I just want 4k with Canon's dual pixel cmos af

[PWPhotography]

Anyone else? Is this asking too much? Bill

Without getting into any of the nastiness... 5D mark 4 has DPAF in 4K. Of course, I actually think their 1080p is really awesome. You can use the 60 fps frame rate in 1080p, and the quality is really beautiful... plus the ability to use some moderate slow motion. I use BOTH the 5D Mark 4 and Sony A6500 for video. The A6500 is also awesome, and has video autofocus that is ALMOST as good as dual pixel autofocus. For both of my cameras, I've had to buy lenses... I think most ILCs require that you buy lenses. For the 5D4, I just make sure that one of those is a wide angle to account for the crop. Do I wish it didn't have the crop? Sure, but overall, very happy with the 5D4 as a hybrid shooter (photo + video). Oh... the mjpeg codec: Yep, requires that I have lots of memory (currently using 256GB CF and SD cards). One nice thing about the MJPEG is that it edits like a dream - here's why: sure the files are large, but they have very little compression, so for example, Final Cut Pro handles them just fine, without any transcoding on import!

True and make sense that less hassle to edit less compressed video file, although still has to deal with huge file, imagining shooting 30~60 mins.

A6500 4K video quality is amazing despite with an APS-C sensor as it oversampling 6K video and then downsampling to 4K quality without binning, even sharper than Sony own A7s II (as well as A7r II) at base ISOs. Believe this is what Sony does now as also implemented in A9 (and the new professional video camera that also based on 24mp FF sensor) and likely forthcoming A7 III (will be announced after one month). That initially caused overheating issue but that has been largely addressed thru FW update and guess some modification.

--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/55485085@N04/albums
http://pwphotography.zenfolio.com

 

[PhotoKhan]

Link me a video of the 5D iv producing much better 4k than a G5 or an A7R II, given x5 bigger files.

PK

 

[Alexsfo]

5div is your best bet. Absolutely stunning 4k capture with above averge 1080p. 500mbps codec is clunky but a professional cinema grade one unlike highly conpressed H264 files. Look up Canon 1DC - same high end DCI format enough to fill large movie theater screens as 5div.

Sony A7rii is an alternative for smaller sample size, simplified workflow. But control over AF with the absence of touchscreen is horrible and continous AF tracking is not neary as good as 5div'DPAF. More importanty, A7rii really requires you to shoot in S-log and grade in post to get professional colors for skin tones whereas 5div's 4k color in standard in neutral profiles is phenomenal combined with its insane AWB-W. The main pros of A7rii is its very usable video IBIS and no FF crop which really helps with DOF control.

Can't beleive GH5 is even mentioned, its video AF tracking is completely unrealiable especially in low light and will undoubtedly result in some ruined footage, its color science is incometetive and skin tones are flat even after grading; low light performance is poor. Sharp and detail are two different things. You want detailed files like those from 5div with massive amount of tonal gradations captured.

 

[BlueCosmo5050]

The 5D Mark IV is the best video camera I've ever owned and I have owned the A7R.

With the Sony cameras, to not get pixel bin and get a readout thats sharp you need to use Super 35mm mode, which is a 1.5x crop. The 5D Mark Iv has a 1.7x crop, your eyes can't really tell a difference in the two. In fact the Red Epic has a 1.74x crop with 4k.

The C Log is way more manageable than S-Log. I easily do get 12 stops of dynamic range out of it.

The big file sizes... Well, I find that .MJPEG has looked better than any 4k footage I've had and since I'm not shooting a documentary it's not a big deal. I'll take a camera with .MJPEG with dual pixel AF over a camera with a 100Mbps codec without dual pixel AF.

Keep in mind, not that long ago people were begging for a bigger codec. Some even shoot RAW video on the 5D iii.

I use 256GB cards, CF and SD, It records 4k fine on SD cards as long as it's the right one. Because of that I have 6 hours I can record 4k before having to dump it on a hard drive, and if it was a 6 hour shoot I'd have my laptop and hard drive with me anyway.

Mostly I just take small clips so I'm never actually gonna even use one 256GB card except for maybe one event a year.

I don't find I need zebra's I've had cameras with Zebras and I still just preferred to use the histogram.

I think if more people used the 5D Mark IV as a video camera they'd like it more. There is no debate in my mind, the footage just looks stunning compared to the A7R footage. The GH5 is a 2x crop compared to 35mm full frame and I don't like the Gh5 look as much as the canon look, it can't focus like the Canon can either.

However, if I was to choose any other video camera it'd be the Gh5 but I honestly would choose the 5D Mark IV over it. Because I've used them.

If I had never used the 5D Mark IV and just seen opinions and read the spec sheet I'd think the 4k must not even be usable.

The Canon 1DC did 4k with a huge codec and everyone was drolling over that, but it was too expensive for most people. Now we have the same exact thing basically for way less money and people are complaining.

 

[MarshallG]

What do you want that 4k for? Are you a professional video production house? I don't get why otherwise.

But anyway, if you just want "4k with Canon's dual pixel cmos af", you are in luck.

The Canon EOS 1D-X mk II offers what you are looking for. The Canon EOS 5D mk IV offers what you are looking for. The Canon EOS C200 offers what you are looking for. The Canon EOS C300 mk II offers what you are looking for, as well. As does the Canon EOS C700.

Isn't that like asking, "What do you want 1080p for?" 4K video is four times more resolution than 1080p. And 4K TV's are cheap. You can shoot and display ultra-crisp, 8mp video using 4K on very inexpensive TV's.

If you're a pro wedding photographer and your client wants some video, wouldn't it make sense that they'd want 4K, which will be the crispest video in the future? Because old wedding videos shot on SD take look like... old videos. We got used to HD's look, and in the coming years we'll get used to 4K. And if we're only amateurs... well, why not? If you're spending thousands on a new camera, 4K seems like a reasonable feature to include.

 

[Larawanista]

Again, why is a smaller mbps more workable?

Whatever PC can handle a 500/mbs MJPEG file can handle a 100/mbs H.264 / XAVC quicker.

I've got no problem with big files if they actually give you something substantially better, but MJPEG isn't. Yes, technically there's a slight quality benefit but mostly it's just very, very inefficient, storing GBs of redundant data.

If you're imagining that it's the difference between shooting jpeg or raw, it really isn't.

I am not imagining anything. I have been able to pull more details and achieve more headroom for editing in the 4k output of the 5DMIV, for real. It cannot be compared to shooting RAW vs JPEG of course, and that's not something I hinted. That is something you assumed.

 

[Pedro Courelas]

Anyone else? Is this asking too much? Bill

In 3 years and with 4000€ Canon can give that...

 

[Riku]

Can't beleive GH5 is even mentioned, its video AF tracking is completely unrealiable especially in low light and will undoubtedly result in some ruined footage, its color science is incometetive and skin tones are flat even after grading; low light performance is poor. Sharp and detail are two different things. You want detailed files like those from 5div with massive amount of tonal gradations captured.

The Gh5 is mentioned because it probably is the most versatile video making tool today in it's price range and beats many much more expensive cams. Canon has nothing that even remotely can compete with it.

 

[The Fat Fish]

Can't beleive GH5 is even mentioned, its video AF tracking is completely unrealiable especially in low light and will undoubtedly result in some ruined footage, its color science is incometetive and skin tones are flat even after grading; low light performance is poor. Sharp and detail are two different things. You want detailed files like those from 5div with massive amount of tonal gradations captured.

The Gh5 is mentioned because it probably is the most versatile video making tool today in it's price range and beats many much more expensive cams. Canon has nothing that even remotely can compete with it.

 

[rrccad]

You do not get the idea behind shooting RAW versus JPEG? JPEG offers a lot less headroom in post processing compared to RAW.

Well, ironically, the codec of the 5d iv is MJPEG, not RAW. But apparently I'm the one who doesn't know the difference.

There's no reason why compressing motion between JPEG sequences would affect post processing capability. You're just saving copies of the essentially the same data.

Your linked "video" shows amateur footage,

So show me a video of the 5D iv blowing other cameras out of the water in terms of 4k quality. If it can and does, it should exist surely?

Nice tell tale "argument" to show the true reason of your posting.

Another tell tale argument.

No idea what you're on about now.

Now you say "beautiful 4k", while above 4k was not about the quality?

On my phone, no. On my point and shoot, no. On my A7R ii, yes, beautiful quality, at a workable 100 mbs.

A7RII 4k video is not better than 5DMIV 4k video.

Again, why is a smaller mbps more workable? Unless one is using an anemic machine that struggles to process bigger file sizes. Well, guess what - that's a user problem and limitation, not a camera limitation.

the first thing that any heavy grading or post processing step would do is convert to prores anyways. you're going to do that for any video source including h.264. I'm not sure why people think that the majority of 4k professionals care the difference of file size between MJPEG at 500mps versus a consumer grade codec in the sony alpha series cameras.

 

[rrccad]

Can't beleive GH5 is even mentioned, its video AF tracking is completely unrealiable especially in low light and will undoubtedly result in some ruined footage, its color science is incometetive and skin tones are flat even after grading; low light performance is poor. Sharp and detail are two different things. You want detailed files like those from 5div with massive amount of tonal gradations captured.

The Gh5 is mentioned because it probably is the most versatile video making tool today in it's price range and beats many much more expensive cams. Canon has nothing that even remotely can compete with it.

canon doesn't make m43's cameras. why would you expect them to compete in that market.

 

[PWPhotography]

You do not get the idea behind shooting RAW versus JPEG? JPEG offers a lot less headroom in post processing compared to RAW.

Well, ironically, the codec of the 5d iv is MJPEG, not RAW. But apparently I'm the one who doesn't know the difference.

There's no reason why compressing motion between JPEG sequences would affect post processing capability. You're just saving copies of the essentially the same data.

Your linked "video" shows amateur footage,

So show me a video of the 5D iv blowing other cameras out of the water in terms of 4k quality. If it can and does, it should exist surely?

Nice tell tale "argument" to show the true reason of your posting.

Another tell tale argument.

No idea what you're on about now.

Now you say "beautiful 4k", while above 4k was not about the quality?

On my phone, no. On my point and shoot, no. On my A7R ii, yes, beautiful quality, at a workable 100 mbs.

A7RII 4k video is not better than 5DMIV 4k video.

Again, why is a smaller mbps more workable? Unless one is using an anemic machine that struggles to process bigger file sizes. Well, guess what - that's a user problem and limitation, not a camera limitation.

the first thing that any heavy grading or post processing step would do is convert to prores anyways. you're going to do that for any video source including h.264. I'm not sure why people think that the majority of 4k professionals care the difference of file size between MJPEG at 500mps versus a consumer grade codec in the sony alpha series cameras.

MJPEG is the same 'consumer' grade codec as XAVC in A7-series and in A9 (which has the best video quality from regular FF cameras on reviews even over Sony A7s II). If it's 'consumer' grade, it is also one of video formats in just announced professional grade FF video camera 'Venice ' that is on pinnacle of video industry.

--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/55485085@N04/albums
http://pwphotography.zenfolio.com

 

[rrccad]

You do not get the idea behind shooting RAW versus JPEG? JPEG offers a lot less headroom in post processing compared to RAW.

Well, ironically, the codec of the 5d iv is MJPEG, not RAW. But apparently I'm the one who doesn't know the difference.

There's no reason why compressing motion between JPEG sequences would affect post processing capability. You're just saving copies of the essentially the same data.

Your linked "video" shows amateur footage,

So show me a video of the 5D iv blowing other cameras out of the water in terms of 4k quality. If it can and does, it should exist surely?

Nice tell tale "argument" to show the true reason of your posting.

Another tell tale argument.

No idea what you're on about now.

Now you say "beautiful 4k", while above 4k was not about the quality?

On my phone, no. On my point and shoot, no. On my A7R ii, yes, beautiful quality, at a workable 100 mbs.

A7RII 4k video is not better than 5DMIV 4k video.

Again, why is a smaller mbps more workable? Unless one is using an anemic machine that struggles to process bigger file sizes. Well, guess what - that's a user problem and limitation, not a camera limitation.

the first thing that any heavy grading or post processing step would do is convert to prores anyways. you're going to do that for any video source including h.264. I'm not sure why people think that the majority of 4k professionals care the difference of file size between MJPEG at 500mps versus a consumer grade codec in the sony alpha series cameras.

MJPEG is the same 'consumer' grade codec as XAVC in A7-series and in A9

actually it's not because it doesn't have intra-frame compression that the top end Sony video cameras support, but the cameras do not.

100mb/s is most certainly a consumer codec. it's not a smartphone codec, but it's certainly consumer grade.

 

[Larawanista]

Can't beleive GH5 is even mentioned, its video AF tracking is completely unrealiable especially in low light and will undoubtedly result in some ruined footage, its color science is incometetive and skin tones are flat even after grading; low light performance is poor. Sharp and detail are two different things. You want detailed files like those from 5div with massive amount of tonal gradations captured.

The Gh5 is mentioned because it probably is the most versatile video making tool today in it's price range and beats many much more expensive cams. Canon has nothing that even remotely can compete with it.

canon doesn't make m43's cameras. why would you expect them to compete in that market.

Canon's mirrorless on the higher end are the M5 and M6. Their Full HD video is dismal, btw. It has nothing visibly better than a high-end smartphone's full HD recording.