Off Brand: Sony 36mp full frame sensor capable of 4K at 480fps leaks

[4fun]

the video feed needed for liveView is ok. it has minimal requirements vs. full-bore 4k/60 with hi-end codec and audio and whathavenot. live view video can run continously without massive cooling needs/heat problems. recording, processing/encoding and exporting a 4k video stream for up to 29 minutes without break is day and night compared to live view video. really 2 massively different sets of requirements for hardware, imaging pipeline/bandwith, software.

i still want a mirrorfree FF sensored pure stills camera. Basically what the Nikon Df teaser campaign promised (but without mirrorslapping) ... but Nikon was not able to deliver in real life.

 

[Don Haines]

Two suggestions.....

Watch your language, and realize that limited production runs for a specialized camera for a very few people are going to cost FAR more than a mass market camera that has additional features.

As an analogy, the 450g box of corn flakes costs LESS than the 350g box because they sell way more of them and get a better deal......

 

[4fun]

limited production runs for a specialized camera for a very few people are going to cost FAR more than a mass market camera

lol. majority needs stills only. hybrid video+stills cameras are minority program. They would cost more, which would be entirely fair, because of dual use functionality.

 

[Don Haines]

lol. majority needs stills only. hybrid video+stills cameras are minority program. They would cost more, which would be entirely fair, because of dual use functionality.

And you honestly believe that with all the market research that all the manufacturers have done that they are all wrong?

 

[4fun]

And you honestly believe that with all the market research that all the manufacturers have done that they are all wrong?

with regard to "video capture in EVERY camera model" ... yes. It would really be comparable to all-wheel drive in EVERY car.

It is a fairly frequent mistake in consumer goods, especially consumer electronics. Remember some years ago, when all TV manufacturers decided to put "3D" into TV sets. Majority of people did not fall for it = fail. Same for curved glass monitors and TVs. Hardly anybody interested. Despite "all the marketing research" makers have done before. Every so often they desparately try to flog sales by introducing some random new feature and hype it "as the latest and greatest". Sometimes it works (eg touch screens on phones rather than keys), often it does not.

As much as we are guessing what companies will do next, are they guessing what we might buy or not.

 

[bhf3737]

to me it is as if absolutely ALL cars from ALL makers would ONLY be available with all-wheel-drive.
AWD is fine for many, but majority of users/use cases don't really need it. As opposed to video in every camera, it is understood and fully accepted that AWD in cars is
1. additional functionality
2. additional cost to manufacture
3. higher price for customers.
...

I think we should understand that what we get as a camera from any manufacturer today is a still camera that can shoot limited video and it is not a video camera, per se. All manufacturers include some features there, such as AF and image processor, that can be used in both still and video cameras. It is like the engine of the car that is essential in both worlds, not an added feature such as AWD. If one wants video features, he/she should add additional hardware, such as microphone, ND filter, focus rails, gimbal, etc., to make it ready to capture video. In addition, the assembled device also needs processing power, battery power, buffer, heat management and software (e.g. codecs, focus tracking, luma waveform, multiple audio channels, triggers, false color, vector scope, timecode, peaking, zebras, etc.) that are not native to still cameras.
The gimmicky video features implemented on a still camera do not make it a "hybrid camera". They are usually added in a bare minimum way to attract more buyers and ultimately reduce per-unit production cost by selling in numbers.
Conclusion: you do not get a real and capable videocam or even a hybrid camera but you get an affordable one that can shoot excellent stills.

 

[4fun]

all i want is some attractive stills cameras without "video gimmicks" (except bare minimum video feed for EVF/rear display). "video out" is not a necessity or prerequisite for optimal stills capability. rather the opposite: clutter, fluff and compromises.

If for example Sony A7 and A7R came without any video recording, they would simply sell a few more A7S cameras (with good video specs).

 

[RGF]

480 FPS means exposure of 1/500. 36 MP is 8K. Of course sorting these could be challenge.

I will be happy with 8K at 30 FPS, even 15-20 FPS in a ML

 

[crazyrunner33]

to me it is as if absolutely ALL cars from ALL makers would ONLY be available with all-wheel-drive.
AWD is fine for many, but majority of users/use cases don't really need it. As opposed to video in every camera, it is understood and fully accepted that AWD in cars is
1. additional functionality
2. additional cost to manufacture
3. higher price for customers.

Not so for cameras. A small minority of hybrid users has managed to make so much noise that today majority of stills-image users are forced to not only accept "video capture in every camera" but even foot the bill for it. f*cking free-riders. That alone makes me call for "pure stills" cameras. I want "hybrid users" to pay extra for dual-use functionality and give stills users a choice between compromised hybrid cameras and "stills-optimized" ones.

You say that, but the cameras shooting 4K with better still photographs than yesterday's technology are cheaper than ever. Why? Because they're grabbing more of an audience with a single product, and are utilizing some of the cheap and mass produced components off of a smart phones. Your specialty oriented product for a smaller audience will cost more to make due to the low demand. I also wouldn't call the hybrid users a small minority, especially since hybrid users have become the majority for in house creative for most moderate and large corporations, with video being the primary focus.

 

[4fun]

You say that, but the cameras shooting 4K with better still photographs than yesterday's technology are cheaper than ever. Why? Because they're grabbing more of an audience with a single product, and are utilizing some of the cheap and mass produced components off of a smart phones. Your specialty oriented product for a smaller audience will cost more to make due to the low demand. I also wouldn't call the hybrid users a small minority, especially since hybrid users have become the majority for in house creative for most moderate and large corporations, with video being the primary focus.

hybrid users are a small minority. Real video folks use real video cams. And Vloggers and their ilk shall either use their cameraphones or pay a bit more for a dual use camera. 4-wheel drive in a vehicle costs extra too. Or leather seats. Video in a stills camera should not come "for free" = majority of non-video users being forced to pay for it.

If Canon can profitably make, sell and distribute about 10 different models of mirrorslappers in 50 different SKUs [black, white, pink, with kit lens, bundles etc.] in parallel, many only with miniscule differences, they could as well make 3 "pure stills" models - one each at entry, medium and hi-end.

 

[Go Wild]

hybrid users are a small minority. Real video folks use real video cams. And Vloggers and their ilk shall either use their cameraphones or pay a bit more for a dual use camera. 4-wheel drive in a vehicle costs extra too. Or leather seats. Video in a stills camera should not come "for free" = majority of non-video users being forced to pay for it.

If Canon can profitably make, sell and distribute about 10 different models of mirrorslappers in 50 different SKUs [black, white, pink, with kit lens, bundles etc.] in parallel, many only with miniscule differences, they could as well make 3 "pure stills" models - one each at entry, medium and hi-end.

I think you should DEFINITELY search more about the present markets!! I am sorry but you are not correct, it´s the contraire that you are saying, Hybrid shooters are increasing!! And no, You don´t need to have a like you call it: "real video cams". These cams today ARE real video cams!! I shoot an entire Documentary with a Canon 1dx mkII and a Sony A7mkIII. You can see it here on youtube the trailer:


Also you can see here the first fuul cinema movie filmed with a mirrorless!
https://petapixel.com/2018/12/03/th...movie-shot-on-a-full-frame-mirrorless-camera/

 

[AlanF]

Parts of Black Swan were shot with a 7D, IDIV and 5DII, years ago, which won the Best Cinematography Award at BAFTA 2011, and was a nominee for an Oscar.
https://nofilmschool.com/2010/12/darren-aronofskys-black-swan-shot-16mm

 

[4fun]

@Go Wild - really like your trailer! Antarctica and all the penguins and seals, very nice! Is that big solitary seal towards the end a sea leopard (Hydrurga leptonyx)?
grats & all power to you and whatever gear works for you.

Nevertheless I still think only a minority of "regular" (non-video centric) camera buyers ever uses video capture "seriously". I am still convinced that a choice of some "pure stills" cameras would be good and they'd sell very well.

 

[Go Wild]

@Go Wild - really like your trailer! Antarctica and all the penguins and seals, very nice! Is that big solitary seal towards the end a sea leopard (Hydrurga leptonyx)?
grats & all power to you and whatever gear works for you.

Nevertheless I still think only a minority of "regular" (non-video centric) camera buyers ever uses video capture "seriously". I am still convinced that a choice of some "pure stills" cameras would be good and they'd sell very well.

Thank you so much! Yes it is a Leopard seal!

Yes, you are right, probably around 60% of camera buyers, don´t use video, or don´t use it very often....But in the same way, most of the buyers, will not buy a camera that hasn´t video features...even if they don´t intent to use it. However, the fact that there is video on it, open´s you more possibilities...And now, people will consider a "downgrade" if a camera don´t have video features.
I understand your point, I remember when I bought my first Canon 5D mkII, the first "real DSLR" with video features, i almost never use the vídeo... At that time I felt like you, "Why do i need this?" But then i started to realize that video could be an interesting thing to business.

Then, in 2015 i started to work more seriously in vídeo and in 2016 I have made a complete wildlife documentary in North Pole with the 5D mkIII and the 7D mkII...(well, also with a DJI Osmo)...Also at the same time I have made a Book. and that´s the magic of these cameras....you can have both!! After I realize the potencial of this, never look back, and I always purchase now a camera that gives me the best of the 2 worlds, that´s why I am a little bit angry with Canon... I hope Canon give us soon a great pro camera. Well, and hope they can give you a cheaper one that can fill your wishes and needs!

 

[crazyrunner33]

hybrid users are a small minority. Real video folks use real video cams. And Vloggers and their ilk shall either use their cameraphones or pay a bit more for a dual use camera. 4-wheel drive in a vehicle costs extra too. Or leather seats. Video in a stills camera should not come "for free" = majority of non-video users being forced to pay for it.

If Canon can profitably make, sell and distribute about 10 different models of mirrorslappers in 50 different SKUs [black, white, pink, with kit lens, bundles etc.] in parallel, many only with miniscule differences, they could as well make 3 "pure stills" models - one each at entry, medium and hi-end.

You're so presumptuous. You're talking to a real video person here working in a department that has 6 other video shooters that all transitioned to hybrid shooting due to preference. Most of the people I keep in contact with in the industry are switching to hybrid cameras. The ones that are not need 4K RAW, but are excited for the day they can switch over to a more comfortable hybrid shooter that can be rigged to meet their needs. The video style cameras are primarily used by the film industry(a super small portion of "real video folks") and broadcasters. Some commercial producers use the larger cameras, but many are shooting on the A7S II, GH5 and A7 III. Some of our freelancers still use the 7D and 5D Mark III, but the blurry footage doesn't cut well with our footage.

 

[4fun]

"rigged". yes. Buy small cameras to put in to big rigs. You "hybrid" guys are nothing but cheapskate free-riders. Majority of stills-only shooters are cross-financing your gear by being forced to pay for video features in EVERY stills camera.

 

[Don Haines]

"rigged". yes. Buy small cameras to put in to big rigs. You "hybrid" guys are nothing but cheapskate free-riders. Majority of stills-only shooters are cross-financing your gear by being forced to pay for video features in EVERY stills camera.

Personally, about 99 percent of what I shoot is stills. That said, there is no way that I am going to buy a DSLR (and in particular a mirrorless DSLR) that can not shoot video, because I find it a very useful function. Kind of like flicker detection, once you have it, you are not going back.

Am I typical, or am I the exception to the rule? Sales numbers seem to suggest that I am typical, but none of us have access to real data on the subject so we are just guessing, but every indication leads towards people considering video as a “must have” function, and that leads towards the following conclusion: if you had a version of the camera without video features and a special sensor somehow optimized for stills, it would be a much smaller production run and therefore at a higher cost.

 

[Random Orbits]

Personally, about 99 percent of what I shoot is stills. That said, there is no way that I am going to buy a DSLR (and in particular a mirrorless DSLR) that can not shoot video, because I find it a very useful function. Kind of like flicker detection, once you have it, you are not going back.

Am I typical, or am I the exception to the rule? Sales numbers seem to suggest that I am typical, but none of us have access to real data on the subject so we are just guessing, but every indication leads towards people considering video as a “must have” function, and that leads towards the following conclusion: if you had a version of the camera without video features and a special sensor somehow optimized for stills, it would be a much smaller production run and therefore at a higher cost.

I too like the video function in the DSLR. When I want video, I mount one of them to a tripod. The second camera is a backup, and can take video with the same lenses that use with the first camera. That is the value. To get similar quality out of dedicated video gear, I'd have to spend thousands... It doesn't need the best video specs -- 2K is fine, 4K is fine. I usually just take HD/2K, and some people that want copies of the video STILL request them on DVDs...