Next 4K camera?

Started Aug 27, 2014 | Discussions thread
Dheorl Veteran Member • Posts: 4,119
Re: True 4K vs pseudo 4K

Beach Bum wrote:

Dheorl wrote:

Beach Bum wrote:

Dheorl wrote:

Beach Bum wrote:

Dheorl wrote:

Beach Bum wrote:

Dheorl wrote:

Beach Bum wrote:

Dheorl wrote:

Beach Bum wrote:

GoneMirrorless wrote:

Seriously looking at Fuji and Sony, but 4K caught my eye. My monitor is higher than 1080p resolution and I am saving for a new TV which may be 4K. The GH4 is pricey but looks good. I want an ILC. There is a wild rumor the M1 may get 4k. Are more 4k cameras coming?

If 4K is your thing, you should be careful about the onslaught of pseudo 4K that's going to be coming. By this, I mean 4K that has no better resolution than 1080p. It's simply a waste of resources to have to shoot and edit this. Plenty of smartphones shoot pseudo 4K, and it's eventually going to spread to the real cameras. You should especially watch out for 4K claims from other than Panasonic or Sony.

The only two consumer cameras with true 4K at this point are the Panasonic GH4 and the Sony AX100. Everything else is junk.

Canon have already made a fairly decent 4k camera. Only thing is I'm not sure if it will trickle down due to their determination to "protect" their own cinema line.

It wouldn't surprise me if Nikon suddenly came out from nowhere with something good either. There's been various rumblings about them working on a monster of a video SLR of some sort, could be interesting to see what comes of it.

Nikon has NEVER done anything good with video. EVER. And until I see some monster for them, I consider them to be complete dead wood on this front.

Canon doesn't do anything good at a price point that the typical consumer buys. And even with cameras like the 5D3, it's almost strictly only for pros due to the poor contrast autofocus.

I'll say it again. It's really a two horse race, Panasonic and Sony, until someone else gets of their ass.

I kinda think you missed what I was trying to say but tbh you don't seem like you'd listen even if I tried to explain myself. Oh well.

Go ahead. If I missed your point, then please explain it.

My point is that I've been waiting for CaNikon to do anything I want in video for several years now. It's just one disappointment after another from these two, but especially Nikon.

Canon seems to respond somewhat whenever Panasonic or Sony come out with some innovation, but it's usually significantly crippled in some way and often doesn't match up at all to the other two. In other words, they just ride their name and make stuff that's "good enough" not to impact sales.

Well purely by dint of the fact that Canon have done a 4K camera I would have said they are equal in that respect with Sony. The only 4K to come from sony so far has been far from spectacular IMO. Canon easily have the potential, I just don't think they'll use it much in consumer products because they have their cine line to look after. I'd hardly say autofocus is a reason to rule it out. From what I hear the autofocus on the 70D and now C100 is very respectable, and tbh I wouldn't call Panasonic or Sony's autofocus particularly usable for video either.

Sony has the AX100, which was actually the first true 4K camera for the consumer market. And I would call it spectacular. It really does have amazingly good video quality.

I'd call it fairly average overall. Detail is pretty good but I'm not enamoured beyond that.

And Sony has been much better at video than Canon since well before the 4K revolution started. Their camcorder line has always been better than Canon.

Really? At the very high end such as the higher end F series they might have pushed things further but I think lower down the range they're about equal, if not a slight lead to the Canons over time. Sony are possibly doing slightly better now because of the recent releases but it's been a while since Canon have updated their line.

I guess it depends on what features are of importance though as to which you would personally class as better.

It took Canon years longer than Sony to start using 1080/60p. Sony's camcorders, for the last several years at least, have been better in low light due to the Exmor R. Sony's autofocus has always been better than Canon.

In fact, it's only at the very high end (above $1200) that Canon is at all competitive.

See, this is where we start to differ. I see very high end as more like $10 plus, which might be why, to me at least, Canon is in general better. To me a ~$3k camcorder is a pretty general camcorder. It's just a different set of needs which results in a different opinion as to what is better.

I look at everything, including the lowest end stuff, but $10k is out of my price range. The GH4 and AX100 are really at my upper limit price-wise. And my point is that for the typical consumer who isn't going to spend $1000, Canon pretty much sucks for video. But not as bad as Nikon or Oly.

I still think canons camcorders are up there even for the "typical consumer". Also let's be fair, 4k, which is after all the topic of this thread, isn't really for the typical consumer atm anyway.

Panasonic and Sony OTOH don't really take a camera off like CaNikon do. I see quality in even their lowest end offerings. Nikon cuts corners all over the place and ride their name extensively. I honestly would have a hard time buying something at any price range from a company that puts out crap at any price range just to turn a profit. And I honestly do see that from a few well-known camera companies. I don't see it as much, if at all, from the general electronics companies that make cameras. Take it FWIW.

p.s. I want quality video at the same price range as quality stills.

As video quality is more demanding, and to me to be done properly needs more in the way of supporting "features" I don't think it's unreasonable to expect to pay more for it. Again though, due to out seemingly quite different view points quality video might mean something completely different to me as it does for you.

And recently, Sony introduced the balanced optical steadyshot, which, again, is amazing.

Panasonic always had the ace in the hole of their 3MOS camcorders, which were the sharpest 1080p on the planet. And Panasonic's image stabilization was always the best until Sony's Balanced OIS came along.

I've tried a lot of camcorders and I've always viewed Canon as strictly third from a purely quality standpoint. Of the three of course, Canon always had the bigger photography name.

Let's not discount cameras like the RX100 (all three versions) and RX10, which are actually quite good for video.

Oh, I don't dispute that.

Amazing low light capabilities in these small cameras. I know people who use these more for video than stills. And last but not least, both Panasonic and Sony have always had better video capabilities in their entire still camera lineup than Canon, by quite a significant margin.

Always? Bit of a stretch I would have thought. Canon have definitely started to slow down to try and preserve their cinema line as mentioned. I personally don't think this is a good move and am not sure how long it will last before they crack.

Not at all. In fact they've picked up in recent years, especially with the SX50. Both Panasonic and Sony always had substantially sharper video in their still cameras and both started 1080/60p years before Canon.

The really HQ video on small sensor still cameras probably started with the HX9V and the HX100V. Both were sharp, very good in low light, 1080/60p, great autofocus, and excellent IS. In fact, I still don't believe Canon is up to the level of the HX9V in their travel zooms. They've adopted 1080/60p, but I'm not convinced that the low light, autofocus, or IS is up to the level of the 2011 camera from Sony.

Tbh I'very never paid much attention to the compact camera market, especially the lower end of it, so I can't really comment.

The Canon 70D does have excellent video autofocus (PDAF) but poor video quality. For everything else, Canon uses contrast autofocus.

(Apart from the C100 that I've already mentioned. It seems to be spreading throughout their line)

And FWIW, even if you don't believe that Panasonic and Sony are spectacular on this front, they're both light years ahead of Canon on this front. Canon has always sucked at contrast AF.

Yes, but as mentioned they have PDAF, which seems good and is being adopted by more of their cameras.

What other cameras to date have video PDAF that don't cost a fortune.

None, but as mentioned it appears to be spreading throughout their line. The only other large sensor to be released since the 70d also has it and I expect it to appear in the other lines as they are updated.

I'm still waiting for an affordable camera (i.e. under $2500) from Canon with better than mediocre video with good AF. I'm waiting very patiently I might add.

I fully admit Nikon hasn't done much with video. I don't think it's that bad (leagues ahead of olympus and fuji IMO). I do however think they definitely have the ability to bring something out the bag, definitely more than the other two just mentioned.

I would put Nikon and Olympus on par. With the IBIS on the E-M1, I don't see anything from Nikon being better than this, TBH.

Purely for the fact that olympus is still stuck doing nothing but 30fps I'd rather have a Nikon. The IBIS makes footage look like it's filmed by a drunk person to me and is worthless when what your stabilising is so restricted.

I think the IBIS is very impressive. It's just the video quality that's lacking. I can handle the 30p. Given that I haven't seen better video quality from Nikon, I think Oly is better.

Maybe it's the fact that I live in a PAL country that causes me to have more of an aversion to the 30p only. I also still don't like the look the IBIS provides, but again it's something that comes down to personal taste. Would you rather it looked like the cameraman had just drunk 3 pints of beer or 3 cups of coffee

I still think of these two, Olympus is the more likely to try new things. I view Nikon as old and stodgy and unwilling to try new things. Oly, having a lesser market share of the camera market, is more apt to experiment. It was the same with their 5-axis IBIS. They need something to differentiate themselves.

I guess this is just something we'll differ on. I'd personally put money on Nikon coming out with an impressive video product before olympus, but seeing as you seem to have more of a desire for the consumer based features whereas I'm not interested in them much we'll probably even differ in opinion as to which is better when they do release new stuff.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow