Would you pay more for 4k in the M5? If so, how much?

whakapu wrote:

Panasonic also sell 4K TVs. Sony sell 4K Tvs, monitors, high performance laptops etc. Canon don't. Panasony can afford to forego some profit on a $1000 camera body that helps them shift a $4000 TV, a $1000 monitor, a $3,000 computer, some storage media etc etc.

Nice armchair theory.  Except for the fact that Panasonic doesn't even sell TV's in the USA anymore.  Also, where are you shopping for 4k TVs?  Best Buy has a 65" 4k Sony listed for $999.  The 65" 1080p Sony is..... wait for it..... also $999.

Your little theory also does nothing to explain why most new smartphones now shoot 4k video, including those from Apple, who doesn't make TV's.

Canon can't. They have to turn a profit on the cameras and lenses and the results of this little survey tend to suggest they know their market.

Really?  Over one third of the people taking this poll say they want 4k, and over 20% would pay extra money for the feature.  That is a much higher response rate than you would likely find for other features people request like intervalometer, wireless flash, and GPS tagging.  The general public knows what 4k is, but probably can't even spell intervalometer, let alone describe it.

Furthermore, Canon should be implementing 4k on ALL of their cameras.  By spreading those development costs over every camera Canon sells, the financial impact on the end user should be basically nothing.  It isn't just the M5, the G7x II should have had 4k, the 80D should have had 4k.

A new G7x is likely a year away.  A replacement for the 80D is at least two years away.  How long until the M5 gets updated or superseded by a higher end model?  How outdated are these cameras without 4k going to look in the future before they get replaced?  Canon may be able to squeak by without a decent 4k solution this year, but they are going to get hammered a year from now if things don't change.  4k is coming and it is coming fast.  This holiday season is likely going to be the tipping point for adoption.

davel33 wrote:

I take the time to do the Canon surveys I get in email every few months. One of them was for video in their cameras. My response was I dont care about video and would NOT pay more for it. It seems to me that a lot of people felt the same.

Even if few people actually use it, I suspect that Canon will include 4K in the M6, for marketing reasons.

Canon is going to run into the same competitive issue with their 1" compacts. When Nikon DLs are eventually released, they will have 4K UHD with stills capture.

rickysuper wrote:

New technology will cost money but then free of charge when common. 4K will be included in the next release as all other competitors list 4k as a standard configurations, or when broadcasting, monitors and TV all changed 4k as a standard.

A lot of people thought the next release to include 4K was going to be this release.  Just like a lot of people thought the M3 was going to be the release that fixed the AF issues and would include  DPAF.

Yes, I'd pay quite a bit more for 4K. I don't even care if they make the body larger to accomodate a CFast slot and cooling like the XC10/15.

That's how good I think Canon's DPAF is for video. But having seen the RX100V and the a6500, I think Sony might be closing in to DPAF level AF.

Or even 1080p/120 fps like an a6300! I'd rather have these than new M mount lenses, honestly.

davel33 wrote:

I take the time to do the Canon surveys I get in email every few months. One of them was for video in their cameras. My response was I dont care about video and would NOT pay more for it. It seems to me that a lot of people felt the same.

What I do find VERY funny is all the armchair engineers we have on this forum The ones that have never designed a product in there lives but sure will tell us all about how to do it and how much it will cost, its really very funny

Well, I think right there is the problem isn't it. Maybe they should send that email to more people.

Reminds me of that quote from Ford: "If I asked my customers what they'd wanted, they'd have said a faster horse."

Also reminds me of the Fuji X-T2, apparently the reason that a touchscreen wasn't included was because all those given pre-production models found "no need" for a touchscreen. They talk up the 4K and serious video features in their pre-launch campaign and come launch day and you see all these "reviews" from sponsored "X-photographers" and you see that they are all purely stills shooters. 😂

M02 wrote:

With all the fuss about the lack of 4K, I'm surprised at how so few people are willing to pay more for it.

That's what's called a vocal minority.

4k users are like Pentaxians... They only seem to exist on forums, I've never actually met one.

Jonathan Brady wrote:

M02 wrote:

With all the fuss about the lack of 4K, I'm surprised at how so few people are willing to pay more for it.

That's what's called a vocal minority.

4k users are like Pentaxians... They only seem to exist on forums, I've never actually met one.

Hard to pay more when 4K is pretty much standard everywhere else. A $400 Panasonic G7 is able to shoot high quality 4K.

The only ones willing to pay extra for Canon 4K are those of us who see the value of Canon's current advantage with their DPAF in video.

With that said, I'd actually rather have Canon incorporate a higher quality/bitrate 1080p and add 1080/120fps rather than have 4K but also have the BS crop like on the 5DIV.

Personally I don't care about 4K yet. I do like to shoot a bit of video when I get time with my daughter, but I'm happy with 1080p for that.

4K is near enough state of the art in consumer land, near leading edge, and as such carries penalties/compromises/implications for the overall package.

Technically, it requires fast data readout from the sensor in conjunction with a fast  processor to process that data into high quality video while simultaneously performing all its other duties. These may carry cost, size, power and heat implications; more expensive components, larger battery, larger heat sinks, etc.

But it's not just about raw processing power, even if the hardware could theoretically support the minimum required throughput, there are still a myriad of choices and tradeoffs ; full vs cropped readout, line skipping, pixel binning, rolling shutter, AF tracking, bitrates, framerates, color profiles, codecs, and on.

Unless good choices are made and correctly accounted for in the design and build, rather than high quality 4K, you could end up with jerky, blurry, artifact-ridden 4K from a portable toasted sandwich maker.

In short, 4K is still leading edge enough to require significant  design and build choices to be made, meaning it comes either at an additional RRP cost (and most likely size) or at the cost of excluding other features.

So as it stands, I have no issue with Canons decision to exclude it. It probably has made for a better M5.

However, Moores Law still holds and I think in 18 months or so, the technical aspects will be in place to make 4K less leading edge; smaller, cheaper, less power hungry, and therefore more mainstream.

4K and its associated tech (fast readout and processing) does bring many benefits, even for stills shooters, and I do understand why some, looking to invest in a small system for the future and with an interest in video, may see the omission as an error by Canon.

The bottom line is, it's done. The M5 is here, and as always, you can choose it for what it gives you, or reject it for what it doesn't.

For me, I say yes. It's a great little camera and I'm pleased Canon finally dipped a second toe in the water, it heralds the inevitable plunge.

fotophool wrote:

I can see this is beginning to become somewhat of an obsession with you.

So, just off hand, how much do you think each of the below features added to the final price of the new Panasonic G85?

16MP Four Thirds MOS sensor w/o optical low pass filter

• 5-axis image stabilization with Dual I.S. 2
• Splash/dust-proof body
• Depth from Defocus AF
• 2.36M-dot OLED EVF
• 3-inch 1.04M-dot fully-articulating touchscreen LCD
• 4K video / photo
• Focus stacking and post focus

Again, just curious.

Still seems like Canon could have added a lot more to the M5 than they did.

fotophool

My Flickr Pics

Indeed. No matter what some Canon afficionados will claim, the M5 is way overpriced for what it offers. I really don't care about DPAF sensors being expensive to produce or not, it's what I get in return for my money that's important. Looking at what others brands are offering for the same amount of money, I don't even consider the M5. (No need to start summing up pros and cons for various brands at this point, I'll be my own judge, thank you.)

Also, the whole idea of this thread is kind of childish, isn't it? Using a vote to back a claim about a property of a camera... As if a referendum will tell you who's right and who's wrong, jus task the British.

G-D wrote:

fotophool wrote:

I can see this is beginning to become somewhat of an obsession with you.

So, just off hand, how much do you think each of the below features added to the final price of the new Panasonic G85?

16MP Four Thirds MOS sensor w/o optical low pass filter

• 5-axis image stabilization with Dual I.S. 2
• Splash/dust-proof body
• Depth from Defocus AF
• 2.36M-dot OLED EVF
• 3-inch 1.04M-dot fully-articulating touchscreen LCD
• 4K video / photo
• Focus stacking and post focus

Again, just curious.

Still seems like Canon could have added a lot more to the M5 than they did.

fotophool

My Flickr Pics

Indeed. No matter what some Canon afficionados will claim, the M5 is way overpriced for what it offers. I really don't care about DPAF sensors being expensive to produce or not, it's what I get in return for my money that's important. Looking at what others brands are offering for the same amount of money, I don't even consider the M5. (No need to start summing up pros and cons for various brands at this point, I'll be my own judge, thank you.)

Also, the whole idea of this thread is kind of childish, isn't it? Using a vote to back a claim about a property of a camera... As if a referendum will tell you who's right and who's wrong, jus task the British.

Many of these threads are indeed incredibly childish. But as with the British referendum (and indeed with many other votes / elections) that's what you get when people get to input about things they don't understand.

At least in this case it's only a camera that's being 'discussed' and that's hardly an issue of any real importance.