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



## Canon Rumors Guy (Dec 1, 2018)

> It looks like Sony has no intention of resting on the laurels with sensor development. A leaked spec sheet seems to show a 36mp full frame sensor capable of shooting 480fps in 4K is coming soon. Might this be for a Sony A7S III camera body some time in 2019?
> This spec sheet hasn’t been officially released by Sony as of yet, so there’s a slight possibility that it’s fake. Though we don’t think so.
> The spec list is in the gallery below.



Continue reading...


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 1, 2018)

This exciting new development brought to you by Sandisk and Western Digital


----------



## 4fun (Dec 1, 2018)

128 GB SD Cards and 8 TB disks are very affordable. I am fully prepared for 8k images. Stills, what else. 
4k @ 460 fps. lol. what for? 
but "innovative" Canon may be in for some tough times once the videots start to demand it ... for every camera.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 1, 2018)

Shooting 4K video on a 5D4 consumes 4GB per minute. If things scalled linearly, that would mean that jumping from 30fps to 480fps would jump the storage requirement up to 64GB per minute, or approximately 1GB per second. Good luck storing that on a memory card!

HOWEVER!, video encoding is based on differences between frames, and it is safe to assume that if you are sampling 16 times faster, that the differences between frames will become much smaller. I would be guessing that at 480fps the files would be in the order of about 4 times larger than at 30fps, but this will be very interesting to see.....


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Dec 2, 2018)

It seems increasing difficult to imagine that Canon or their customers are going to be OK with watching Sony sensor development sail off into the future without them. At Canon's current pace they look to be years away from reaching comparable specs and who knows what Sony will be up to by then. Something's gotta give.


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Dec 2, 2018)

1 Second of 480 fps would probably conform in-camera to 20 seconds at 24 fps or something comparable so it's not as much data as it sounds. Presumably there would be a time limit on recording at that speed since the heat generated would be significant. Sharp 4K at 120 fps with AF would be plenty for me but 480 fps for short bursts could be amazing if they could get it to work. Sounds more like FS7 level stuff but if they can get an A series camera to do that it would be very impressive.


----------



## Ozarker (Dec 2, 2018)

*Stills photographer shrugs his shoulders and opens another beer.* 
This just in: Sony plans to enter the cooling tower business.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 2, 2018)

Graphic.Artifacts said:


> 1 Second of 480 fps would probably conform in-camera to 20 seconds at 24 fps or something comparable so it's not as much data as it sounds. Presumably there would be a time limit on recording at that speed since the heat generated would be significant. Sharp 4K at 120 fps with AF would be plenty for me but 480 fps for short bursts could be amazing if they could get it to work. Sounds more like FS7 level stuff but if they can get an A series camera to do that it would be very impressive.


My P/S does 480fps video, but at very reduced resolution and only for 20 seconds at a time. You can get some interesting results! 4K at that rate would be astounding, provided you had the right subject matter to take advantage of.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 2, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> *Stills photographer shrugs his shoulders and opens another beer.*
> This just in: Sony plans to enter the cooling tower business.



I am very tempted to film opening a beer at 480fps and posting it, but alas, I have no beer!


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Dec 2, 2018)

I get that most people still don't care about video. With DSLR's you could make the argument that video spec's didn't matter. However, a mirrorles camera is essentially a video camera that has been modified to shoot individual frames. The issues that are holding back Canon's video performance are going to make it very difficult for them to market a competitive mirrorless camera. 

Sorry but that's just the way it is. If you are happy with Canon's DSLR's than don't worry about it. If you want a competitive mirrorless from Canon you should be very worried.


----------



## bhf3737 (Dec 2, 2018)

Graphic.Artifacts said:


> It seems increasing difficult to imagine that Canon or their customers are going to be OK with watching Sony sensor development sail off into the future without them. At Canon's current pace they look to be years away from reaching comparable specs and who knows what Sony will be up to by then. Something's gotta give.


Apparently Canon has already developed a production model of [email protected] video camera meaning that it is not behind in that sense. Sony is yet to put its rumored high spec sensor into a usable camera.


----------



## 4fun (Dec 2, 2018)

Graphic.Artifacts said:


> . If you want a competitive mirrorless from Canon you should be very worried.



I don't ever capture video. If Canon cannot keep up with video specs on their sensors, it does not matter at all to me. Actually I would love to buy an excellent "pure stills" mirrorfree FF camera from Canon. Without any video/audio recording, codecs and stuff in it.


----------



## Del Paso (Dec 2, 2018)

4fun said:


> I don't ever capture video. If Canon cannot keep up with video specs on their sensors, it does not matter at all to me. Actually I would love to buy an excellent "pure stills" mirrorfree FF camera from Canon. Without any video/audio recording, codecs and stuff in it.


Me too !!!!


----------



## sdz (Dec 2, 2018)

The Law of Diminishing Returns explained. There might be sensible uses for this expansive capacity. But many of the videographers in the world have managed quite well without it these many years.

480 FPS -- it's a bit like having a 1000 HP car. This car is used for what that a car with 400 HP, underpowered as it is, could not do?


----------



## TAF (Dec 2, 2018)

So if we downscale from 4K/480 to VGA (640x480) we should get almost 8000 fps (did I do that math correctly?)

Now that is something I would like to have at an affordable price.


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Dec 2, 2018)

A mirrorless camera starts capturing video the moment you turn it on regardless of whether you chose to permanently record it. What do you think you are seeing in the EVF? It's a video camera that has advanced capabilities to save individual frames of video as stills.


----------



## dak723 (Dec 2, 2018)

I do shoot video and this is about the last thing I would want.

Plus, I have two mirrorless cameras and would not under any circumstance consider them to be "video cameras modified to shoot individual frames." It is just like my old DSLRs in every way but has no mirror.


----------



## awair (Dec 2, 2018)

4fun said:


> I don't ever capture video.



+1



Don Haines said:


> I am very tempted to film opening a beer at 480fps and posting it, but alas, I have no beer!



I think there is potential for a very interesting learning curve! Ready to order...


----------



## crazyrunner33 (Dec 2, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> Shooting 4K video on a 5D4 consumes 4GB per minute. If things scalled linearly, that would mean that jumping from 30fps to 480fps would jump the storage requirement up to 64GB per minute, or approximately 1GB per second. Good luck storing that on a memory card!
> 
> HOWEVER!, video encoding is based on differences between frames, and it is safe to assume that if you are sampling 16 times faster, that the differences between frames will become much smaller. I would be guessing that at 480fps the files would be in the order of about 4 times larger than at 30fps, but this will be very interesting to see.....






Don Haines said:


> Shooting 4K video on a 5D4 consumes 4GB per minute. If things scalled linearly, that would mean that jumping from 30fps to 480fps would jump the storage requirement up to 64GB per minute, or approximately 1GB per second. Good luck storing that on a memory card!
> 
> HOWEVER!, video encoding is based on differences between frames, and it is safe to assume that if you are sampling 16 times faster, that the differences between frames will become much smaller. I would be guessing that at 480fps the files would be in the order of about 4 times larger than at 30fps, but this will be very interesting to see.....



The 5D Mark IV uses a 4K codec that was born when MC Hammer's Hammer Time was polluting the radio. DSLRs are starting to use more efficient codecs, LIKE


Don Haines said:


> Shooting 4K video on a 5D4 consumes 4GB per minute. If things scalled linearly, that would mean that jumping from 30fps to 480fps would jump the storage requirement up to 64GB per minute, or approximately 1GB per second. Good luck storing that on a memory card!
> 
> HOWEVER!, video encoding is based on differences between frames, and it is safe to assume that if you are sampling 16 times faster, that the differences between frames will become much smaller. I would be guessing that at 480fps the files would be in the order of about 4 times larger than at 30fps, but this will be very interesting to see.....



Let's not compare video with the 5D Mark IV's 4k codec that's so inefficient that it uses space that's almost equal to compressed RAW. While the 5D Mark IV parties up with it's codec that was made popular when MC Hammer was polluting the radio, other DSLRs have been switching to using H.265. 

The benefit of these 4K specs will be rolling shutter, a sensor that can read that fast will result in low rolling shutter in 4K and even 8K.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 2, 2018)

awair said:


> +1
> 
> 
> 
> I think there is potential for a very interesting learning curve! Ready to order...


I tried the bursting of a balloon shot. At 480fps it went from full to gone in one frame 

Must try beer..... and if it does not work, try and try again....


----------



## Joules (Dec 2, 2018)

TAF said:


> So if we downscale from 4K/480 to VGA (640x480) we should get almost 8000 fps (did I do that math correctly?)
> 
> Now that is something I would like to have at an affordable price.


I don't think that's how it works, even if the math is right. The article shows the supported read out modes, right? The one with the highest framerate that I can see has 960 fps at 768 X 54 resolution, which is a 16 : 1,125 aspect ratio (Yeah, I know that's not how ratios work mathematically). And this 480 fps mode everybody mentions also only has a 16 : 8 (Edit: I messed up, this should have been 16 : 4,5) aspect ratio unless I'm missing something? If that is the case, I don't find it that practical. Now, the 30 fps at full 33 MP resolution sound quite impressive.

And everybody questioning the need for high framerate video might find it helpfull to take a look at the Youtube channel The SlowMo Guys. I find some of their videos to be amongst the coolest content on the site.


----------



## 4fun (Dec 2, 2018)

Graphic.Artifacts said:


> A mirrorless camera starts capturing video the moment you turn it on regardless of whether you chose to permanently record it. What do you think you are seeing in the EVF? It's a video camera that has advanced capabilities to save individual frames of video as stills.




Today's EVFs are HD rez at best. It does not need any significant CPU power, advanced codecs, no oversized-heat sinks, no audio, no mics, no stereo speakers, no headphone jacks, no amps, no zebras, no video-polluted and cluttered menus, no red "record video" button in the most prominent of all locations, NONE of all that video FLUFF those freaking videots are whining for all the time. 

PURE STILLS for me please. 

No problem with video feed solely for EVF. But i want NO RECORDING. No 4k. No 8k. No problem if it is in many cameras. But i want a choice of good stills cameras without any of it.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 2, 2018)

4fun said:


> Today's EVFs are HD rez at best.



That is 100% wrong.

HD = 1280×720p: 923,600 pixels
Full HD = 1920×1080p: 2,073,600 pixels

Sony A7R III EVF = 3.69-million-dot
Canon R EVF = 3.69-million-dot

Pretty much all 'FF' EVF's exceed Full HD and dwarf HD.


----------



## 4fun (Dec 2, 2018)

privatebydesign said:


> That is 100% wrong.
> HD = 1280×720p: 923,600 pixels
> Full HD = 1920×1080p: 2,073,600 pixels
> Sony A7R III EVF = 3.69-million-dot
> ...



3.69 MEGA "dots" have to be divided by 3 (RGB) = 1.2 mega PIXELS = some cr*ppy 1990's style low rez like e.g. 1440 x 900 ... or thereabouts. Those megadeath Mega-DOTS are nothing but marketing-confusion pills. Nowhere near ("full") HD. 


Those camera makers should really be ashamed. Late 2018 I'd consider 4k EVFs as "adequate". 3840x2160 PIXELS x 4 colors [RGB + extra black] = 33.2 mega DOTS.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Dec 2, 2018)

privatebydesign said:


> That is 100% wrong.
> 
> HD = 1280×720p: 923,600 pixels
> Full HD = 1920×1080p: 2,073,600 pixels
> ...



The DOT, in fact, is each colored dot (1 red 1 gren 1 blue) forming the pixel. Right?
Thus, 3 mega dot, is equal to 1 megapixel.


----------



## Ozarker (Dec 3, 2018)

Joules said:


> And this 480 fps mode everybody mentions also only has a 16 : 8 aspect ratio unless I'm missing something? If that is the case, I don't find it that practical.



Practicality doesn't matter. Only the spec sheet matters.


----------



## bhf3737 (Dec 3, 2018)

4fun said:


> 3.69 MEGA "dots" have to be divided by 3 (RGB) = 1.2 mega PIXELS = some cr*ppy 1990's style low rez like e.g. 1440 x 900 ... or thereabouts. Those megadeath Mega-DOTS are nothing but marketing-confusion pills. Nowhere near ("full") HD.
> 
> 
> Those camera makers should really be ashamed. Late 2018 I'd consider 4k EVFs as "adequate". 3840x2160 PIXELS x 4 colors [RGB + extra black] = 33.2 mega DOTS.


Not exactly true. Many manufacturers use Pentile GRGB pattern for EVF and back LCD, meaning that they count each RG and BG as a pixel. Therefore, 3.69 mega-dots is roughly 1.85 mega-pixels, which is close to FHD resolution.


----------



## Del Paso (Dec 3, 2018)

privatebydesign said:


> That is 100% wrong.
> 
> HD = 1280×720p: 923,600 pixels
> Full HD = 1920×1080p: 2,073,600 pixels
> ...


And don't forget Leica SL's 4,4 million dot !


----------



## 4fun (Dec 3, 2018)

Del Paso said:


> And don't forget Leica SL's 4,4 million dot !



is also a joke in late 2018.

I'd like all manufacturers to drop "fuzzy megadots", ambiguous monikers like "HD" and other markting-dribble pseudo-specs and provide clear pixel count numbers for resolution of sensors, EVFs and rear screens on their cameras: xxxx pixels by yyyy pixels (e.g. 1920x1080). it would make life much easier for them and for us.


----------



## preppyak (Dec 3, 2018)

4fun said:


> Today's EVFs are HD rez at best. It does not need any significant CPU power, advanced codecs, no oversized-heat sinks, no audio, no mics, no stereo speakers, no headphone jacks, no amps, no zebras, no video-polluted and cluttered menus, no red "record video" button in the most prominent of all locations, NONE of all that video FLUFF those freaking videots are whining for all the time.
> 
> PURE STILLS for me please.
> 
> No problem with video feed solely for EVF. But i want NO RECORDING. No 4k. No 8k. No problem if it is in many cameras. But i want a choice of good stills cameras without any of it.


And you're willing to pay more to leave out video? Because that's what is gonna happen as sales shrink and they still need to recoup R&D and tooling costs. In fact, its exactly what happened with the Nikon DF, which was a D600 with a few features of the D800 + D4, in a new body, and priced at D800 prices. Not surprisingly, Nikon has never followed up with a second model, and its under 50% of its MSRP on the used market.

What you're really asking for is exactly what Canon is delivering (weakened video specs, but enough to not jurt resale and overall market), as compared to say Sony or Panasonic, who are wildly over-delivering on video specs in a way that certainly increases the camera's price.


----------



## 4fun (Dec 3, 2018)

no. Nikon Df flopped because of its totally absurd retro approach, totally botched UI, totally sub-par functionality combined with a totally overcharged price.

had Nikon made a true D700 successor (D4 sensor in a more compact, much more affordable package), it would have become a bestseller. Without any video recording.


I bet an EOS R without any video recording could be made and profitably sold for USD/€ 999,-
All the video (+audio) crap costs a lot: R&D, engineering, components, manufacturing, quality control, software, licenses (codecs) etc. etc. ... video is NOT for free. It is just mostly paid for by stills users being taken hostage.


----------



## Ozarker (Dec 4, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> I am very tempted to film opening a beer at 480fps and posting it, but alas, I have no beer!


You got 30 minutes to spare?


----------



## 4fun (Dec 4, 2018)

1. i am better than my gear and always will be. 

2. specs do matter. especially having enough of the right ones for what you want to do rather than too much of the wrong ones.

eg: more DR would be helpful at times. having a viewfinder on my EOS M would be very helpful at times. my 5D3 being smaller, lighter and less conspicuous would also be helpful often. video capture not. lol.

3. my critique of imaging gear is valid, irrespective of my own images. a gourmet critic does not have to be a chef cook himself.

4. now chill. take a walk in the park with me in an inch of pristine, freshly fallen snow. 
http://www.nimbifer.eu/images/#14822489178800







5. or let's take a walk along fields of poppies on a glorious summer day. Each blossom is only there for one day. Don't worry, farming papaver somniferum is legal here and it is safe to inhale the air.
http://www.nimbifer.eu/images/#15325406081600






PS. for a number of reasons i rarely share images on open platforms/in public, especially not images of persons.


----------



## Go Wild (Dec 4, 2018)

4fun said:


> 1. i am better than my gear and always will be.
> 
> 2. specs do matter. especially having enough of the right ones for what you want to do rather than too much of the wrong ones.
> 
> ...





Liked your comment! I believe it is very assertive.

Let´s see....this is the eternal question...Why to make a primarily stills camera a powerful stills+video camera? Well....because they can!  And because regarding to the future of industry (either amateur or professional) this is the way to go. The majority of the market will prefer to buy a camera that makes stills and video, rather one that makes only stills, or only video. Why? Even if they don´t use it, it´s there and in some point you will use it! I do understand if someone asks for a "only stills" camera (because only video you already have), but nowadays I do believe that is a small market for Canon to invest....This could only be successful if they made a really cheap camera....which of course, cannot happen at all...You just can´t make a EOS R just still camera and pay only 990$. That´s just not realistic. Why? Even if you take off the software part of recording a video, "video" feature must be there! Because, like someone said in prior post, what you see in a mirrorless is a video image that you turn into stills. But Canon already gave you a lot of cameras with "shrunken" video features, like 5Ds!! If you make more stills than videos, well, so video is not a concern to you. Also, the criticism about video specs of Canon, is also a non problem to you! 

In my perspective....and of course this is my perspective....I am so angry that Canon is taking a HUGE amount of time to equalize market....And I just don´t ask to surpass....just equalize it, damn!

I have already been forced to buy a Sony camera, the A7r3 because that camera just give´s me the best of the 2 worlds with great quality! Just like my 1Dx mkII! At this time, the 1dx mkII is the best camera of Canon and the only one that is prepared to fight in this market of having both stills and video top features! Why is Canon worse than Sony? Because of the damn codec that produces massive files! Otherwise it is a killer camera!! Superb imaging either on video or stills. The Canon 4k (even with the 1.3 crop which is a no problem to me...) is superb!!!

Then, after 2017 i was in the market for another camera, a 2nd body one, smaller so i can use in gimbals. Canon had nothing to offer in this segment and Sony and Panasonic where so strong in the market!! But i didn´t want to abandon Canon. I ended up to buy a Sony a7r3 and wow, what a peace of equipment!!

Well....but i am really a Canon fan, and when Canon turn heads to mirrorless i think to miself: "Yeeaahhh...Canon is back in the game!" So i started to think in selling the Sony to buy a Canon mirrorless...And then.... EOS R came out...And although i think it is a great camera, it stills falling way behind a A7r3. I told to myself...Ok...you just need to wait a little bit longer, and the pro bodies will appear! Then i have the news that maybe only by the end of 2019 we will see the new high end bodies. Say what???!! Have to wait one year to replace my 1 already year Sony??? Then i sit back again and relax and think to myself....well let´s see if i can old back one more year with this one, and then finally back to 100% Canon.
But then...voila....Sony just takes out another bunny from the hat with insane specs of new cameras just arriving (Yes, just rumours, but some ones are starting to feel solid ones). And guess what, they just might be around the corner!!

If Sony delivers another killer machine and I hear nothing about Canon, I will finish my wait and dreams to have again 100% Canon equipment and will invest again on Sony. And this time...will start to invest in all the ecossistem...it will be a good bye Canon!

I just can´t believe how long Canon took to react, and i just can´t believe that they can´t follow competition! My complains are not in the stills field, in that field they are equal to Sony (but i must say, Sony files are just impressive!!), my major complains are in video, they are just killing their machines because of the video features!! Of course dpaf is just amazing but it´s now the only thing that surpass competition! They what to protect cinema line?? No man....that´s just not an excuse! Sony have the cinema line FS5, FS7, etc...and they also have A7S and A7R!!! Don´t come with excuses!

And man....we just want from Canon simple things....Good Log, focus peaking, zebras, a GOOD codec...and of course...some inovation! 120FPS at 720P....Reaally Canon???? Come on....1080P was the minimum.

Give me a great mirrorless with 1080p 240fps and 4k 120fps, give me a superb 4k image, give me zebras, focus peaking (well, liked the concept of the EOS R), give me a great 36mp sensor and for god sake, forget that stupid AA filter!! My Sony doesn´t have it and guess what?? Never EVER missed it!!!

Please Canon, be innovative like you where with this new EOS R sistem, but splash your best in the cameras, don´t just give some candies to sweeten our mouth!! Just fill us with sugar!! We wiil be like bees!!!


----------



## 4fun (Dec 4, 2018)

Go Wild said:


> Let´s see....this is the eternal question...Why to make a primarily stills camera a powerful stills+video camera? Well....because they can!  And because regarding to the future of industry (either amateur or professional) this is the way to go. The majority of the market will prefer to buy a camera that makes stills and video, rather one that makes only stills, or only video. Why? Even if they don´t use it, it´s there and in some point you will use it!



That's what i do not believe. Maybe for pro's in certain areas of imaging. But not for amateurs/enthusiasts. Most of us are no "movie directors" or "video cutters". Because of 1. no interest and/or 2. not enough of the required talents [including "social skills"!] and/or 3. not enough time. It is time-consuming enough having to find and direct models, setup, lighting etc. for stills images. And bad enough to post process a few hundred or 2000 stills RAWs after some event. No desire whatsoever having to deal with moving images. And for short clips of your kids playing or in vacation on the beach, any cameraphone "4k video" will do. 

I would really, really like to see a test of it in practice. Say, Canon EOS R in 2 nearly identical versions, 1 with video recording, one without. The one without at about 10-20% lower price for less functionality. . I am willing to bet that 80% of unit sales would be for the non-video version. Unfortunately we don't have unit sales numbers for Sony A7 / R / S models. I think A7S models are less than 10% of total units (per camera generation).


----------



## Go Wild (Dec 4, 2018)

4fun said:


> That's what i do not believe. Maybe for pro's in certain areas of imaging. But not for amateurs/enthusiasts. Most of us are no "movie directors" or "video cutters". Because of 1. no interest and/or 2. not enough of the required talents [including "social skills"!] and/or 3. not enough time. It is time-consuming enough having to find and direct models, setup, lighting etc. for stills images. And bad enough to post process a few hundred or 2000 stills RAWs after some event. No desire whatsoever having to deal with moving images. And for short clips of your kids playing or in vacation on the beach, any cameraphone "4k video" will do.
> 
> I would really, really like to see a test of it in practice. Say, Canon EOS R in 2 nearly identical versions, 1 with video recording, one without. The one without at about 10-20% lower price for less functionality. . I am willing to bet that 80% of unit sales would be for the non-video version. Unfortunately we don't have unit sales numbers for Sony A7 / R / S models. I think A7S models are less than 10% of total units (per camera generation).




Ok....I do understand your point....But what I don´t understand is this....You do realize that you are buying High end cameras! Most of it are Professional cameras or semi-professional, or prosumers!!!! What a heck....You are demanding High end cameras to have enthusiastics level specs but with the same quality of high end cameras....In my perspective that´s wrong! It´s just like to buy a Ferrari but to ask Ferrari not to put so many power in the car because you don´t use it! That´s just not make sense! Come on...Who buys a 3000$ camera? Either is a professional, or someone who has a lot of money! For my point of view, if you are an enthusiastic of photography and you don´t have a lot of money, it´s just no sense at all! You have cheaper cameras that can do stills much better than video at a very lower price! 
Make no mistakes, I am not judging you, or anyone! Everybody has the freedom of their choices! But no way you are going to see a professional complain that the cameras make video and stills at the same time with quality! Because nowadays everybody uses video and stills! 
I have started as a photographer, nowadays my incoming is 60% photohraphy 40% video and why? Because i can! Because tecnology as evoluted and gave me a 2 in 1! If this cameras don´t exist, i would find it hard that today I was making money with video, because good cameras are really expensive! That´s my point! Again, i understand your point, but it doesn´te make too many sense to ask for high end cameras not to have what the market demands! I wouldn´t be shocked if Canon make a new camera with no video incorporated, but i am quite sure that the price wouldn´t be so different and the market of that kind of camera would be very short.....


----------



## 4fun (Dec 4, 2018)

i have no problem, with some cameras being video only or hybrid video+stills. But i also want to have a choice of "pure stills" cameras. Anywhere from entry level to "hi-end / pro grade". 

Also: current EOS R is nowhere near "hi end". It is nothing but an overpriced, mirrorfree 6D III, entry level.


----------



## Go Wild (Dec 4, 2018)

4fun said:


> i have no problem, with some cameras being video only or hybrid video+stills. But i also want to have a choice of "pure stills" cameras. Anywhere from entry level to "hi-end / pro grade".
> 
> Also: current EOS R is nowhere near "hi end". It is nothing but an overpriced, mirrorfree 6D III, entry level.



Why not? A camera that has a C-log, that has even better specs than the Canon 5d mkIV! Why not a high end camera? What is a high end camera? It´s not a pro body I agree with that, but for me, definitely this camera falls down in the high end, or prosumer body! I do believe Canon will make a cheaper version and that one yes, will be pointed for enthusiastics. Also do believe that they will do 2 more cameras that fit the professional line. But this one, definitely a high end camera! And boy, yes, Canon EOS R is a fantastic camera! I do think it is a little overpriced, and the price should be around 2000$. But is a hell of a camera, Canon did a great job in this! Although it just not fit my expectations or needs, but for stills? Boy, it´s a great camera!

Well, I tell you again, i do respect your opinion and believe me, I do understand it, but I don´t think Canon will make such camera, especially in a lower price perspective... No way we will see a mirrorless EOS R with no video!


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 4, 2018)

Think about how a mirrorless camera works. When it is running, it is continuously shooting video and displaying it on a screen. When you push record, it starts recording that data stream. When you take a picture, it stops the video stream, takes a still image, and then starts up the video stream again.

In other words, a mirrorless stills camera is a video camera that can be interrupted to take a still image. To not allow the user to record that video stream is a lot like Apple offering a special iPhone (at a higher price) where you can’t use any phone functions. It is not going to happen!


----------



## crazyrunner33 (Dec 4, 2018)

4fun said:


> i have no problem, with some cameras being video only or hybrid video+stills. But i also want to have a choice of "pure stills" cameras. Anywhere from entry level to "hi-end / pro grade".
> 
> Also: current EOS R is nowhere near "hi end". It is nothing but an overpriced, mirrorfree 6D III, entry level.



Those days are long gone. Even the medium format photography cameras include video features because the sensor and hardware they're buying is designed to be able to do both. A camera is an image sensor with a recording devices, and the off the shelf recording devices are cheap and powerful thanks to smartphones. If you want a truly photography only device that can't record video, you'll have to rely on used devices or film.


----------



## 4fun (Dec 4, 2018)

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 (Dec 4, 2018)

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 (Dec 4, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> 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 (Dec 5, 2018)

4fun said:


> 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 (Dec 5, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> 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 (Dec 5, 2018)

4fun said:


> 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
> ...


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 (Dec 5, 2018)

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 (Dec 5, 2018)

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 (Dec 5, 2018)

4fun said:


> 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
> ...



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 (Dec 5, 2018)

crazyrunner33 said:


> 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 (Dec 5, 2018)

4fun said:


> 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 (Dec 5, 2018)

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 (Dec 5, 2018)

@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 (Dec 5, 2018)

4fun said:


> @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 (Dec 5, 2018)

4fun said:


> *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 (Dec 5, 2018)

"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 (Dec 5, 2018)

4fun said:


> "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 (Dec 6, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> 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...


----------

