The Canon EOS M50 Will Shoot 4K [CR3]

[wildwalker]

Why does it take Canon so long to bring a camera out? I believe Nikon just get on with it like they did with 850, or are they just as bad?

We'll still be here next year and for those harping on 'to 4k or not to 4k' IMO the 6dii should have had a much better image quality compared to the 6d 2012 version that's the more important upgrade which just did not happen...

How long do you think it took Nikon to design, develop, beta test and release the D850?
Many people who actually use the 6D2 say it does does have better image quality than the 6D, just not in the way people were predicting or in the way they hoped. Nikon sees buying in sensors as their route to gaining ground on Canon, Canon consider sensor quality to be lower down the list or priorities so are happy to keep manufacturing their own sensors.

I do wish people wold look on a camera as a tool rather than thinking it is all about the sensor.

If you look at reviews about the IQ (ignoring the idiotic ones about 4K) then they are generally positive about the IQ of the 6D, many reviewers saying it falls between the 5DMk3 and 5DMk4, not bad for a camera at half the cost.

4 or 5 years is a reasonable time frame for a camera of this complexity, especially when you factor in that year on year advancements in photo technology are quite slow, which is why the higher refresh at the lower end of the market never really delivers much in the way of performance boosts, unless something happened that year like a bump in sensor technology.

Everytime the image quality is increased, the next increase is that much harder to attain, and generally it is smaller, that's how development goes. Yes occasionally something comes along to advance IQ, but it takes time, which is why a 4-5 year refresh cycle makes sense.

I still think 4K (or any video) on DSLR cameras is a waste of money, the focus is still on still images, thats what photographers mainly buy them for. Most of the video functions are after thoughts, the audio is generally crap and the usability compared to a video-centric devices is poor.

If your focus is video, and you want a video camera, go and buy one. Right tool for the right job and all that. I think Canon are spot on ignoring pressure for a feature that a lot of people rant about, but rarely use.

 

[rrcphoto]

so from my point of view after 6yrs

more like 4.8 but who's counting.

 

[Talys]

If you look at reviews about the IQ (ignoring the idiotic ones about 4K) then they are generally positive about the IQ of the 6D, many reviewers saying it falls between the 5DMk3 and 5DMk4, not bad for a camera at half the cost.

As an owner of a 6DII, that's exactly where it is.

I still think 4K (or any video) on DSLR cameras is a waste of money, the focus is still on still images, thats what photographers mainly buy them for. Most of the video functions are after thoughts, the audio is generally crap and the usability compared to a video-centric devices is poor.

If your focus is video, and you want a video camera, go and buy one. Right tool for the right job and all that. I think Canon are spot on ignoring pressure for a feature that a lot of people rant about, but rarely use.

Couldn't agree more. The form factor is totally wrong. I have repeatedly posted that I can't imagine why someone would want to spend thousands of dollars on the wrong device for the job, if their goal is to produce great video.

If it's wedding/event videos, I think a real camcorder would be a far superior tool. And it's not like a professional photographer can say, "okay, I'm going to swap between taking wedding videos and wedding photos so I can do it all on this one device". I mean, you'd want the wedding camcorder to be recording (and manned) and be taking wedding photos at the same time... right?

Home videos, all 4k does is force you to downsample it, because you can't share 4k videos with most people.

For vloggers and such, the only benefit to 4k that I can see is that you can use the wrong lens and crop to zoom. Which seems to me, you'd be better off using the right lens.

 

[alienman]

I understand the importance of image quality being made, it is something canon has going for them along with a long line of top quality glass. I believe it is safe to say 4k is technology that is becoming expected from our devices. Who cares what people are using if for, I use it because it looks a lot better that 1080 even at low bit rates. Other companies are offering it so why shouldn’t canon give it to us. There are also more 4k displays on the market at affordable prices (as low as $200). I am hoping for more new innovative features from canon in the future along with the supreme image quality to put and end to all of the chatter that I hear about why Sony is a better choice in 2018 because of their innovation and they are the company of the future.

I agree with the comments about buying a video camera for high end production work. I believe that is the route that will be taken by anyone in their right mind. With that being said I wouldn’t mind if canon implemented 4k into their mirrorless and dslr’s at a low bit rate of 50mb/s and affordable price. This would not propose any threat to their cinema line.

 

[crazyrunner33]

Why do people assume that professionals in the video world hate the DSLR form factor? I'm a video producer in the marketing world, and I prefer the DSLR body over the traditional camera body, and there are many others who feel the same way. Why do we like the DSLR? Because it's compact, and blends in with the crowd. We love that large sensor look, and we enjoy being able to move around without raising an eyebrow or becoming overly fatigue. We like that the DSLR is versatile and can be rigged with all the gear we need for an A camera shot, or configure it to fly on a gimbal, or run it hand held and use the neck strap and IBS to help create steady run and gun footage. Yeah, there are instances where we want a dedicated video camera like a C200, but we also want something light weight and discreet in our tool kit.

There's also a big misunderstanding about 4K. Everyone assumes that 4K is only about pixel resolution, but they completely forget about incredible changes to dynamic range and color resolution that comes with the new Rec 2020 standard.

 

[wildwalker]

Why do people assume that professionals in the video world hate the DSLR form factor? I'm a video producer in the marketing world, and I prefer the DSLR body over the traditional camera body, and there are many others who feel the same way. Why do we like the DSLR? Because it's compact, and blends in with the crowd. We love that large sensor look, and we enjoy being able to move around without raising an eyebrow or becoming overly fatigue. We like that the DSLR is versatile and can be rigged with all the gear we need for an A camera shot, or configure it to fly on a gimbal, or run it hand held and use the neck strap and IBS to help create steady run and gun footage. Yeah, there are instances where we want a dedicated video camera like a C200, but we also want something light weight and discreet in our tool kit.

There's also a big misunderstanding about 4K. Everyone assumes that 4K is only about pixel resolution, but they completely forget about incredible changes to dynamic range and color resolution that comes with the new Rec 2020 standard.

rec 2100 brings WCG to HD, so rec 2020 doesn't really have that advantage anymore. BT2084 (HDR) is applicable to both HD and UHD (in part of rec 2100 I think), so again, not necessarily an advantage for UHD.

Also UHD Phase 1 used rec 709, the same colour space as HD, so again, you have to know what spec your UHD kit is working to.

 

[zim]

Do you think there is any chance Canon will start designing these M's to take a battery grip?
The M5 type with battery grip accessory would make the world of difference for me ergonomically and of course more juice

 

[wildwalker]

Do you think there is any chance Canon will start designing these M's to take a battery grip?
The M5 type with battery grip accessory would make the world of difference for me ergonomically and of course more juice

I would say no. The ethos behind the M series is size (one of the points of Mirrorless is you can make the body smaller, as there are very few mechanically moving parts).

The only reason that the body would be imbalanced is if you are using the mount adapter and a non M lens. If you did this, and threw on a battery box, then you may as well have purchased the SL2, 1200D, 750D etc.

If you want something that is more balanced, and you obviously are not size conscious, if you don't mind a battery box, then buy a normal DSLR.

If you do want more battery life, buy a spare battery and put it in your pocket, or if you are lucky, the M50 will allow USB charging, so you can just use the same power bank you charge your phone with to extend battery life.

 

[Rocky]

Do you think there is any chance Canon will start designing these M's to take a battery grip?
The M5 type with battery grip accessory would make the world of difference for me ergonomically and of course more juice

I would say no. The ethos behind the M series is size (one of the points of Mirrorless is you can make the body smaller, as there are very few mechanically moving parts).

The only reason that the body would be imbalanced is if you are using the mount adapter and a non M lens. If you did this, and threw on a battery box, then you may as well have purchased the SL2, 1200D, 750D etc.

If you want something that is more balanced, and you obviously are not size conscious, if you don't mind a battery box, then buy a normal DSLR.

If you do want more battery life, buy a spare battery and put it in your pocket, or if you are lucky, the M50 will allow USB charging, so you can just use the same power bank you charge your phone with to extend battery life.

The 35-135 EF balances very well with adapter with my M and M2. Both do not even have a real grip. I am holding it in the “old school” way by cradling my left hand under the lens. This is the prefer way to hold the camera with lens longer than the standard lens at the time that there is not a single camera has a grip

 

[zim]

Do you think there is any chance Canon will start designing these M's to take a battery grip?
The M5 type with battery grip accessory would make the world of difference for me ergonomically and of course more juice

I would say no. The ethos behind the M series is size (one of the points of Mirrorless is you can make the body smaller, as there are very few mechanically moving parts).

The only reason that the body would be imbalanced is if you are using the mount adapter and a non M lens. If you did this, and threw on a battery box, then you may as well have purchased the SL2, 1200D, 750D etc.

If you want something that is more balanced, and you obviously are not size conscious, if you don't mind a battery box, then buy a normal DSLR.

If you do want more battery life, buy a spare battery and put it in your pocket, or if you are lucky, the M50 will allow USB charging, so you can just use the same power bank you charge your phone with to extend battery life.

The 35-135 EF balances very well with adapter with my M and M2. Both do not even have a real grip. I am holding it in the “old school” way by cradling my left hand under the lens. This is the prefer way to hold the camera with lens longer than the standard lens at the time that there is not a single camera has a grip

To both, personal preference is just that. Used to have a 500d, really didn't like that, nothing to do with balance (small primes) I hate fingers wrapping under the base plate I find that very uncomfortable after any length of time these small camera's are the same, always been like that even with SLRs.
The nice thing about a removable battery grip is that you don't need to use them. But those that do can.
Maybe I could hack an old power winder up and use the space inside to store a spare battery or two

@Rocky "Old School" I can't imagine holding a camera any other way whilst taking pictures

 

[scyrene]

That argument became part of the discussion because of certain people’s vehemence against those requesting that feature.

Winky face or not, I can't recall seeing anyone 'vehemently against' 4K, perhaps you could share some quotes?

 

[scyrene]

Not sure how long Nikon took to develop the d850 but did they a spend along time talking about it, or did they just get on and release it? Hopefully Canon will give us something soon...

I think you may be confused. This is a rumour website. This isn't 'Canon talking' about their upcoming products, which they almost never do. This is piecing together hearsay, and trying to find out what is coming. I'm sure the rumour websites for other brands talk about the possible future releases for just as long in advance as is the case here.

 

[stevelee]

Perhaps of some interest or relevance to this topic (or perhaps not), is a video that compares iPhone X 4K video to 1080p on a G7X II.

http://designtaxi.com/news/398308/Watch-iPhone-X-VS-Canon-s-Popular-High-End-G7-X-Mark-II-Compact-Camera/

Obviously the Canon's advantages over the iPhone would be most obvious in stills shot in RAW, but I found this interesting. In my case I sometimes shoot 4K on my iPhone 6S, and do some video with my G7X II when I travel, using whichever seems more suited to the task at hand. The differences in the video however do not seem to be that related to 4K vs. 1080p. Some messages here seem to reflect a belief that all 4K is going to be better than all 1080p, but maybe I'm too harsh. All things being equal, all things are rarely equal in reality.

 

[wildwalker]

Perhaps of some interest or relevance to this topic (or perhaps not), is a video that compares iPhone X 4K video to 1080p on a G7X II.

http://designtaxi.com/news/398308/Watch-iPhone-X-VS-Canon-s-Popular-High-End-G7-X-Mark-II-Compact-Camera/

Obviously the Canon's advantages over the iPhone would be most obvious in stills shot in RAW, but I found this interesting. In my case I sometimes shoot 4K on my iPhone 6S, and do some video with my G7X II when I travel, using whichever seems more suited to the task at hand. The differences in the video however do not seem to be that related to 4K vs. 1080p. Some messages here seem to reflect a belief that all 4K is going to be better than all 1080p, but maybe I'm too harsh. All things being equal, all things are rarely equal in reality.

With 4 x the resolution, 4k should be a winner over 1080p. But of course the 4K has to have enough bit rate. 1080 is normally h.264 whereas 4K is now generally HEVC. HEVC is not as mature as h.264 and so codecs can be poor (wouldn't expect that with Canon though).

4K at p30 looks worse than 1080 at the same frame rate though (because 4K is normally consumed on a much larger screen, so the judder is more noticeable).

 

[Talys]

With 4 x the resolution, 4k should be a winner over 1080p. But of course the 4K has to have enough bit rate. 1080 is normally h.264 whereas 4K is now generally HEVC. HEVC is not as mature as h.264 and so codecs can be poor (wouldn't expect that with Canon though).

4K at p30 looks worse than 1080 at the same frame rate though (because 4K is normally consumed on a much larger screen, so the judder is more noticeable).

The real question becomes:

Do people buy the M50 because they want to record 4k video, or do they buy the M50 because they want a digital camera that is able to record 4k video?

If it's just a checkbox, they won't really care, and in the end, I suspect a lot of these people will goof around with 4k and end up recording 1080 and be happy with smaller files. Of course, that's not to say that some people won't genuinely want/need to record 4k video. For these folks, we'll soon find out whether the M50 is great, good enough, good enough considering EF lenses, or inferior to other alternatives.

 

[slclick]

With 4 x the resolution, 4k should be a winner over 1080p. But of course the 4K has to have enough bit rate. 1080 is normally h.264 whereas 4K is now generally HEVC. HEVC is not as mature as h.264 and so codecs can be poor (wouldn't expect that with Canon though).

4K at p30 looks worse than 1080 at the same frame rate though (because 4K is normally consumed on a much larger screen, so the judder is more noticeable).

The real question becomes:

Do people buy the M50 because they want to record 4k video, or do they buy the M50 because they want a digital camera that is able to record 4k video?

If it's just a checkbox, they won't really care, and in the end, I suspect a lot of these people will goof around with 4k and end up recording 1080 and be happy with smaller files. Of course, that's not to say that some people won't genuinely want/need to record 4k video. For these folks, we'll soon find out whether the M50 is great, good enough, good enough considering EF lenses, or inferior to other alternatives.

When has a client been able to tell the difference? This is of course assuming Canon gear being used. The never ending rallying cry is 95% from spec sheet droolers. I know there are fine video shooters out there with legit concerns but you're in the minority.

 

[wildwalker]

With 4 x the resolution, 4k should be a winner over 1080p. But of course the 4K has to have enough bit rate. 1080 is normally h.264 whereas 4K is now generally HEVC. HEVC is not as mature as h.264 and so codecs can be poor (wouldn't expect that with Canon though).

4K at p30 looks worse than 1080 at the same frame rate though (because 4K is normally consumed on a much larger screen, so the judder is more noticeable).

The real question becomes:

Do people buy the M50 because they want to record 4k video, or do they buy the M50 because they want a digital camera that is able to record 4k video?

If it's just a checkbox, they won't really care, and in the end, I suspect a lot of these people will goof around with 4k and end up recording 1080 and be happy with smaller files. Of course, that's not to say that some people won't genuinely want/need to record 4k video. For these folks, we'll soon find out whether the M50 is great, good enough, good enough considering EF lenses, or inferior to other alternatives.

When has a client been able to tell the difference? This is of course assuming Canon gear being used. The never ending rallying cry is 95% from spec sheet droolers. I know there are fine video shooters out there with legit concerns but you're in the minority.

I guess there are two customer bases for this body. (1) The photographer who is pushed for space, and needs something smaller on occasions, who will probably experiment with video, but most of the time be taking photographs. (2) Vloggers, who 99% of the time won't touch that shutter button, but will use the 4K (assuming its not got some annoying limitations like x mins of recording, or only 15fps etc.)

 

[Random Orbits]

With 4 x the resolution, 4k should be a winner over 1080p. But of course the 4K has to have enough bit rate. 1080 is normally h.264 whereas 4K is now generally HEVC. HEVC is not as mature as h.264 and so codecs can be poor (wouldn't expect that with Canon though).

4K at p30 looks worse than 1080 at the same frame rate though (because 4K is normally consumed on a much larger screen, so the judder is more noticeable).

The real question becomes:

Do people buy the M50 because they want to record 4k video, or do they buy the M50 because they want a digital camera that is able to record 4k video?

If it's just a checkbox, they won't really care, and in the end, I suspect a lot of these people will goof around with 4k and end up recording 1080 and be happy with smaller files. Of course, that's not to say that some people won't genuinely want/need to record 4k video. For these folks, we'll soon find out whether the M50 is great, good enough, good enough considering EF lenses, or inferior to other alternatives.

Perhaps Canon has finally developed 4K so that it can be done efficiently enough to include on all cameras. We saw it first on the 1DC then 1DX II/5DIV, but even then people complained about crop factors and storage requirements. Hopefully an efficient 4K will be the baseline going forward.

I don't mind that the M50 gets the feature before the M5/M6. I'd rather Canon get the technology right and introduce it into the product when it ready.

 

[rrcphoto]

Why do people assume that professionals in the video world hate the DSLR form factor? I'm a video producer in the marketing world, and I prefer the DSLR body over the traditional camera body, and there are many others who feel the same way. Why do we like the DSLR? Because it's compact, and blends in with the crowd. We love that large sensor look, and we enjoy being able to move around without raising an eyebrow or becoming overly fatigue. We like that the DSLR is versatile and can be rigged with all the gear we need for an A camera shot, or configure it to fly on a gimbal, or run it hand held and use the neck strap and IBS to help create steady run and gun footage. Yeah, there are instances where we want a dedicated video camera like a C200, but we also want something light weight and discreet in our tool kit.

you are confusing ILC form factor with DSLR. DSLR's with an optical viewfinder is certainly not the most optimum solution to the problem. Mirrorless with an EVF is more of a complete hybrid solution.

 

[Tugela]

With 4 x the resolution, 4k should be a winner over 1080p. But of course the 4K has to have enough bit rate. 1080 is normally h.264 whereas 4K is now generally HEVC. HEVC is not as mature as h.264 and so codecs can be poor (wouldn't expect that with Canon though).

4K at p30 looks worse than 1080 at the same frame rate though (because 4K is normally consumed on a much larger screen, so the judder is more noticeable).

The real question becomes:

Do people buy the M50 because they want to record 4k video, or do they buy the M50 because they want a digital camera that is able to record 4k video?

If it's just a checkbox, they won't really care, and in the end, I suspect a lot of these people will goof around with 4k and end up recording 1080 and be happy with smaller files. Of course, that's not to say that some people won't genuinely want/need to record 4k video. For these folks, we'll soon find out whether the M50 is great, good enough, good enough considering EF lenses, or inferior to other alternatives.

Perhaps Canon has finally developed 4K so that it can be done efficiently enough to include on all cameras. We saw it first on the 1DC then 1DX II/5DIV, but even then people complained about crop factors and storage requirements. Hopefully an efficient 4K will be the baseline going forward.

I don't mind that the M50 gets the feature before the M5/M6. I'd rather Canon get the technology right and introduce it into the product when it ready.

Apparently the camera has a Digic 8 processor in it, which is the stills equivalent of the Digic DV6 in the XF400/405/GX10 camcorders. So it will likely shoot similar quality 4K footage, but probably only up to 30p due to the extra pixels in the sensor.

From what I have seen the of footage from those camcorders tend to have dubious resolution so I expect the video from the M50 to be substandard compared to most of it's competitors.