wus: It is certainly not by chance that comments directly in the article are not possible. Otherwise, lots reasons what else "you need to know" about 4K Video would quickly reveal that this whole article is more industry marketing talk than any seriously balanced content. Sorry Barney, it lacks several fundamentals that one should know about 4K.
Let's have a look at what the abbreviation "HD" stands for: High Definition. In the past 5 years or so, when 1080p became the de facto standard for video shooting, we have learned that for any content with movements, it is better to shoot at 50 or 60p ("HFR", or high frame rate), because at 24, 25 or 30p, movements will look either blurred, or flicker (if shot with short exposure times).
When viewing 4K content on 4K displays, from the short distances where you actually have an advantage from the higher pixel count, this blurring or flickering becomes even much more visible, and very annoying.
Sorry DPR, your "article", which doesn't even mention this, doesn't deserve its headline. Because the needed frame rates are certainly a fact that "you need to know".
Another fact that you should know is about 3D with 4K. Maybe 3D has gotten a bit out of focus lately, but I'm sure it will return one not too distant day. There are different ways / formats of 3D on 4K, but considering the aforesaid, the only acceptable format to present 4K in 3D would be at full resolution in HFR.
Unfortunately, today's 4K TVs don't even have an interface that offers the bandwidth needed for that. The HDMI 2.0 that is the standard now doesn't support it... Even DisplayPort 1.3 isn't good for it if you want 4K in 3D in HDR. The same goes for the suggested 100 fps for sports, even without 3D.
And do you know of any computer monitor with 4K resolution, capable to display 3D with at least 60fps (although only 100 would make it really future proof), in 3D and HDR?
From those days in the mid to late 90s, whenever I was on the NAB, "HD" had already been scaled down to 1080 lines. At least that was still a figure well above the 625 or 540 lines of resolution that standard TV had.
But when HD finally came to the consumer market, nearly all devices that the manufacturers called "HD" had only 720 lines. Only years later, devices with 1080 lines of resolution came to the market, then called "full HD".
And when "full HD" finally had become common, people suddenly realized that 24 or 25p isn't quite the holy grail of "high definition" for movies, when you think of what the term stands for - movements! -, so higher frame rates are needed.
The industry gladly accepted that "challenge" and introduced cameras and camcorders recording at 50/60p.
Now we have 4K where HFR is be even more important, but nobody seems to care. Did you all forget how important HFR is, if you want to shoot any sort of "action", i.e. video with movements?
Therefore, in my humble opinion, 4K deserves the term "HD" only if it offers high resolution also in time, i.e., if it's shot in HFR.
To my knowledge, there are currently no - zero! - consumer photo cameras or camcorders that can record UHD or 4K with more than 30 fps. Not even expensive ones like the Sony A7rII. (If I overlooked one, please let me know by posting here!)
This so-called article aims only at selling the currently available stuff, that isn't really future proof.
Let's see "if history is any guide": in the middle of the 80s, Japanese companys showed the first HD TVs. They were still working analog, with 1250 lines of resolution - twice of what was usual back in those days on TV. It never took off internatioinally because it was just too expensive, and non-standard. From then on, it took looooooong, loooong time until the content producing industry could agree anything that could be called a standard.
It is certainly not by chance that comments directly in the article are not possible. Otherwise, lots reasons what else "you need to know" about 4K Video would quickly reveal that this whole article is more industry marketing talk than any seriously balanced content. Sorry Barney, it lacks several fundamentals that one should know about 4K.
slippedcurve623: Nice camera, and glad to know they have larger sensor but one question, how are my existing super 35mm PL lenses gonna fit? Is it even compatible with EF lenses or do I have to invest in medium format lenses like the arri 65mm?!
I'm sure RED has thought about lenses. The 8K Sensor has 46mm diagonal, 3mm more than 35mm SLR lenses. I think most - particularly the better - SLR lenses should work.
Even if we disregard the small sensor and apertures I wonder how good an underwater photo can be that's shot at 24mm through a flat port.
Anyone know how I should understand this "the ability to dim the viewfinder’s OLED" that DPR writes above? An EVF in a Nikon DSLR??? That would be a first ...
jefrs: The aperture controls the amount of light. If you use the same shutter speed and the same f-stop and the same focal length(!) then the same amount of light hits the sensor irrespective of its size. The F-stop is defined as focal.length / iris.diameter. It's simple optical physics and I am a professional physicist: it's like a funnel where the smallest hole determines how much stuff goes through it, it has nothing to do with the size of the bucket below.You reviewers really, really, really need to get this or go back to school to learn your stuff.
I think it's rather you who needs to go back to school. To stick with you example: yes, if the focal length and f-stop are the same, the same amount of light goes through. But it will also be spread on the same area, and if a smaller sensor covers only half of that area, this smaller sensor will collect only half of the light. The remaining light is lost.
One of the reasons why 50 - 135 / 2.8 never got as popular is probably because they aren't really equivalent to 70 - 200 on FF. They'd have to be 50 - 135 / 1.8 in order to be really equivalent, including the same shallow depth of field as a 70 - 200 / 2.8 on FF.
It's similar comparing FF 24 - 70 / 2.8 with APS-C 16 - 50 / 2.8 lenses. Sigma seem to have realized this and introduced their excellent 18 - 35 / 1.8. It doesn't cover quite the same zoom range, but at least in the range it covers, it offers equally shallow depth of field.
Its bigger aperture also helps to combat the noise that most APS C sensors exhibit, making up - at least to some degree - the other advantage that FF still offers over APS C.
I hope Sigma soon complements the 18 - 35 / 1.8 by a 35 - 70 / 1.8 and ultimately by a 70 - 135 / 1.8 or 2.0.
Wing Wong: Hmm... "Class 3" UHS-I = 95MB/sec read and 85MB/sec write? Sandisk Extreme Pro UHS-I cards have been at that that performance level for a few years now. That, and I'm sorry, but have had too many crappy Transcend cards crap out on me. Sandisk all the way.
32GB Sandisk Extreme Pro cards for my camera. (95MB/sec read/write)128GB Sandisk Extreme Plus card for my laptop/camera (80MB/sec read/write)
All of the Sandisk Extreme cards are rated against harsh environments as well. Have yet to have one fail on me.
Right, I really wonder what significance a card with read/write speeds of 95/85MB/s has 9 month after Toshiba announced their UHS-II cards with 260/240MB/s.
To me, 30 MB/s sounds more like a major step back, my old 64 GB Extreme Pro UHS I already has a write speed of 95 MB/s. Strange.
I hope is is not quite correct when DPreview writes above
"All but the Sony mountS will incorporate Sigma’s proprietary Optical Stabilizer (OS) technology to compensate for camera shake. This functionality is omitted from Sony mounts to accommodate for that manufacturer’s in-camera image stabilization system."
because only Sony's A-mount cameras have in-camera stabilizers. The NEX and the new A7 series with the E-mount don't, so if Sigma will really omit the in-lens stabilizer from the E-mount version, too, it will be quite a show stopper.
Anyone on here KNOW any details?
tinternaut: So what's the difference between this and the Canon equivalent? Are we looking at a very comparable lens, for potentially quite a bit less (once the prices stabilise)? The Canon 24-105 seems make the 6D kit quite a bit more expensive than Nikon and Sony equivalents (but then again, if I did buy Canon full frame, then for what I shoot, I wouldn't want to be without it).
We still have to see how well the new Sigma performs optically, but if we assume it is similarly good as Sigma's other "Art" lenses, then there is no real equivalent lens by Sony!
Michaels7: I keep reading all of the negative post on the lens that hasn't even come out yet. Let's wait for it to hit the streets before critique it.
- sorry ...
Sad Joe: So so bored.....sorry Nikon & Canon ( I have BOTH so can dis BOTH too) this is simply a TINY improvement over the D600 and for most users makes no sense at all. Wake up Nikon - the game has moved on - its ALL about FULL TIME working AF with VIDEO - Cue the Canon 70D = the biggest step forward in DSLR cameras since the first FF Canon 5D. Most of the rest are just like the D610 a tiny step forward trying to gain as much cash from us photographers as possible.....
After reading the comparison of the 70D's video AF with the (much older!) Sony A77's SLT on DxOMark it should be clear that the 70D's Dual Pixel AF is also just a tiny improvement. After all it's results which count. Sony's SLT system is the only really revolutionary new design in SLR arena so far.
Nice try, but need better ... 15 m depth rating isn't even enough for snorkelling. I wouldn't mind an interchangeable lens system based around the CX sensor as long as I can take it down to 60 m and have at least 1 true wideangle lens, like the old Nikonos V with the 15 mm UW Nikkor. Although a bigger sensor camera with a (true!) phase detect AF and a couple lenses including a true macro would of course be better. And of course a strobe (or, better, 2) are mandatory for serious underwater photography.
I wonder what the real sizes of these sensor are... normally 1/4 is 3.2 x 2.4 mm, at 5 MP (2582 x 1936 pixels) this results in a pixel pitch of 1.24 microns, resulting in a pixel area 22% smaller than what it would for the 1.4 microns claimed above.
Again, as already when introducing the HDTV "standard", the industry association fails to specify a minimum frame rate.
1080 @ 24p is already ridiculous, before we move to 4K we should really introduce a higher frame rate for the standard 1080p material that renders fast movements sharp AND smooth. IMHO this is much more inportant than increasing the resolution.
After trying 24, 30, 50 and 60 p with full HD resolution I would think the minimum should be around 72 fps. And for any upcoming 4K standard we should aim at a minimum of 100 fps, and 200 fps for 3D material so that the effective frame rate for full 3D reproduction remains at 100 fps.
All tablets that I know lack a couple important features which I think are really mandatory before they "rightfully" deserve the term "tablet for photographers":
- a full size SDXC card slot (in addition to a micro sized one!), capable of UHS-1 speeds - and yes, I am aware that this requires accordingly fast and big internal memory (SSD), this is a sub-requirement which follows as a conclusion,
- an HDMI input plus app allowing to use the tablet as a larger (full HD) monitor on a DSLR when shooting video.
There's a couple more requirements but as long as these 2 aren't available I won't buy a tablet.
Did I overlook a tablet which offers these features?
How does it compare with the Sony 16mm pancake?