 is a HUGELY attractive option with ProRes and RAW ability built in with a native EF mount.... but oh the FPN they keep pretending isn't there. That's a total deal killer. If they can fix that issue, it would be a golden machine. Obviously the bottom line is no camera will ever be the most perfect device but as of right now, the A7S comes by far the closest.

You might be better off saving for the FS7, they've packed almost everything into that beast.

 

[Tugela]

No. A 1" sensor would be ridiculous. A real DSLR cinema-dedicated body should be FF. Period. Make 1:1 pixel ratio (8-9MP) and walk away. Even a crop at the same pixel density would be OK, but not as nice. I think most folks shooting video at this level (as opposed to true, dedicated hollywood grade cameras like Red or Arri with super expensive lenses to suit) would rather be able to use their nice L glass as is without bothering with crop factor. Sony figured this out with the A7s, and that's what makes it so much more usable in pro applications than a GH4 to me.

Even if Canon went the Sony route and made a 12MP sensor again like the 5D original, but with the modern upgrades of DPAF, global shutter, lower noise, and better pixel quality overall.... it would be a winner. You save the pro level features like XLRs with better preamps, 120+ FPS, more robust internal codecs, maybe ProRes, RAW output, etc... for the C300 and C500 MkIIs

Most people who are serious about MILC video shooting use the GH4 rather than the A7s though, so your hypothesis about FF being necessary is incorrect. Even most camcorder style cameras have much smaller sensors than FF.

Resolution on video is lower than stills, so having super expensive high performance stills glass is not necessary either. People who are serious about video will be using video centric glass anyway, not noisy lenses like L lens. L lenses are used because that is what people happen to have, not because they are the best tool for the job.

 

[Tugela]

My guess is three new 4K-capable ENG cameras:
XA30, Entry-level option
XF-200, Indie news/film
XF-400, Mainstream news

More likely a "XA30" this year, with "XF" models being released the following year. The internal parts of the current XA and XF are the same, the only difference are the external bells and whistles, and some functions in firmware. That would fit with Canon's general strategy of doing incremental upgrades every year.

New 4K cameras at NAB IMO will probably be a "high" and "low" end (relatively speaking, both will cost $5K+) cinema-EOS cameras. I expect there will be a "XA30" and a "G40" (same camera, one with a handle, the other without, with price tags of $3K and $2K respectively). Perhaps a 1DX II (again, many $$$).

That would be approximately four 4K cameras, and fit with some of the rumors we have been hearing.