Image courtesy: Camerasize
Sony is going to release at least one (if not more) 4K cameras this year. And if you had the fear Sony would price it very high well….there is good news! Panasonic unveiled the pricing of their GH4 4K camera ($1,700 here at Amazon) and it’s actually very low! It’s $1300 less than the comparable Blackmagic 4K camera and $10,000 less than the Canon EOS 1D-C.
The Sony 4K A and/or E-mount cameras are supposed to be unveiled this summer. But I am not sure yet if it’s the A77 successor that will be the first Sony camera have 4K….
0 Responses
I was hoping we could be spared from the 24/25/30 maximum frame rate, being used to 60p HD from my consumer grade Nex camera. But now panasonic does two steps back in order to get that 4K mark first. I hope Sony will do better and provide 60p output.
2 steps back?
Audio is its an area Panasonic have jumped the shark with the new G4 implementation. Sony have their XLR adaptor @ $800, its expensive yes, but you get pro-XLR support and a pro-grade mic PLUS its powered from the smart-shoe. I think Sony still have the better option if you are serious about audio. Frame & data rates are one thing, but good (read: easy to procure) audio will trump them every time!!
Well… yes, AFAIK 60p allows slow-motion better, if that’s what you mean by stepping back…!
The GH4 provides 1080p@96fps, how is that a stepback to 60p?
Or is he argumenting about a NEX having 60p in HD against GH4 not having 60p in 4K?
Either way it doesn’t make sense.
so… what’s the price?
ahaa… google it… $1700… thanks!
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1028453-REG/panasonic_dmc_gh4kbody_lumix_dmc_gh4_mirrorless_micro.html
$1700 body only
$2000 interface unit – for professional inputs: XLR, phantom power, 3G-SDI, HD-SDI, 4K 10-bit 4:2:2 HDMI out, etc.
$3300 body + interface unit
Sure, getting 4K would be something but first Sony has to work on their codec. Panasonic already provided an excellent one on their GH3 and now they iffer up to 200mbps All-I in HD while Sony is still using the AVCHD 28mbps. So even if there is a 4K camera, what’s going to be the compression and overall codec quality? Having a mushy 4K just for the saking of having 4K is not really something awesome.
Their 4K codec is XAVC, which is the best in the industry from what I’ve seen. Its still 264, which is Lossy or Lossless. But the codec is super flexible, it can do bitrates up to 200 or 300 mbps.
Also supports 12-bit color in camera
The only limitations are hardware.
Yeah but that’s exactly the point, for their professional cameras, Sony does a proper support but that never translated to their E-mount/A-mount photo/hybrid cameras and the GH4 is possibly the only true hybrid camera out there, one that can provide IQ in both photo and video.
So the question is, do you really think that Sony will provide professional grade codec for their future hybrid E-mount/A-mount camera?
I do think so, I really think its going to replace the spot of the FS100, at a similar pricepoint.
The FS700 still has huge advantages over the rumored specs of the new cam. So I do think they will give it pretty good specs.
But I think that a FS100 price point for a camera would be kind of expensive and a market that I’m not sure Sony is ready to explore because that would mean to price it against D4s and 1D.
Not only that but this hybrid camera would also be up to 4 times the price of the GH4 and double the price of the GH4+Interface Unit kit and Sony’s 1″ sensor FDX-AX100 handycam is already more expensive than the GH4.
Sony will probably only launch FF 4K cameras at first, to maximize their gains with a high-end camera but I’m pretty sure that it will feature the same codec as the FDX-AX100.
What Panasonic exceeds the others is not simply codec but turning a higher megapixel image into video, it’s the downsampling, demosaicing, etc. And Sony showed that even with FF video, they can’t do this properly and they are still chasing Canon, a company that hasn’t done much – if anything – to improve their video for photo cameras in the past years.
Sony can even make a camera that may sell more than the GH4 since their marketing is much stronger, but I still have my doubts that it will translate into IQ.
The FS100 is $3500. At which is about the same price as the 2 cameras I mentioned.
There is also no reason to think so far that this hybrid cam will do stills.
The FS100 is $3500 TODAY but not when it was launched, you don’t replace a camera based on the actual market value but rather something near the price it was when it was launched. You do know that by definition a hybrid camera is supposed to do stills, right? If not, it’s just a video camera, hybrid means photo+video.
True, but when it launched it also had almost no competition. Its a different story nowadays, the market has changed.
Its a hybrid mount, that doesn’t mean it takes stills. The A99 is a hybrid camera by that definition. This is also a rumor site, not everything is always spot on.
From what I’ve seen everything points to a Super35, DSLR styled video camera. There was just a rumor a couple weeks ago about it having the F5 guts.
You are completely messing up hybrid mount and hybrid camera concepts. The Hybrid mount that you are talking about is probably going be a lot more expensive and it’s probably aimed at Canon EOS-C line up, RED, etc. It’s a video oriented camera that will probably require a full rig to work properly, it won’t be a direct competitor for the GH4 so there is no point in putting that into the conversation.
There is no such thing as a “hybrid camera”. Thats called a DSLR or any stills camera that shoots video… Yes its going to be aimed at the C line-up, the 4K price tag is dropping exponentially this year.
Sony can make this camera hit that 3K-5K price tag with basic pro quality features without hurting the rest of their market. Everything that I’ve seen on this site and others is that this camera will be Super 35, native 4K cinema sensor, no better than 60p.
Whether it does 4K without an external recorder (highly likely knowing sony), has XLR, or better interal bit-rates remains to be seen.
If i’m wrong then fine, I’d be ecstatic if it was a 16MP+ sensor that did stills, good internal bit-rates, pixel binning, etc.. But my hopes aren’t high.
Also, no camera does good production quality video without a rig. Also, this camera will have to be a GH4/BM4K competitor. Both sit at ~3K body only, the FS100 should be replaced soon anyway. This imo, as Ive said before, should be that camera. At should fit in that price bracket.
Price is not the main point. Overall performance is the main point. Don’t forget you need buy a recorder for GH4 to record 10bit as well, so far i only see odyssey7Q is powerful enough to do wtih it, which cost much too.
From my point of view GH4+recorder with hdmi output 1080p 10bit is the best total price in the market now, which no competitor at all. But for 4k still need wait and see, all 4k camera in the market now have their own pros and cons, so is all depend on user need.
I’m sure Sony can come out a dslr look camera that can kill it completely but is depend on sony want bring their professional level camcorder technology down to dslr body camera with 4k video or not. Code in fs700 is same as every A-mount and E-mount but the performance is BIG DIFFERENT. So actually i don’t care much about code, i care about the sensor pixels that can actually read by camera when in video recording, it is one of the main point affect video quality.
If Sony can put 1080p as well as 4k 10bit internal recording with at least aps-c sensor(more depth of field and better in low light) and NO MUSHY VIDEO like current SLT camera, then it will win. It is much more portable than GH4 can do 10bit without recorder which mean extra rig. Which will be good in different market example: wedding, aerial shot, under water shot, all can avoid the extra spacing or extra $$ spending on rigs and equipment for recorder.
Plus if output to record able to record 12bit raw or even slow motion at least 120fps in both internal and external, Sony will win. But im scare sony keep protect the sony professional video camera, which is silly thinking
Yeah but exactly that IFFY that is the problem with Sony, and that’s a long list of IFs, right now it feels like a long shot to me, not only that, I think that 10-bit with proper quality would require a very fast SD card and I’m not sure how that would work now.
To get the max out of the GH4 you may need an external recorder but that’s not the point, the point is that if you need, you can extract a pretty good IQ right off the bat with the internal codec and Sony hasn’t managed to do the same with their Alpha cameras. The full rig is another matter.
And of course Sony will win if they can do all fo that, but anyone can win putting all the wish list feat but that’s missing the point. At this point your argument only looks delusional. For instance, you only account the GH4 with full rig while camera body only for a SLT camera, it doesn’t make sense. The GH4 is much more video capable camera right now with no rig than any SLT camera and it’s smaller and lighter. Do you think Panasonic created the Interface Unit just for the sake of it? No, it’s a necessary hardware to pull all those extra feats, if that was possible internally, they would had done so.
And the level of IQ you are demanding you can only find in video dedicated cameras like the BlackMagic ones and what about the 12-bit RAW internal recording? Do you even know how much space that would take? Or how much datarate is needed for that? To do that internally would mean a special card or SSD, you won’t be able to do that with normal SD Card.
How can you not care about codec and downsampling? The A7R has a tremendous sensor but the codec and downsamspling is no good and the result is bad, how can you care that much for the sensor’s indo above everything else? Video is different from stills, poor downsampling means losing DR and IQ. You can achieve better DR and IQ with a worse sensor with a great codec than a great sensor with bad codec.
The problem I’m pointing out is not wish list feats but a basic codec question.
Its not better then RAW PERIOD. and this looks like pretty good low light performance to me. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hox2EdkWDx4
A. Raw is not a codec, B. Compare is to any other production quality camera at anything over 800 ISO C. Still noisy D. Way too hard and expensive to work with for my taste.
Lossless or near lossless is plenty for me (and maybe most). Raw is awesome.. sometimes.
umm this sucks about the gh4 Please note: For better quality, 4K recording modes use a 1:1 pixel map of the sensor. This yields a slight crop of the sensor, resulting in approximately a full-frame crop factor of approximately 2.3x when shooting DCI 4K resolution.
It’s not a 1:1 pixel because it’s a 16MP sensor, not 8MP one but yes, that’s a downside of the GH4. For what I understand Panasonic doesn’t have the money power to make exclusive multi-aspect sensors like they did for the GH1 and GH2 so you can see that this sensor was adapted from their GX7/GM1 sensor instead of a new one from the ground up. I wish they could though, a multi-aspect 16MP sensor for proper 2:1 pixel for 4K 1.86x crop would had been pretty nice. Sure people will nitpick on that but for most situations that won’t make a lot of different and you can still use a Speed Booster for a smaller crop.
So, if we put the video aside, that’s one very expensive camera.
It’s a fraction of the price of the next lowest priced camera that shoots DCI Cinematic 4K (4096×2160) , the Canon 1D C at $12,000.
There’s the Blackmagic before the Canon. Anyway, that wasn’t my point, see my response to narutogrey.
BMP4K is only 3840×2160
which just happens to be the spec for Ultra HD. Crazy how that works.
You are stickler for your DCI. Fair enough. I consider it a direct competitor.
Cant find your other post so.. raw is a codec. Each sensor does a a/d conversion. That conversion is into some type of data or codec. The blackmagic used cinema dng. That is actually even more a codec by definition. Its anuncompressed un gamma corrected full bit rate of the a/d converter codec.
FDR-AX100 shoots 4096 at $2k. No interchangeable lenses, though. But a powerhouse for such a little thing.
The FDR-AX100 does not shoot 4096 only 3840 like the BM 4K.
Apologies. I had thought it did. Read my chart wrong.
Still, considering the difference in that respect is merely horizontal resolution, the matter may be moot. The AX100 is still an outstanding camcorder format piece for the money.
I agree, the AX100 is the 4K camcorder to get under $2,000 and I had it pre-ordered until the GH4 specs and price came out. I have many MFT lenses like the Voigtlander 25mm f0.95 lens that I use with my GH2 and many full frame lenses I use with adapters on it and my Sony full frame VG900 camcorder. If you don’t have MFT lenses then the AX100 is the 4K camera to get for most people.
But that’s the whole point of the product. It is the cheapest high end video camera.
Setting aside video would be like judging a TV only on its speakers and not it’s display.
Which is precisely my point, if you take into account that you are selling a TV to people mostly interested in listening to music. The GH2, for example, was significantly cheaper at release. This iteration of the GH series seems to be entirely oriented towards indie film making. Nothing wrong with that per se, but it strikes me as somewhat of a bet.
No video record limit depending on market! very cool!
From Amazon page
Versatile Video Recording FormatsThe Panasonic LUMIX DMC-GH4 is capable of ultra high bitrate video recording at 200 Mbps (ALL-Intra) or 100 Mbps (IPB), with no recording time limit*1 *2. Freely choose the format from MOV, MP4, AVCHD Progressive, and AVCHD at a variety of frame rates. In MP4 / MOV, high quality sound in LPCM (Linear Pulse Code Modulation) is recordable.
*1 Video can be recorded up to 29 min 59 sec depending on the recording format and the camera’s sales area.
*2 Use SDXC/SDHC Memory Card compatible with UHS Speed Class 3 (U3) when using high bitrate video recording mode over 100 Mbps.
Impressive video specs perhaps (I’m not really into video). But that little sensor hiding in the mount made me grin a bit. It’s so cute and tiny awww
4k video is only about 8MP…full frame is overkill, it would require cropping or pixel binning. Hollywood does not use FF, in case you didn’t realize.
If Panasonic are relying on Hollywood to make them money they will be in deeper crap than they already are. Most video will be taken by amateurs doing family stuff and all mirrorless cameras from all brands are more than capable enough. I have the GH3 and it does great work at video , stills not so much. Regardless of the current state of play long term I think mFT will be in the weakest position, you can get a lot better image quality than the best mFT camera for a lot less. And Olympus does not even have decent video
Plus, you can snap a Speed Booster and you are ok for cinema-oriented video with a almost Super35 frame size.
There’s no technological reason a 4k camera has to be expensive. The sensors and processors Sony has already been using can handle the task.
They could release a 4k Alpha for $999 and make money.
I won’t be surprised if the the RX10 mII is 4k and only a hundred bucks more.
…and 60fps.
Please bring 24p 4K to the A7 as a start. That camera is already in peoples hands and can make a difference.
Or just better video quality and better codec. 4k would be nice but I’d rather have clean 1080p and XAVC on my A7. Heck I’d even purchase one of Sony exorbitant paid firmware upgrades to do it!
To take full advantage of the GH4 you have pick up the Kodak dock to make the price head on up to $3300. Sony doesn’t have to do anything. 4K with an M4:3 sensor is CONSIDERABLY less expensive than 4K with a full frame sensor. Panasonic is owning their niche, in the manner they should. They KNOW that they, in the end, won’t compete for long in still photography. Fuji and Sony and Olympus will all do it better so it’s good to see Panasonic taking the reigns they are really meant to.
Since the MICRO 43 sensor much closer is size to the RX10 than the A7R,
maybe Sony will make a RX10 Mk2 to compete with this MICRO 4K.
B: The AX100 is the camcorder version of the RX10, oddly enough. Same engine underneath the hood: 1″ sensor, Bionz X processor… but shifting over to the much higher quality XAVCs format. Makes AVCHD look like a toy 🙂 Now: would they allow the RX10 that kind of firmware upgrade? Or would the form factor kill the camera’s ability to stay cool enough to make such a firmware upgrade worthwhile? I honestly don’t know.
I’d rather see the firmware take place, in either case. Show me that the RX10 is the powerhouse I think it is. You already know I love the damn thing. It’s my second in command behind the A7r… Any improvements will be welcomed.
Don’t forget Olympus E-M1 uses a Panasonic sensor, so there is no evidence that “Oly can do it better” But it does prove that Panasonic makes a great still camera sensor, they just don’t limit it to stills only.
EM5 and GH3 use a Sony sensor… and that’s always good hardware but the issue lies in the processing: what can you leach out of the capture glass? Proof positive is how badly the RX100M2 or RX10 beat any of the Nikon 1 series. Same size sensor, more pixels, even, on the Sony product, and yet… the Nikon 1 can’t come close. It’s all about efficiency. Olympus has always had better direct output than Panasonic, especially where jpeg is concerned.
I think M4:3 should do what it’s doing: specialize. Video over here, photo over there. It will allow both brands to flourish, share the mount, and stay out of each others’ way. Doing so will allow the system to become more versatile and put more arrows in the chinks of N and C armor. Sony is the only company that has the portfolio and the engineering to really pull off a mirrorless product that could do as well in stills as it does in video. The question remains to be answered as to whether or not they’re willing to do so. I think, eventually, they will.
Olympus and Panasonic have pretty much identical image quality. If you are in to stills mainly I wouldn’t even consider mFT image quality is very weak compared to often cheaper rivals. All you really have is the fact that it is smaller
The GH4 will shoot better quality DCI Cinematic 4096 4K than any camera under $11,000 without the dock . There is no full frame 4K camera . I have the full frame Sony VG900 that shoots 1080p60 and great 24mp full frame jpeg/RAW stills and pre-ordered the GH4 for my m4/3rd lenses like my Voigtlander 25mm f0.95 lens.
The price of all new cameras that use bayer sensors will continue to fall until next year when they will be replaced by stacked sensors.
All the major manufacturers will be releasing new technology sensors around the same time.
Sony will share thier 54mp stacked sensor with other manufacturers and canon will release thier own..possibly the 120mp cmos with 9.5 fps that they anounced in 2010.
One can always dream, I guess, but yours is a nightmare!
Dream ( or better, nightmare ) on it!
That you believe Canon’s fantasia marketing appalls me, Barry. You’re way smarter than that. Canon hasn’t innovated in years.
Canon cannot win a head to head sensor technology battle with sony..therefore they plan to release thier high res sensor at the same time sony does
Sony also does not want to have a sensor technology bsttlr as they would rather offer thier sensors to all the manifacturers.
Remmember sony is the world leader in sensors and would much rather sell more sensors than dominate the camera industry. Sony wanys to remain a solid #3 camera manifacturer and does not want to displace canon or nikon.
I was told that sony has technolgy that would bury the competition but that they it would not be to thier advantage to do so.
Look at Somy marketing..very little advertising and many marketing “errors” that prevent thier pulling ahead of nikon or canon. This is not because they canot do so but because they do not want to. You will not see a lesser manufacturer pull ahead of sony in overall sales becsuse sony wants to remain #3.
Come on Sony, give us better video quality, better codec, XAVC, better manual focus feature (super magnified and contrast B&W with user-selectable and positionable box size) and perhaps something like the phase one focus mask to confirm focus for the March update of A7/r. I’ll even pay for this firmware update!
Time for RX10 mk2 and an APS-C A7 style camera with the same video sampling technology as the RX10 original……
Can Sony add 4K into RX10 with FW update? This will make the GH4 DoA
…or 4K and better sampling of video in A7….that will make many cameras DoA
What are you even talking about “GH4 DoA”? It will probably be the hottest selling camera of the year.
The Sony RX10 doesn’t even have interchangeable lenses, has a smaller sensor and is already priced too high.
Dream On.
I do agree that the RX10 can become an excellent first platform for 4K, and no one better than Sony can do it! But please just call it RX10II or A6000II ( “MK” or “Mark” doesn’t look Sony). I believe the A6000 also seems to be great for that, so why not an A7000 = A6000 + 4k !?
I have Sony cams and love them but realistically let’s see if Sony can first implement a better codec for 2k first before we worry about 4k. There’s a lot going on to get quality 4k at high bit rates, you need proper card buses, heat dissipation and software to process it all. And I would think most people into serious video will want interchangeable lenses for artistic purposes, controlling DOF, etc. RX10 is a different market.
They already released a 4K version of the RX10 with better 1080p codec, it’s called the AX100, was announced before the Panasonic and costs $2000 with lens (unlike the Panasonic).
I NEVER shoot video… ever. I’m a photographer, not a videographer. For me, any money spent on research, development, manufacturing or software development is a total waste, that COULD have been spent on making the thing a better camera!
My words…!
I make those my words, video making is really not attractive to me, even more so with a photo camera!
My gosh what about these people that think they are the only ones in the universe. “My need is everyone’s needs” they think. But they are so stupid that they can’t even see the benefits of 4K for STILL photographers, they just bash it because “that’s a waste of time”, because in their air heads stills R&D only benefits stills and video R&D only benefits video, sure that’s really a clever way to see the world, everything is so simple, plain and easy to understand. Good to live in a world like that – if you are simple minded and selfish.
You know, I’d have a whole lot more respect for you if you had given concrete examples of the benefits, rather than attacking my character. As it is, I have no respect for your opinion whatsoever.
I agree that I could had been put in a different way or even came up with some examples but the root of your thinking is just too much for me. I can’t argue with someone that put himself as an exemple and uses it as an argument on how a company should actually had done their R&D, it’s just too much…
But ok, I’ll give you some examples, not to earn your respect but because I thought it’s a fair take. Video research develops into better and quicker AF, better tracking AF, and well, that benefits stills.
4K relies much less on heavy downsampling and if done properly, it preserves all the IQ and DR of the stills and it let’s you pull a frame and print it – having a full readout sensor also helps a lot in this matter. For instance, video usually loses 1 or 2 stops of DR due to downsampling 16MP, 24MP or 36MP to 1080p (2MP) but 4K retains much more info.
You can just Google it, the 8MP frames from 4K looks greats on prints up to A1 size and I hardly think a still photographer can’t take advantage of that.
There are more benefits from both video and 4K but I think these are pretty good ones.
He didn’t put himself as an example, he very clearly said “for me”. As to to better AF, most of its development has nothing to see with video. Also, why would I buy a 16MP camera to shoot 8MP in some compressed format? While normally I have nothing against video, as it doesn’t affect much the rest of the camera, if at all, here the price says it all.
Sorry but when you say “for me” followed by an extreme opinion, he’s clearly putting himself as an example if not, the whole comment is pointless, to say the least.
How that has nothing to do with video? Still photography relied on phase detection sensors for the most part and contrast detection AF development got a place in DSLRs and photography world when video became a hot feat, part of that was used to start the AF tech in the mirrorless cameras which relied solely on CDAF – and today has some pixels that behave like PDAF. Nowadays AF development is made with both video and stills in mind and the demand for better video AF also leads to a push in tracking AF. How is all of that totally unrelated?
C’mon, gimme a break, I talk about some benefits and you translate that as to “why would I buy a 16MP camera to shoot 8MP?” JPEG is a compressed format and so what? Is is a sacrilege to print it? Is it forbidden or something in those lines? The point being that you CAN do that, you don’t HAVE TO do that. I’m pretty sure, more crative and less closed-minded people than yourself can come up with great ways of using those 8MP files.
We have a camera that had NO VIDEO R&D money on it, the Nikon Df and according to Nikon it was under development for I-don’t-know-how-many-years. And even so it doesn’t deliver what it was supposed to, the Fuji X-T1 got lots more stuff better when compared to the Df. Since they didn’t waste any money and time on video, shouldn’t it had been a bettter camera than it is? Shouldn’t it had been cheaper?
In the end it’s not even the point because Sony already have video cameras, it’s not like they simply keep everything apart, they price it in accordance to the market, the video R&D money is diluted in the whole R&D money, there is no point in thinking that not “wasting” money on video would make them create better cameras or sell cheaper cameras, that’s just plain stupid.
“My need is everyone’s needs” they think”
Your words. The guy clearly expressed a personal opinion, that he doesn’t need video and would prefer companies to concentrate on the photography side of things. Hardly extreme and it is you who went ballistic by even calling him stupid.
And who had the fastest CDAF up until recently? Oh, yeah, Olympus, the company that prioritizes video. And, yes, AF is developed with both stills and video in mind, that I agree with. But it is not “video research develops into better and quicker AF, better tracking AF, and well, that benefits stills”. A bit different, isn’t it?
Btw, your ad hominem argument doesn’t stand here. It is not a sacrilege to print an 8MP JPEG and it’s certainly not forbidden. But you try to make it sound like it’s some kind of benefit, when it is not. I am going to make video and then take frames out of it? And that somehow benefits stills shooters?
The Nikon Df is a marketing gimmick, that’s why it is so expensive. And that’s precisely why this GH4 camera costs so much – marketing. Because it has 4K let’s price it completely out there. That was precisely my point.
Lastly, there is a point in thinking that not wasting resources on video would make better cameras. That’s why Panasonic has good video and why Olympus has features like LiveTime/LiveBulb.
I urge one company to create a 100% photo camera. At least one stand alone product. Simply to use it for one art form only. With top notch specs. I would buy it. But I am also getting the GH4… love the GH3 for video…
Nikon Df . . . Great lens collection, (the best), NO VIDEO! The premier camera maker in the world just created the perfect FF stills only camera!
^^ Its not perfect at all. It needs the 51 point AF system from the D4 plus a faster burst rate certainly won’t be missed. Heck my el cheapo A55 can shoot at 10 fps with a 16 MP sensor.
Hasselblad
That’s pretty much Fuji and Olympus I’d say. I seriously doubt anyone buys those for video and the feature is there more for marketing than anything else.
As if I was bashing him for saying he doesn’t need video, I should had called YOU stupid, not him, you are manipulating words and playing stupid, gimme a break. When someone says that any money towards video R&D on a photo camera is a TOTAL WASTE OF MONEY, well, that’s extreme for me, but maybe not for you that can’t either do proper text interpretation or just pretends some things were not written at all.
As I said, they help each other, my point is that it’s never a waste of money, so is your point that R&D on video doesn’t help stills? Really? That sounds very deep.
I don’t try to make it sound like it’s some kind of benefit, I did say it was a benefit. Magazines like Vogue and Esquire had used frames pulled from 4K video on their covers and you say still shoters will never benefit from that, except they already had, ok then.
I said already wrote to you, there are more crative and less closed-minded people than yourself that can come up with great ways of using those 8MP files. If you can’t do it, you can’t do it, no problem, just don’t apply that to the
rest of the world.
No, that’s not just marketing, the GH4 is more expensive because video means prolonged time of using both sensor AND processor so it needs a better cooling system to keep it up without limitation. Better cooling system without making it bigger cost money do develop and implement, just asks Apple.
Your point was precisely stupid, there you go. And FYI, after that first comment I was able to have a nice talk with the other guy because he was willing to discuss, while you are just doing this, ok, I’m going to retire.
By all means, do retire. You continue calling people stupid, yet it’s my fault we can’t have a nice talk. Look at yourself. No matter the quality of arguments or word twisting, there’s simply no need to insult people, yet apparently that is all you can do.
Yes, it’s a waste of money. When you pay someone to develop 4K video, you are not paying them to develop Live Time. Resources are limited. And, from a photographer’s perspective, it is a ‘total’ waste. What’s so stupid about that?
Magazines like Vogue and Esquire have apparently taken video, after which it is nice to have the option of 8MP stills. But, if I am photographer who doesn’t take video to begin with, that benefit is entirely irrelevant. What’s so difficult to understand here?
I believe it’s mostly marketing. I agree somewhat on the cooling, but you have cameras like the a7/r, which while not having unlimited video, are smaller and have significantly bigger sensors.
I appreciate your explanation, but I still don’t think you understand my position. I simply do not believe in the fusion of still and video cameras. Even the ergonomics don’t make sense. That’s why video and still cameras have always had different physical layouts. I am a fine art nature and landscape photographer. I have no interest in a piddling 8 or 16Mb frame. I shoot with an A900 now, with 24Mb. I’m certainly not going to go smaller. I also have a significant investment in A-mount lenses, so I’m not looking at E-mount either. I have no problem with a large company like Sony investing in video for video cameras. I just object to them spending money from their still camera pot for it. If all the video components in a camera ad 10% to the overall cost, I’d rather pay 10% less and get a camera, not only without that technology! but also without the added complexity in software menus and extra buttons.
I totally agree with you and join your opinion. But, Nikon’s DF has shown that no video does not makes a camera cheaper. If they had to sell them at the price they really cost, we could get an a6000 for 120$. Do not think that Sony loses money with their astonishing rebates.
The Df is deliberately overpriced both due to lower numbers manufactured as well as a deliberately manufactured “luxury” status. The camera could easily have been $400 less. But the D610 would never have sold. No one buys Nikon for video, not if they’ve done their research.
I understand your point, but as I pointed out to someone else, the money of video R&D is simply diluted in the overall money, even more in a company like Sony that already has video cameras. Nikon Df supposedly had no video R&D, Nikon is not known for investing heavily in video and it was under development for years and yet, the Fuji X-T1 seems to provide a better solution for photography and it doens’t look like it made the camera cheaper either.
There is no point in thinking that not “wasting” money on video
would make them create better cameras or sell cheaper cameras, it won’t, the prices are made in accordance to the market not just the hardware’s cost.
And today you have a much greater demand for video than you ever had, you can’t simply ignore that because you don’t need it, they are going to invest in it regardless of you since there are more demand for it than not. My point being that ignoring that and putting yourself as an example is also ignoring the reality of the market.
The GH4, for those into video, is a bargain! Very versatile. The lens possibilities are enormous compared to Sony (any mount).
Anything comparable from Sony (regardless of the sensor size) is NOT going to be cheaper, I would predict.
SONY? ahha sony is a loser, fuji is the new terrain
i must agree to disagree with you about fuji, but sony IS a loser 😉
What a great contribution is you comment to this thread! I’m sure Sony now will be very worried with your enlightened remark and may start rethinking all their future plans!
That’s like saying Olympus trumps Sony … Fuji fanboi …
You may be right, but IMHO with all its video knowledge and experience, Sony may come up with an even better product!
I am a retired Automotive Tool & Die Maker – Automotive CAD/CAM programmer.
Nice to hear from your type again! 🙂 Your opinion stands high with me! (y)
Why would the lens possibilities be enormous compared to Sony?
Maybe because Panasonic, Leica, Olympus, Voigtlander, and other great lens makers have all built lenses for the some mount.
Most of what can be read on this forum suggests that Sony has several lens mounts, (none of which are built out to the extent of m4/3) and a confused and sometimes enraged user community.
Don’t get me wrong. Sony CAN DO IT. I HOPE Sony gets it right.
Lens compatibility is about the same with the Panasonic M43 mount and the Sony E-mount. You can get an adaptor for almost any lens to these mounts.
Joe, I was merely trying to answer a sincere question with an honest response.
Like I said I wish Sony ONLY the best.
Well, there are more than 20 lenses in e-mount just from Sony. Add to that all Alpha mount lenses, then Minolta lenses, then any used lens out there.
Yeah BlackMagic shoots raw and is super 35 chip size SOO its not really a proper comparison.
has horrid low light, no real battery, and is hard to use. So I think it’s pretty fair. They are better at different things.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXsbIHf9nkw is not at all horrid. and xavc can not compare to RAW.
Nobody is saying anything about the music … my God.
There is pretty heavy noise in all the blacks throughout the whole video. Its an amazing camera from everything I’ve seen, but it has is weaknesses.
It’s not totally comparable because they are very distinct cameras with different purposes
My Samsung Note 3 captures 4k video too, but I would in NO WAY say it is a competitor to Blackmagic or the 1D-C. Just because a device does something does not rack them all in the same league.
1D-C is a rubbish video camera, I don’t care how good or bad the output is.
4k video is not important for most photographers who are only interested in still images. not sure why sony need to address the 4k video issue for still cameras instead of focusing on what photographers really want, successors for a99 and a77
Right, but its a concern of most VIDEOGRAPHERS. Its more about the lens choice on this side of the fence than it is about your little APS-C sensor, buddy.
+1
+100500 to topdog
Sony has real issues to take care of, like AF and weather-sealing
Virtually nobody needs 4k right now, this is a marketing gimmick
This situation consist of much more complicate scenario that you both don’t give credit for. I do imagine that you two think Canon be a fool of the kind of the ostrich, but then you make a light of the Sony and say it should bury it’s head in sand too like Canon Corporation. Because it make certain that 4K is come to all DSLR soon. To be ahead of curve or not. To ignore the video or not. Very much more complicate then you two understand. There no longer does exist a camera with not the video features of the latest technology if the Brand of any corporation be a successful.
4k, who needs that in anyway. We are all axed on 4k now while we have not even managed to make perfection out of 1080. There is much to do and it is not understandable why we step to the next higher line rate while the one we have actually is not even exploited and there are so many holes in the system that ask for filling. I see enough quality in 1080, I do not see any need for 4k and all the complications we encounter with that again. How about more concentration on still image quality and cameras able to really do some with perfection. I have shot 1.5 minutes of video since I have my NEX, and that was when that bloody button could not be disabled. I approve video on cameras for those who want to use it, but I can live without it.
Seems ‘concentrating on stills quality’ has already been done on the A7R, yet see all the complaints below about the video quality… seems most people DO want it all.
I totally agree with you. Jumping onto the 4K bandwagon right now is pretty much just to show that you are an early adopter. Currently 4K is still too immature for mass consumption so being able to shoot 4K videos at this moment doesn’t add any value when the mass majority people don’t even have 4K televisions
http://www.minipixels.net | Automotive Photography + Design
My main reason for adopting 4k is not for 4K viewing, but the ability to crop and pan in 1080p. Adding camera movement without a dolly is valuable to me (despite the lack of parallax).
Why would people buy 4K TV if there are no 4K content? How can 4K mature if there are no good but reasonably priced 4K video cams?
The GH4 is not really targeted to your typical consumer who shoots video only occasionally. It’s for indie filmatographers, (semi-)pro’s who can’t/won’t buy expensive dedicated 4K video cams, video enthusiasts, etc.
Video enthusiasts or just consumers who are more serious about video would find GH4 useful even though they themselves may have no 4K TV. Why? Do you ever shoot photos at full res and/or RAW then print/upload/view lower res version of them?
Sony already released a RX10 based 4K camera based on a 1″ sensor (2.7x crop vs 2.3x on the Panasonic) which includes a (fixed) Zeiss lens that to get the equivalent of on the GH4 will cost you another $2000 at least. It has similar 4K specs and has improved 1080p codec as well (though not quite as good as the Panasonic). But the Sony is in a far more video friendly from factor.
The NAB prototype last year and the GH4 are in two different classes. If the a77 II can save 4K than it will be the most appropriate competitor.
I agree.
Honesty? i don’t think that Sony come with someting like the GH4, a proper 4K camcorder as FS200 yes!, but not a DSLR form factor camera with professional specs for 4k or even great HD recording, i previously owned a Nex 5n, a FS100 and now the a7, and the only one with great quality for video is the FS100 not even the VG line have a good quality video, all of the Sony cameras suffer from aliasing and moire, sometimes false color, due to low bitrate codec compression, but the more intriguing thing is that this new generation of cameras (a7/RX100/a6000) does have many great video features but always fail on bring great final image.
I always been very attentive to Sony launches, right now my eye is on the a77 successor, a camera that was created and advertised as true hybrid camera, but it fails some of the promises. With the A7 and A7r my faith grow again on Sony, but turn back until i tested for video, the same muded image with aliasing and moire, really sad.
Even so, Sony is pushing very hard to move the technologie forward and in a much better way than Canon.
I have to make agreement in utterly. My FS100 is the supreme and make video file I show off to greatest purveyor. The a65 and the RX100 I make the purchase and the footages I make test sample of in editor, they all have not fedelety or longitude (latitidue) or color that make professional. It is sad product. If Sony make dslr 4K I already not put even little trust in that and that is of the frustrating part because it be nice I have professional Sony camera that do professional photograph and do professional video like a the Nikon D800. I the biggest Sony fanboy but I make the hardship of making sense to own Sony camera for just photograph even if it is the supreme photograph camera. If the Nikon Corporation make the mirror-less camera much like a7r but the Nikon Corporation use the Nikon video quality I would make hastily que for that camera. Sony not have technology lead some think all the time on this website maybe but Nikon is slow and Canon is more slow. That circumstance I don’t spend time expecting. Sorry for my gruesome English and thank you to the spell check.
The BlackMagic 4K has a global shutter–it captures the whole frame at once–which eliminates the motion / panning artifacts so annoying in certain types of shots taken with regular CMOS sensors. It also has a somewhat larger sensor, more sophisticated output options, etc. I don’t really see them as competing with each other too often. Or if you want to make non-comparable comparisons, Sony ALREADY is selling a 4k video capture device, the Xperia Z2 smartphone–and the price will be, what, $600?
Just dreaming: Sony A7 with multi-aspect sensor –> full frame for stills, heavily cropped for 4K video (with some help Speedbooster).
The New Panasonic GH4 represents the future of image acquisition/recording technology. It is a portable recording studio of limitless potential. There is no turning back.
Increasingly, camera systems will become fully-functional recording/acquisition devices to have any relevance compared to cell phones.
A “modern” camera must be capable of capturing High Quality imagery, both Still and Movies, as well as record High Fidelity sound. It must all take place within the same small, lightweight, reasonably priced package.
If some camera makers can’t deliver such a product they will probably not survive.
Since the early 1950’s introduction of the television, we have evolved past a STILL IMAGE ONLY reality. There is simply no way to hold back the tide. Almost ANY YouTube video has been seen more than even the best still photos. Since the advent of the “Smart-Phone”, future players in the image acquisition game will NOT settle for crippled recording devices.
If any camera maker thinks they can compete with cell-phone technology by limiting the capabilities of their cameras or making them less of an all-purpose acquisition device they will lose.
Change is inevitable. Camera users need to embrace the change, challenge ourselves to get out ahead of the curve, dabble in video, audio recording, HD & 4K, so as not to become irrelevant and so not to foolishly attempt to block progress.
Epic first paragraph 🙂
Methinx it’s just another gadget, at a silly price to boot. Sorry to spoil your party.
“$1300 less than the comparable Blackmagic 4K camera”
It’s not really comparable though. Blackmagic shoots in ProRes, DNxHD and CinemaDNG RAW onto SSD drives, and it has a Super35 sensor against the GH4’s M43 sensor (and it’s cropped in 4K mode).
The GH4 is ready to shoot run n gun DCI cinematic 4096 4K outdoors with 2,359K-Dot OLED Live View Finder and 3.0″ 1,036k-Dot OLED Monitor in a Magnesium Alloy, Weather-Sealed Body without a rig and any lens out there works with the GH4 MFT mount.
I’m not at all sure how that makes it comparable to the Blackmagic. You are just giving me specs for the GH4 rather than telling me in what way it is comparable. They are both aimed at drastically different user bases.
GH4 is imo aimed at indie filmmakers with tiny-to-no budgets or as a B-cam on a lower-budgeted production. Blackmagic 4K – although priced towards indie filmmakers – is more of a professional tool, especially with CinemaDNG. A full setup for the Blackmagic is significantly more expensive than with the GH4, and the post-prod workflow is much more extensive. They’re both great cameras but they’re targeted at different people with different needs.
No DCI cinematic 4096×2160 4K mode is a showstopper for some people for the BM 4K.
I’m not quite sure you understand what I’m saying. I’m not saying the GH4 is rubbish. It’s great, and what I saw at BVE was stunning. I’m saying they’re not comparable cameras as they are designed for massively different markets.
Also, regarding your comment that Cinema 4K is the deal-breaker for a lot of people: I think you’re wrong. I – and many many working professionals – would much rather sacrifice those 256 lines for Super35 and RAW. Two cameras not aimed at the same market = not comparable. Horses for courses!
EDIT: grammar.