# 4K Video Capture Coming to the EOS 5D Mark IV? [CR1]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jul 18, 2014)

```
<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/07/4k-video-capture-coming-to-the-eos-5d-mark-iv-cr1/"></g:plusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/07/4k-video-capture-coming-to-the-eos-5d-mark-iv-cr1/">Tweet</a></div>
<p>The EOS 5D Mark IV received a mention recently as possibly being announced in early 2015. One of the features mentioned as a possibility is 4K video capture. Although, I’m pretty sure every future Canon DSLR is going to be rumored to shoot 4K video.</p>
<p><strong>CR’s Take

</strong>If the EOS 5D Mark IV is coming in early 2015 as this rumor suggests, then I cannot see 4K being a part of the feature set. I don’t think we’ll see 4K video recording in a “prosumer” level DSLR from Canon until the technology moves down the Cinema EOS line.</p>
<p>I asked someone in the know recently if Canon had market research on who buys the EOS 5D Mark III and for what purpose. I was told that the videographer focused purchaser of the EOS 5D Mark III was less than 10% of the total sales. The camera is, and has always been, for the still photographer.</p>
<p>If Canon wants to grow in cinema and 4K capture, and they do, then they have a whole new line of cameras that is one generation into its existence to add these and other features to at various price points.</p>
<p>My 2 cents anyway…. :)</p>
<p>Source: [<a href="http://www.canonwatch.com/canon-eos-5d-mark-iv-come-4k/" target="_blank">CW</a>] via [<a href="http://blog.planet5d.com/2014/07/canon-5d-mark-iv-might-feature-4k-video/?hvid=4bop0K" target="_blank">P5D</a>]</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 18, 2014)

I tend to agree with that. Pro level 4K is a far cry from the low end 4K that some cameras claim. It does not really matter if its there or not to me, after all, I don't have to use it, and, if its going to sell more cameras, then that will drop the price.

There are a lot of people who think they want video in a DSLR, but the number who actually do it on a commercial basis is pretty limited.


----------



## brianftpc (Jul 18, 2014)

I think putting 4k in a sub 4,000 camera would cause canon to become its own competition with their cinema line of cameras. Im sure they will PURPOSELY handicap it and the 1Dx mkII in some way to stop this from happening. For example the 1Dx has compressed video out through its HDMI port and I therefor cant do a live video stream with it because the image is cropped. I am in that low percentage that does video with their DSLR however I dont give a damn about 4K. I care about 1080p low light and continuous autofocus. I feel like at the moment 4K is just a gimic or part of a spec war just to match what the competition has. I dont have a single client that can watch 4k and its surprising how many dont even have a blu-ray player.

I believe the Sony Alpha a7S and Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH4 will force canon's hand to put 4K into their cheaper cameras for competition's sake. Im glad theres some actually competition to force canon to make some decent improvements instead of letting them try to pull every dollar they can out of your pockets with very small improvements from generation to generation. However 4k is not an upgrade that matters to me at all. I currently own a 1Dx and if the 1Dx mkII has continuous video autofocus and equal or better low light capability I will be in line for a preorder.


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Jul 18, 2014)

Hmm... Hello 1 TB CF Cards!


----------



## geonix (Jul 19, 2014)

brianftpc said:


> I think putting 4k in a sub 4,000 camera would cause canon to become its own competition with their cinema line of cameras. Im sure they will PURPOSELY handicap it and the 1Dx mkII in some way to stop this from happening. For example the 1Dx has compressed video out through its HDMI port and I therefor cant do a live video stream with it because the image is cropped. I am in that low percentage that does video with their DSLR however I dont give a damn about 4K. I care about 1080p low light and continuous autofocus. I feel like at the moment 4K is just a gimic or part of a spec war just to match what the competition has. I dont have a single client that can watch 4k and its surprising how many dont even have a blu-ray player.
> 
> I believe the Sony Alpha a7S and Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH4 will force canon's hand to put 4K into their cheaper cameras for competition's sake. Im glad theres some actually competition to force canon to make some decent improvements instead of letting them try to pull every dollar they can out of your pockets with very small improvements from generation to generation. However 4k is not an upgrade that matters to me at all. I currently own a 1Dx and if the 1Dx mkII has continuous video autofocus and equal or better low light capability I will be in line for a preorder.



I agree, especially on the second part. All the time people talk about canon not wanting to create competion with their own EOS C lineup and therefore restraining from putting too much high-end features into their prosumer (or whatever) cameras. 
If canon really thinks that way, they are not very clever. The biggest competitors to canon are not their own products. But Nikon, Sony, Pentax and Panasonic. If all others put 1080p 60fps (or soon 4k) as standard in their cameras, canon would be stupid not to follow up. Regardless of how long they planned to 'protect' ther high-price products.

We will soon see how canon positions the 7D replacement in the market. On viedeo features I hope it will finally provide 1080p 60fps. On 4k I also agree with brianftpc.


----------



## dash2k8 (Jul 19, 2014)

My company was an early adopter of shooting video on Canon DSLRs (5D2, 7D, then 650D, 70D...) and invested a lot of money into this for great results. But now our cameras are looking like Ford Model T's compared to the Ferrari's coming from other brands (Sony's A7S, Panasonic's GH4). It pains us to see Canon so complacent in an area that they pioneered. Now it's not even an option to stay with Canon. For less money we can get much better video with the GH4 and A7S, and we're going to switch soon.

Some may argue that these DSLRs weren't made for video in the first place. That's sour grape talk. Look at the huge market of video accessories that the 5D2 created and tell me it's not a segment that's worth exploring at a competitive price point.

We'll still stay with Canon for stills since there are no complaints there. But there are clearly better options for video.


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 19, 2014)

dilbert said:


> > I asked someone in the know recently if Canon had market research on who buys the EOS 5D Mark III and for what purpose. I was told that the videographer focused purchaser of the EOS 5D Mark III was less than 10% of the total sales. The camera is, and has always been, for the still photographer.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I don't know..... but the percentage of 5D mark 1 sales for video was 0 ....


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jul 19, 2014)

RustyTheGeek said:


> Hmm... Hello 1 TB CF Cards!



Nah, it will take way less space than Magic Lantern RAW does. One just hopes they don't cripple the crap out of it and that ML RAW on 5D3 isn't overall better than 4k on 5D4. Canon has been going for a very nasty, fake, plasticky and soft look SOOC, it needs to end.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jul 19, 2014)

dash2k8 said:


> My company was an early adopter of shooting video on Canon DSLRs (5D2, 7D, then 650D, 70D...) and invested a lot of money into this for great results. But now our cameras are looking like Ford Model T's compared to the Ferrari's coming from other brands (Sony's A7S, Panasonic's GH4). It pains us to see Canon so complacent in an area that they pioneered. Now it's not even an option to stay with Canon. For less money we can get much better video with the GH4 and A7S, and we're going to switch soon.
> 
> Some may argue that these DSLRs weren't made for video in the first place. That's sour grape talk. Look at the huge market of video accessories that the 5D2 created and tell me it's not a segment that's worth exploring at a competitive price point.
> 
> We'll still stay with Canon for stills since there are no complaints there. But there are clearly better options for video.



Exactly, Canon is bean counting themselves out of the revolution they accidentally created.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jul 19, 2014)

dilbert said:


> > I asked someone in the know recently if Canon had market research on who buys the EOS 5D Mark III and for what purpose. I was told that the videographer focused purchaser of the EOS 5D Mark III was less than 10% of the total sales. The camera is, and has always been, for the still photographer.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



One thing that seemed interesting was that as soon as ML RAW came out the 5D3 stopped falling in price and went back to full MSRP for a while.

Also had they shipped it with better video to start I imagine it would have been more than 10%, with ease.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jul 19, 2014)

If it is 4K, They will make loads of money but If its not, They have much more to lose.


----------



## ecka (Jul 19, 2014)

brianftpc said:


> I think putting 4k in a sub 4,000 camera would cause canon to become its own competition with their cinema line of cameras. Im sure they will PURPOSELY handicap it and the 1Dx mkII in some way to stop this from happening. For example the 1Dx has compressed video out through its HDMI port and I therefor cant do a live video stream with it because the image is cropped. I am in that low percentage that does video with their DSLR however I dont give a damn about 4K. I care about 1080p low light and continuous autofocus. I feel like at the moment 4K is just a gimic or part of a spec war just to match what the competition has. I dont have a single client that can watch 4k and its surprising how many dont even have a blu-ray player.
> 
> I believe the Sony Alpha a7S and Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH4 will force canon's hand to put 4K into their cheaper cameras for competition's sake. Im glad theres some actually competition to force canon to make some decent improvements instead of letting them try to pull every dollar they can out of your pockets with very small improvements from generation to generation. However 4k is not an upgrade that matters to me at all. I currently own a 1Dx and if the 1Dx mkII has continuous video autofocus and equal or better low light capability I will be in line for a preorder.



4K down-sampled to 1080p makes massive difference compared to Canon's ordinary 1080p and makes it look like an up-sampled 720p. There is a simple reason for that, dividing resolution by 4 almost eliminates the softness from false color produced by Bayer filter color-guessing technology (some call it - spatial resolution). So, you don't need a blu-ray player, or even a 4K display to enjoy UHD goodness . It's not a gimic.


----------



## InterMurph (Jul 19, 2014)

brianftpc said:


> I think putting 4k in a sub 4,000 camera would cause canon to become its own competition with their cinema line of cameras.


They don't want to cannibalize the sales of their expensive cinema cameras.

That's a common strategy, and the companies that have used that strategy all have one thing in common: their sales were cannibalized by their competition, instead of by themselves.

Panasonic and Sony are going after Canon video shooters. If Canon won't give us 4K, or even sharp 1080p, then we will get it elsewhere. I am about to buy a GH4 for my video work, even though I won't be able to use my L lenses with it.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 19, 2014)

dilbert said:


> > I asked someone in the know recently if Canon had market research on who buys the EOS 5D Mark III and for what purpose. I was told that the videographer focused purchaser of the EOS 5D Mark III was less than 10% of the total sales. The camera is, and has always been, for the still photographer.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



There were a ton of 5D MK II's sold because of video, and the first thing that most users found was that they could not edit the files, even viewing then took some high end hardware.

However, to be fair, the comment had to do with the number of Cinema photographers, not the number making home videos, or doing it as a hobby. I think that the total number of those wanting to do DSLR video was high.

Its also likely that many would rush out and buy a 4K camera, and repeat the cycle of not being able to view or edit it on ordinary home computers. But, the number buying one for cinema production would be small because there are now many excellent options where there were no low cost large format options when the MK II arrived.


----------



## Policar (Jul 19, 2014)

dash2k8 said:


> My company was an early adopter of shooting video on Canon DSLRs (5D2, 7D, then 650D, 70D...) and invested a lot of money into this for great results. But now our cameras are looking like Ford Model T's compared to the Ferrari's coming from other brands (Sony's A7S, Panasonic's GH4). It pains us to see Canon so complacent in an area that they pioneered. Now it's not even an option to stay with Canon. For less money we can get much better video with the GH4 and A7S, and we're going to switch soon.
> 
> Some may argue that these DSLRs weren't made for video in the first place. That's sour grape talk. Look at the huge market of video accessories that the 5D2 created and tell me it's not a segment that's worth exploring at a competitive price point.
> 
> We'll still stay with Canon for stills since there are no complaints there. But there are clearly better options for video.



Canon didn't abandon their video market at all. They have the most successful line of cinema cameras going (no, I don't have sales figures, but based on what I see at and hear from rental houses and owner/ops). The C300 is very affordable but if you are looking to buy multiple bodies the C100 is ok, too...

I don't see why people think Canon has abandoned this market. They haven't at all. The video quality on the next round of 7Ds is irrelevant, although they will be used as b cams, because they are already good enough for broadcast for stealing shots. The majority of the broadcast market will go to Arri with Canons on the low end and as additional unit cameras.

The video quality of the C500 successor and C300 successor will be what to watch... this is where Canon's "cinema" video market is and if the C500 is excellent they might be able to reclaim a bit of market share from Arri, which controls both broadcast and theatrical. 

The C100 is the low end of its owner/op market, displacing the 5D II, which accidentally catered to this market, and is popular for wedding videography and low end corporate/web.

The A7s and GH4 are probably fine hybrid cameras, but it seems odd to switch when Canon has the healthiest ecosystem and best (and uniquely, delightfully single-purpose) products and by far the cheapest professional cinema camera with the C300. (The F5 is not cheap!)


----------



## brianwallace21 (Jul 19, 2014)

My hunch is that Canon will take the Sony route and go with 4K over HDMI out and skip the internal recording completely. The GH4 has internal, but it's highly compressed 4:2:0. Even Canon knows that H.264 internal recording is less than ideal and added an all-I frame format on the 5DIII and 70D specifically for video. My hunch is they put 4K in via HDMI and save themselves the hassle of high bit rate video. 

Also - Canon does have a 4K option out there - the 1D C is a 4K internal recording camera - granted, it comes at a steep price.


----------



## klickflip (Jul 19, 2014)

My experience is 5D III is for stills more than video , most other pro photographers I know have a 5D III or 1Dx and Video friends are happy with their 5D II. Some might get a 6D as replacement or backup and many have 7D as B cam including many midsize production campaniles but when it comes to mid to high end commercial productions they all use Red, and for many docus, run n gun or lower end productions its quicker and cheaper to use a sony or panasonic dedicated HD video cam . 

However I am sensor jealous of the sony 36 MP sensor. Recently hired D800 for a job and shot at iso 2500 and the results were much much better than using a 5D III, though normally I shoot iso 100-400 and tests I did for tonal gradient sensitive still life the D800 is great ... however Canon is still way ahead because of its L pimes nothing nikon has quite gives the special look of a 1.2 L in tests I did and not just wide open but i won't bore you about that. ( yet to test the Nikon 58mm 1.4 or sigma 50 1.4 art , that looks promising ) 

Interestingly most of my video friends have passed on canon L and gone for 70s / 80s nikon & zeiss primes or for more of a look older olympus & minolta primes that flare and are quite soft. 

Stuck in hard place these days, would love the D800 sensor in canon but cannot give up my L primes for anything. 
Clients are asking for bigger files these days so often a 5D III file is seen as lower res, which may force my hand to a D810 next year if Canon does not bring out anything comparable. 

Hopefully 4K uncompresed video and more importantly 40MP and 13 + stops DR for the 5D III.... but may be a long wait.


----------



## dash2k8 (Jul 19, 2014)

> Canon didn't abandon their video market at all. They have the most successful line of cinema cameras going (no, I don't have sales figures, but based on what I see at and hear from rental houses and owner/ops). The C300 is very affordable but if you are looking to buy multiple bodies the C100 is ok, too...
> 
> I don't see why people think Canon has abandoned this market. They haven't at all. The video quality on the next round of 7Ds is irrelevant, although they will be used as b cams, because they are already good enough for broadcast for stealing shots. The majority of the broadcast market will go to Arri with Canons on the low end and as additional unit cameras.
> 
> ...



Thank you for your reply. Yes, upgrading to the C series is definitely an option, but my gripe/complaint is that Canon has stopped innovating their DSLR video capabilities. They teased us with the 5D2 and then continuously dropped the ball on every single DSLR since on the video front. Not everyone can afford C series cameras and cine lenses. Why couldn't Canon continue the revolution they started? What was wrong with making the 5D3 even more awesome for video? I do not believe Canon thinks video is unimportant. I think they're just protecting their more expensive products by gutting the lower-end ones. Our company is not a full movie studio so moving up to an army of C300's isn't feasible (a few C100's, perhaps). IMO, Canon has indeed abandoned the DLSR video market in favor of greener pastures (can't blame them for wanting to make a profit). If Sony and Panasonic can do this (and they also make pro cameras), why can't Canon?

When I referred to the A7S and GH4, I was purely referring to them as video cameras (serious still shooters would wisely go with other options). These two absolutely kill the 5D3 and have advantages over the 1DX (low light / continuous autofocus / better audio solutions / 4k 4:2:2 recording).


----------



## dash2k8 (Jul 19, 2014)

wallybarthman said:


> My hunch is that Canon will take the Sony route and go with 4K over HDMI out and skip the internal recording completely. The GH4 has internal, but it's highly compressed 4:2:0. Even Canon knows that H.264 internal recording is less than ideal and added an all-I frame format on the 5DIII and 70D specifically for video. My hunch is they put 4K in via HDMI and save themselves the hassle of high bit rate video.
> 
> Also - Canon does have a 4K option out there - the 1D C is a 4K internal recording camera - granted, it comes at a steep price.



I'm sure you know this already, just wanted to reiterate that the GH4 has 4:2:2 over HDMI.


----------



## Policar (Jul 19, 2014)

dash2k8 said:


> > Canon didn't abandon their video market at all. They have the most successful line of cinema cameras going (no, I don't have sales figures, but based on what I see at and hear from rental houses and owner/ops). The C300 is very affordable but if you are looking to buy multiple bodies the C100 is ok, too...
> >
> > I don't see why people think Canon has abandoned this market. They haven't at all. The video quality on the next round of 7Ds is irrelevant, although they will be used as b cams, because they are already good enough for broadcast for stealing shots. The majority of the broadcast market will go to Arri with Canons on the low end and as additional unit cameras.
> >
> ...



The 5D Mark III was definitely designed with decent video in mind. If it weren't for Canon's poor debayer algorithm (which plagues their JPEGS, too) it would have really great video, maybe the best of any affordable dSLR. You can see the potential in what people do with the raw video. It's not bad at all, just soft and without a lot of extra features.

Other leaders in the stills market have poor video, too: the D800 is by all accounts not excellent. Fuji makes amazing cameras, but they have poor video. Leica has poor video. I haven't heard great things about Pentax's video.

Canon had surprisingly success with the 5D Mark II and split its line: dSLR-style video cameras and dSLRs. Canon makes amazing cinema cameras... and clearly the form factor is inspired by dSLRs. Other market leaders make video-specific cameras, too. The Alexa is video only. The red (not doing quite as well) is marketed as both stills and video but is really just video. Sony's professional offerings are video only.

Sony and Panasonic are not market leaders so they have to make alternative and hybrid products. Both have major flaws... the GH4 has skew and poor audio; the A7s has TONS of skew and poor battery life. Both are ergonomically awkward. If you're a business and you can afford a $2500 camera but not a $5000 camera, that's a deeper issue than Sony having slightly better video quality than Canon. (Because the 1080p out of the A7s is not leagues ahead of the 5D Mark III; it has much, much more skew, slightly better resolution, and significantly better DR.)

Just get a C300.  

It has a lot of awesome features way beyond what the 5D Mark II offered.


----------



## nchaparro (Jul 19, 2014)

Canon unfortunately underestimated the degree of innovation that companies like Sony are capable of. So they started this "cinema" line, put in a few bells and whistles and the price tag to go along with it. I don't mind that they charge a premium for the C100,300,500 because they are strict video cameras. But when they take a 1dx body, and unlock it to do 4k and then charge 10k for it. It's a little bit ridiculous. The 1DC doesn't belong in the cinema line, its ergonomically not a strict video camera, and frankly will be squashed by the competition in the next year or so in specs and price. I'd like to see them start a new line of video centric dslrs. Let them do internal 4k, 4:2:2 for $4K. That would sell like hot cakes. Obviously they would have to cripple them in some way as to still make their cinema line attractive for the more serious cinematographer. Ergonomically the cinema series would already be worth the upgrade.


----------



## Policar (Jul 19, 2014)

nchaparro said:


> Canon unfortunately underestimated the degree of innovation that companies like Sony are capable of. So they started this "cinema" line, put in a few bells and whistles and the price tag to go along with it. I don't mind that they charge a premium for the C100,300,500 because they are strict video cameras. But when they take a 1dx body, and unlock it to do 4k and then charge 10k for it. It's a little bit ridiculous. The 1DC doesn't belong in the cinema line, its ergonomically not a strict video camera, and frankly will be squashed by the competition in the next year or so in specs and price. I'd like to see them start a new line of video centric dslrs. Let them do internal 4k, 4:2:2 for $4K. That would sell like hot cakes. Obviously they would have to cripple them in some way as to still make their cinema line attractive for the more serious cinematographer. Ergonomically the cinema series would already be worth the upgrade.



Canon are currently market leaders in high end stills and low end professional "cinematic" video. Their current cameras already sell extremely well. The 5D Mark III, C300, and C100 outsell all direct competitors (based on what little reliable information is available regarding marketshare). Lenses sell great because bodies sell well. It's as healthy an ecosystem as any company can have in this difficult industry.

Also, what you consider bells and whistles most owners and operators consider to be awesome ergonomics, a great image, multiple professional gammas, and a ton of features (EVF, scopes, good audio inputs, etc.) that you'd pay a lot to add on to a dSLR. How much have you used the CX00 cameras to be such an expert on their feature set, which is extensive and really powerful?

Why would Canon undercut itself in markets in which it is already the leader and already selling cameras with high prices and presumably high margins? Sony and Panasonic are undercutting Canon and that is why you see the better price/performance there... If you want what they offer, buy it. Canon won't offer that line of video dSLRs you want until Sony and Panasonic start eating up their market share so, maybe in 5-10 years, not now. Panasonic already offers it. Why not buy it from Panasonic? At the worst it will encourage Canon to make the camera you really want.

If there's any market they need to address it's the high end. The C500 is not a serious Alexa competitor. The C500 Mark II needs to be. This is a high margin, mature market and it is completely controlled by one camera.


----------



## Daniel Flather (Jul 19, 2014)

InterMurph said:


> brianftpc said:
> 
> 
> > I think putting 4k in a sub 4,000 camera would cause canon to become its own competition with their cinema line of cameras.
> ...




"If you don’t cannibalize yourself, someone else will"

—Steve Jobs.


----------



## nchaparro (Jul 19, 2014)

Policar said:


> nchaparro said:
> 
> 
> > Canon unfortunately underestimated the degree of innovation that companies like Sony are capable of. So they started this "cinema" line, put in a few bells and whistles and the price tag to go along with it. I don't mind that they charge a premium for the C100,300,500 because they are strict video cameras. But when they take a 1dx body, and unlock it to do 4k and then charge 10k for it. It's a little bit ridiculous. The 1DC doesn't belong in the cinema line, its ergonomically not a strict video camera, and frankly will be squashed by the competition in the next year or so in specs and price. I'd like to see them start a new line of video centric dslrs. Let them do internal 4k, 4:2:2 for $4K. That would sell like hot cakes. Obviously they would have to cripple them in some way as to still make their cinema line attractive for the more serious cinematographer. Ergonomically the cinema series would already be worth the upgrade.
> ...



Indeed they are market leaders as of now, but as I pointed out the 1DC doesn't belong where it is and at the price tag, when you have an a7s and GH4 at a significantly lower cost producing great imagery. It won't be long before one of these companies does get it right (much sooner than 5-10 years) with internal 4k , better codec. Regardless of where Canon is now, and how well their gear sells everyone else is catching up quickly. Sony arguably has better sensor technology than Canon as of now. I do envision and predict that Canon will release an excellent video capable dslr in the near future, one that competes with the current offerings. Canon has even stated itself that they need to improve the video on their dslr offerings.


----------



## Policar (Jul 19, 2014)

nchaparro said:


> Policar said:
> 
> 
> > nchaparro said:
> ...



The 1dc delivers built in 4k with acceptable skew and a standard lens mount with native cinema lenses. The gh4 has one of these things... A7s has none. And it's also a top of the line $7k stills camera. The only camera I'd take over my mark 3 is a medium format back... Only cameras I'd take over my c100 would be a c300 or Alexa/Amira. Canon offers the best gear for the price and it sells accordingly. 

Fwiw Canon has been on top longer than Apple ever has. Windows and Android beat Apple's OS market share even now.

If you disagree, buy elsewhere. Not everyone can afford the best, fewer still are willing to pay for it.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 19, 2014)

If you are a pro cinema photographer, customer support is a huge factor. Sony forces customers to wait weeks or months for consumer camera support, while Canon has set up shop in Hollywood for almost instant service. They have not only not abandoned the segment, they are moving in in a big way.

Look for new dedicated cinema products, the consumer and prosumer stuff is fine, but they are indeed looking to bring in a lot more $$ by producing cameras designed primarily for video.


----------



## Clayton (Jul 19, 2014)

There is much more going on here and its market wide. High quality images are rolling out accross all price points now. There was a time when the diffirence between a $40,000 movie camera body and a $2,000 camera body (in image quality alone) was pretty wide. We are now about 90% to a place where the diffference will be much more subtle. In that market, a market where images will all look very close in quality from camera to camera, how will Canon or anyone else distinguish themselves from the pac?
* Physical/industrial design?
* Feature sets/buttons and knobs?
* Audio?
* Etc?

BUT the bottom line is how will the images look at delivery?

I predict once they are graded and aside from the bullet points above it wont matter much what camera you buy.


----------



## brianftpc (Jul 19, 2014)

ecka said:


> 4K down-sampled to 1080p makes massive difference compared to Canon's ordinary 1080p and makes it look like an up-sampled 720p. There is a simple reason for that, dividing resolution by 4 almost eliminates the softness from false color produced by Bayer filter color-guessing technology (some call it - spatial resolution). So, you don't need a blu-ray player, or even a 4K display to enjoy UHD goodness . It's not a gimic.


would shooting in 4K not hurt the low light image quality. i thought absorbing light on the same size sensor with more pixels would require better lighting conditions to match the picture quality of 1080P at the same ISO setting on the same sensor. I have read reviews on sony's new ENG 3CCD cameras that are entry level 4K and people talk about how terrible the image quality is if you dont have perfect lighting when shooting in 4K because of the scenario I described above. I dont want to raise my ISO to compensate for 4K. I want better low light 1080P so I can lower my ISO and have better image quality at a resolution people will actually be viewing it in.


----------



## brianftpc (Jul 19, 2014)

InterMurph said:


> brianftpc said:
> 
> 
> > I think putting 4k in a sub 4,000 camera would cause canon to become its own competition with their cinema line of cameras.
> ...


I think they will put 4k in the 5D mkIV and 1Dx mkII. I just think it will be handicapped in some way to keep me from caring about it being there and still force people to buy their cinema line. I think it will be there for the sake of it being in the specs because of what Sony and Panasonic have done


----------



## 9VIII (Jul 19, 2014)

Policar said:


> Also, what you consider bells and whistles most owners and operators consider to be awesome ergonomics, a great image, multiple professional gammas, and a ton of features (EVF, scopes, good audio inputs, etc.) that you'd pay a lot to add on to a dSLR.



Along those lines, I don't think it would be difficult for Canon to differentiate between their SLR and dedicated video offerings. There's so much stuff you can do to include "4K" on the box without encroaching on the professional video line.

My bet is the 5DIV will have 4K.


----------



## Policar (Jul 19, 2014)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> If you are a pro cinema photographer, customer support is a huge factor. Sony forces customers to wait weeks or months for consumer camera support, while Canon has set up shop in Hollywood for almost instant service. They have not only not abandoned the segment, they are moving in in a big way.
> 
> Look for new dedicated cinema products, the consumer and prosumer stuff is fine, but they are indeed looking to bring in a lot more $$ by producing cameras designed primarily for video.
> [/]
> ...


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Jul 19, 2014)

5D MK IV with 4K, sounds good to me ... it opens up a lot of creative cropping options in video mode in PP, for me and still end up with full HD footage.


----------



## dash2k8 (Jul 19, 2014)

"Sony and Panasonic are not market leaders so they have to make alternative and hybrid products. Both have major flaws... the GH4 has skew and poor audio; the A7s has TONS of skew and poor battery life. Both are ergonomically awkward. If you're a business and you can afford a $2500 camera but not a $5000 camera, that's a deeper issue than Sony having slightly better video quality than Canon. (Because the 1080p out of the A7s is not leagues ahead of the 5D Mark III; it has much, much more skew, slightly better resolution, and significantly better DR.)"

I assume by skew you mean rolling shutter (correct me if I'm wrong). For me that is not an issue, which is why we are considering the Sony and Panasonic, but the better resolution and great DR at a MUCH LOWER POINT breaks the deal for me. The short battery life is not an issue, either.

Any upgrade path isn't going to consist of buying one camera body; it's going to be a big migration. It's why we hung on to the Canon platform for so long: to get a consist look. We can buy two C100's or four A7S for the same money... Figure the extra cost of more expensive batteries and accessories, and for us the math is very straight-forward. I totally agree that people should get the C series is they can afford it. For us it doesn't make sense.

The GH4's audio is obviously not production-level, but the grip that can be purchased is much better than the built-in stuff on the 5D3. (All bets are off when we start using external audio boxes.) It would be unfair to compare GH4's audio solution to the C series.

I enjoy your thoughtful and educated responses. All I'm saying is that at the DSLR level, Canon is no longer even a consideration.


----------



## Policar (Jul 19, 2014)

dash2k8 said:


> All I'm saying is that at the DSLR level, Canon is no longer even a consideration.



Except for stills, which is, like, what dSLRS are made for.

And rolling shutter is a HUGE issue for most. If it's not for you... lucky you!

Yes, it's no fun buying a $6500 C100 and a $3500 5D Mark III (what I paid when I bought them) when an A7s can get close to both for $2500, but each Canon is the best in class for the price. Best price/performance... maybe the Sony.

But for me the rolling shutter is way too strong. Looks cheesy during pans. Gives a gross look. But if you keep the camera still and need low light it looks AMZING... I do want one.


----------



## rowlandw (Jul 19, 2014)

I might buy a 5D-4 "lite" - with no video! (if priced much less than the video version.)


----------



## Busted Knuckles (Jul 19, 2014)

In general, there is an accelerating rate of change in all electronics. 1st step is make something on a big chip, redesign the schematic to fit in ever smaller spaces, add more other somethings that have been similarly redesigned into small space all on the same size chip of the original whatever.

As Daniel and Starbucks noted - cannibalize yourself before someone else does. There is a real difference between Prosumer and Pro level 4k (soon 6k). The cost of equipment for the big productions is a very small portion of the overall budget so it is the best available at the time. Independent vid producers (lots of them) trying to get as close to the big budget output w/o the budget.

Is not production is easier to put together 1 assembly line and pump out a bunch of really functional chips than have 4 production lines with 4 chip designs? Takes someone w/ more expertise than me to answer.

There are a few thousand shooters at the world cup, olympics, etc and the major guys all have mini warehouses of stuff there for their shooters. Canon had a brilliant move to paint their lense white - you can see them at all the events and I get a shot of confidence that I shoot w/ the same stuff "the pros do"

All of this is to point that this is a retail business that has a couple of segments. P&S and dedicated "consumer" camcorder evaporated in less than 4 years (age of my granddaughter  ). Consumer level HD is now the cell phone too.

The high end will be the high end and the mid-level i.e. Prosumer will get more and more functional (hooray for us). HBO used 5dII to vid the tight action shots with the horses in their series as losing a $2,500 camera was chump change compared to the $30,$50,$60k high end cameras they used for the stationary camera shots. They didn't use just 5dII for stationary camera shots on purpose. The 5dII was "good enough" for the tight/dangerous action shots but not for the stationary work.

The roiling and boiling will always be in the "mid level." Competition is always frustrating the product line planners by putting that next bit of function at price point X ahead of schedule.

Imagine if Canon really dropped the bomb on the mid-level and split it into 2 segments, the "mid high" a $10k camera w/ 6k vid, 0 rolling shutter, and 5:5:3 (or whatever whacked out number would be off the charts), a terabyte CF/CD card, with easy external recording options for Raw and offered it in both "C" and "D" body styles. Then "Mid Low" $3k ish, with 4k, minute amounts of rolling shutter, 4:4:2 or slightly better (perhaps even raw), in a "D" body style. Could Sony/Pano/Nikon even respond? 2-3 years latter there would be 0 competition? Canon would if they could. And within a few weeks - the high end would be even higher.

Canon doesn't' worry about the Independents not renting or buying C500s because 1Dc cannibalized the sale. They worry about the upgrade path to make it just worth it for you and me to retire our current and by the next mid-level camera. (And didn't even mention the MFT/APC sensor interplays).

Sometimes the product planners get it "right" and us consumers get a great set of functions at a good price point, sometimes they get it wrong on either end.


----------



## Cheryll (Jul 19, 2014)

The 4K in the 5dmk4 or 2DX is not interesting or possible for me.
What I want with this- I haven't a 4K TV and I don't want to by a 4K TV

More possible is:
Good video features with no less than DR from a7s (in video and still shot)
at the minimum 409000 ISO in real mode (not in extended)
pivoted live view 
small body


----------



## Dylan777 (Jul 19, 2014)

dilbert said:


> > I asked someone in the know recently if Canon had market research on who buys the EOS 5D Mark III and for what purpose. I was told that the videographer focused purchaser of the EOS 5D Mark III was less than 10% of the total sales. The camera is, and has always been, for the still photographer.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Speaking from minority group, I don't care about 4k or 8k. I *need & want * 5D 4 to perform extremly well in low light, faster frame rate, even more AF cross type and don't mind little DR improvement.


----------



## dolina (Jul 19, 2014)

I am soooo looking forward to this. I can finally retire my 5D Mark II!


----------



## niroren (Jul 19, 2014)

Previous Canon DSLRs recorded 1080p files in 720p quality.
Next Canon DSLRs will record 4k files in 1080p quality.
Then Canon will not cannibalize their EOS cinema line and I will move to Pana-Sony


----------



## Dick (Jul 19, 2014)

4K would be wasted on a damn DSLR. Video cameras are separate devices. Surely the price would also be bumped because of the pointless 4K addition.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jul 19, 2014)

They really need:

4k that is real 4k and not like 1080P

forget all the stupid DNR where they turn even ISO 100 to wax unless it's extreme contrast edges, we want natural 'grain' and detail and we don't want fine surface detail to be turned to mush from plasticky fake looking DNR!

we need 10bits not bits recorded internally, 10bits 4:4:4, compressed, detailed, 4k recorded internally would be great (4:2:2 at worst). (and it should allow 1080p RAW like ML)

and how about just building the zebras and focus 100% box and focus peaking in? basic stuff!


----------



## transpo1 (Jul 19, 2014)

Does Canon want to lose that 10% of video buyers? I don't think so- then their 5D sales go down 10%. 

4K isn't a fad like 3D was- it's here for the long run. Canon needs to take a lesson from Apple and cannibalize themselves (their Cinema EOS line) before someone else does it for them. 

Putting 4K and 1080p RAW in the next 5D is essential- otherwise, video shooters will be buying something else. 

And how many Cinema EOS buyers started out with a 5DII? A lot. Then they graduated to a C300. 

If the next generation of shooters starts out with a GH4 or A7S, they'll be much more inclined to graduate to a higher end Panasonic or Sony cinema camera. And whoops, then those C300 sales will start to drop, too.

I'm not being a pessimist here, and I'm not a Canon hater- I LOVE their products- the quality is just incredible. But they have to stop protecting Cinema EOS market share and start giving people what they want.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jul 20, 2014)

transpo1 said:


> Does Canon want to lose that 10% of video buyers? I don't think so- then their 5D sales go down 10%.
> 
> 4K isn't a fad like 3D was- it's here for the long run. Canon needs to take a lesson from Apple and cannibalize themselves (their Cinema EOS line) before someone else does it for them.
> 
> ...



+1

And video/film/movie guys tend to not sit around waiting as long as still shooters are willing to for new equipment.


----------



## 9VIII (Jul 20, 2014)

rowlandw said:


> I might buy a 5D-4 "lite" - with no video! (if priced much less than the video version.)



Remember how much of a discount people got for having no video on the Nikon Df?


----------



## dolina (Jul 20, 2014)

9VIII said:


> rowlandw said:
> 
> 
> > I might buy a 5D-4 "lite" - with no video! (if priced much less than the video version.)
> ...


A reason why big glass like the 800, 600, 500, 400/2.8, 300/2.8, 200/2.0 and 200-400/4.0 are expensive is because their production run are far far far fewer than say a 16-35/2.8, 24-70/2.8 or 70-200/2.8 IS.

So expect a higher price for a "lite".

And having no video whether it be 1080p, 4K or whatnot is like trying to sell a car without AC or a radio.


----------



## brianftpc (Jul 20, 2014)

transpo1 said:


> Does Canon want to lose that 10% of video buyers? I don't think so- then their 5D sales go down 10%.
> 
> 4K isn't a fad like 3D was- it's here for the long run. Canon needs to take a lesson from Apple and cannibalize themselves (their Cinema EOS line) before someone else does it for them.
> 
> ...


3D is a fad(gimic). I dont know anyone who buys a tv or projector bc its 3D. Now 3D just comes with it as a spec perk to one up or have that text on the box of their product to match another. You dont see anyone crying for 3D in their next DSLR or eos cinema do you or at least not enough to notice. 3D is something you take your kids to see at the movies just bc they think it is cool. 4k isnt a fad but it is a gimic when its something I wouldnt want to use bc of how bad it will look in low light at price points we are talking about. If I video a wedding in 4K(despite how terrible it will look bc we all know weddings have terrible lighting) how many people can watch it even if they have a 4K tv. I did a dance recital in May. Sold 40 videos. 1 Blu-RAY.....ONE!!!!! 39 DVDs. these people have a 1080p capable TV but nothing to play a blu-ray on(I bet their children do but they dont know it). Blue-ray was same price as DVD. Yes I can crop the 4K but Im still left with lower quality 1080P bc the low light is worse. more pixels on same size sensor=worse low light as compared to 1080P wouldnt it? I think in the next 2 years there will be a sharp increase in 4K tv sales simply because it will be at that 1,000-1,500 price point. but what about 4K media...4k media players. Im still waiting on people to adopt 1080P and thats why I want better 1080P NOW. I admit I dont know if current blu-ray players will play 4K. If so then that will speed up its adoption into mainstream. Im fine with 4K staying at a professional pricepoint(good quality 4K) because thats where it belongs. canon needs to focus on improving something that I can use to improve the quality of what I use to make a living with. I wont make more money bc my camera will do poor or semi decent 4K. 

I honestly think only the impulse buying uneducated consumer/prosumer will buy 1 dslr over the next simply bc it has 4K and the other doesnt. anyone who cares about the real world quality of the specs and what they could do with them will be worried about QUALITY. Theres a new sony 3CCD camera coming out thats 1080P for 4,999 and is suppose to have better low light and longer optical focal length than the previous generation. However Sony currently offers a 4K 60fps camera thats 4,498. why wouldnt I buy the 4K camera? number 1 the quality sucks and number 2 I cant sell it to anyone because they cant watch it.


----------



## Roger Jones (Jul 20, 2014)

4k Capture is not so much about 4k delivery currently. Its about producing higher quality 1080p by doing spatial and color oversampling Reselting in sharper images with higher color depth. We know from magic lantern that even the current generation sensors are capable of much higher quality than the stock firmware allows. The bottleneck in the currant models is the ancient CF card interface. I expect the next generation to adapt cfast that will allow higher bit rates, better codecs and larger files. Canon cinema is super35 format not full frame 35mm. People use those cameras for their image quality, long recording capability and pro sound inputs. A 4k dslr would not really compete with the c series products.


----------



## gjones5252 (Jul 21, 2014)

I am sorry but 4k is not a gimic. 4k is great for image stabilization and getting a far better downsampled 1080p image. I believe that 4k will be released into a smaller camera-ie below the 1dc. I am not saying there wont be a compromise but i dont think they can wait forever to release the 4k into a smaller camera body. 
I could see 4k in a 5d body and 2.5k in a smaller (7d) body.


----------



## AG (Jul 21, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> They really need:
> 
> 4k that is real 4k and not like 1080P
> 
> ...



What he said.

Although I'm not really fussed about RAW if they can improve the overall dynamic range.

Listening to people bitch about Canon not cannibalising their Cinema EOS line is all fine and dandy when it comes to the C100/300/500 but in my views the 1DC is fair game. 
Its basically a 1DX with a fancy firmware and (supposably a better heat sink, but not proven).
Kill that puppy off from the Cinema line up and put the features that you learned from there into the 1DX2 and 5D4.


----------



## transpo1 (Jul 21, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> They really need:
> 
> 4k that is real 4k and not like 1080P
> 
> ...



+1 here. Zebras and focus peaking are really needed. And compressed 4k and 1080p RAW please


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jul 21, 2014)

brianftpc said:


> I did a dance recital in May. Sold 40 videos. 1 Blu-RAY.....ONE!!!!! 39 DVDs. these people have a 1080p capable TV but nothing to play a blu-ray on



Sad and absurd. And the same people then go around telling everyone that there is no need for 4k since even 1080p barely looks better than SD.... HELLO because all you ever watch on your 1080P is out dated ancient SD crappy signals! Duh!

DVDs and crappy streaming. What a shame.
For a long time music and audio quality just got better and better, sadly, kids born today will never even know what decent audio and video quality was. They will be lucky to get Betamax quality.


----------



## iso79 (Jul 21, 2014)

Sigh, just give me a really good still camera Canon!


----------



## Valvebounce (Jul 22, 2014)

Hi LTRLI. 
It could be worse, they might only get VHS quality! ;D

Just a disposable comment please don't start a which is best war! 

Cheers Graham.



LetTheRightLensIn said:


> They will be lucky to get Betamax quality.


----------



## that1guyy (Jul 22, 2014)

If you don't care about video, stop crying. 

Video is not separate. Nobody buys handy cams and video cameras anymore. People also used to cry about cameras on phones. 

Video cameras are getting phased out and will cease to exist, except for dedicated broadcast or cinema cameras of course. But under a certain price point, stills and video is going to be in one device.It is not driving up the cost of your camera so please shut up.


----------



## dolina (Sep 11, 2014)

Fearless forecast for the 5D Mark IV

- Announcement will be made after March 2015. This will mark the 3rd year of the 5D Mark III.
- Faster CFast memory cards will replace slower CF memory cards to allow in-camera high quality 4K video.
- USB 3 interface.
- Inclusion of features from most of the Canon SLRs.
- Still single grip.


----------



## EOS AE1 (Sep 12, 2014)

The 5D MK IV needs 4K video.

Cheaper cameras offer 4K video and they are very popular with independend Videographer/Filmmaker.

Even when you don´t need the end result in 4K, shooting in 4K makes sense.
It helps with getting more details, greenscreen shooting etc.

Many Videographer would buy a 5D MK3 instead of a GH4 if only the 5D MK3 had 4K.

Now for the 5D MK3 it´s a bit much to wish for, given it´s age.
But when the 5D MK IV will not have 4K it´s a major letdown.


----------



## Besisika (Sep 12, 2014)

gjones5252 said:


> I am sorry but 4k is not a gimic. 4k is *great for image stabilization *and getting a far better downsampled 1080p image. I believe that 4k will be released into a smaller camera-ie below the 1dc. I am not saying there wont be a compromise but i dont think they can wait forever to release the 4k into a smaller camera body.
> I could see 4k in a 5d body and 2.5k in a smaller (7d) body.


This is the reason I am not too excited about the specs of the 7D II. Everything is great in it, except 4K.
Someone said once video is 25% stabilization, 25% focus and 50% voice.
This is most probably not true but not far from it. 4K helps a lot in stabilizing video in post.


----------



## 123Photog (Sep 13, 2014)

a camera like the 7D MK2, bought today to use it for 3-4 years, without 4K?
sorry but i have to pass.

i will put that money in a sock and wait for the 5D MK IV. until then i use a GH4.
would love to be able to use all my canon lenses on a canon body for 4K video!
but the GH4 works for now.


----------



## Mitch.Conner (Sep 14, 2014)

That certainly would be great, but the way I see it, I'm not due for a body upgrade until probably the Mark V.

I wonder what will come after 4k video? I think I heard of 6k? I don't even know what that is. I just hope by the time the Mark V comes around, it will have Dual Pixel AF, and perhaps a next generation sensor technology so the Nikon dynamic range junkies will quit bugging Canon users by asking questions on forums that they don't want the answer to and is merely bragging in disguise.


----------



## Mitch.Conner (Sep 14, 2014)

123Photog said:


> a camera like the 7D MK2, bought today to use it for 3-4 years, without 4K?
> sorry but i have to pass.
> 
> i will put that money in a sock and wait for the 5D MK IV. until then i use a GH4.
> ...



I understand your point, but I try to keep in mind that I'm buying a camera for still photos, if I really want to get into serious videography/cinematography, I'd look at the Cinema line. However, admittedly my stand on this is diminished daily by the increasing overlap of video and still cameras.


----------



## canon1dxman (Sep 15, 2014)

123Photog said:


> but the GH4 works for now.



Presumably in manual focus mode with EF lenses and a Metabones or similar?


----------



## 123Photog (Sep 15, 2014)

canon1dxman said:


> 123Photog said:
> 
> 
> > but the GH4 works for now.
> ...



metabones speed booster, yes.

i don´t use AF for video at all.
i learned to pull focus manually and i can say im pretty good now.


----------

