Canon has a new 'EOS Movies' DSLR on the way too: 4K video, 35mm full frame sens

[design_freak]

And something cheaper for photographer as well 
http://www.engadget.com/2011/11/03/canon-has-a-new-eos-movies-dslr-on-the-way-too/

[Sheldon N]

I think this is going to be their new higher resolution 1 series camera. Canon is re-positioning what the 1Ds will look like in their product lineup, moving the emphasis to the camera's video capability instead of just the still image resolution. But if this is going to be at the top of the heap for video resolution in a DSLR, I'm guessing that it's also going to be top of the heap for overall still frame resolution.

Canon's press release talks about the new camera being "ideally suited for cinematographic and other digital high-resolution production applications". The second part of that phrase seems like resolution is an emphasis. I'd also guess that with the 4k video capability, we aren't looking at the same sensor that's in the 1D X. If Canon is putting in a new sensor in a 1 series DSLR that is going to trump the 1D X video capability, it's almost certainly not going to come in at a lower overall still frame resolution. It's also not going to be cheaper than the 1D X.

This is the new 1Ds IV.... except the whole series has a new name and a new focus on video. Canon says they "replaced" the 1Ds III and 1D IV with the 1D X, but I think they are rebranding/retargeting their product lineup.

[Stefan.Steib]

I don´t think so.

The Canon pressrelease says that there will be an APS-H crop for a 4k image.:

http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/about_canon/newsroom?pageKeyCode=pressreldetail&docId=0901e024803cf0a8

"New Digital SLR Camera with 4K Movie Function (Under Development)

Equipped with a 35 mm full-frame CMOS sensor and supporting the recording of 4K video* (at a frame rate of 24P, with Motion-JPEG compression), the next-generation digital SLR camera currently under development will enable exceptional image quality for the creation of innovative and expressive images. Additional details, including the product name, specifications and scheduled launch date, have yet to be decided. (See accompanying digital SLR camera press release.)

* Cropped to APS-H-equivalent size (dimensions measuring approximately 80% vertically and horizontally of a 35 mm full-frame sensor) when recording in 4K."

the 4 k resolution would be 2160x3840 pixel (nominal) but differs from brand to brand -  Canon names  4096 x 2160 pixels  , see here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4K_resolution
The used Digic processor of the D1x is version 5 and fast enough for Full HD 1080x1920
a 4 k resolution is more than 4x the data thus pulling enormous amount of processing power, maybe 4x digic 5 or Digic 6 processors ?
This camera will record highres video not do highres Photography- completely different approach.

Greetings from Munich
Stefan

[Sheldon N]

I'm looking at it from a product marketing point of view...

Yes, the 4k video is going to be cropped to APS-H, but I suspect that the camera will also support the 1080 and 720 resolutions at full frame, just like the 5D II or 1D X. I don't see why it would be 4k only, and they likely wouldn't put in a full frame sensor in a "Cinema" camera without the ability to use the full sensor size for video.

So the question is really about what the sensor resolution is going to be.  Is this the same 18 megapixel 1D X sensor re-tooled to support higher resolution video, or is it a new sensor?  

To me, if you take the 1D X and just retool it to allow 4k video, that's not a particularly compelling difference from the 1D X to support any sort of price increase to the general market. The 1D X is supposed to have very good video quality that is much improved from the 5D II, so I imagine that a lot of people would just buy the 1D X instead of a more expensive 1D Cinema that's just the same camera as the 1D X but with the addition of 4k video.  Canon is not going to spend a bunch of extra money on R&D and development, just to target roughly the same market as the 1D X and cannibalize their own sales. And I don't think they are making this to be an less expensive video alternative to the 1D X for the masses, they wouldn't be using a 1 series body if that was the case.  The product needs to go after a different market, one that will justify the investment in R&D and generate new revenue, and the most logical step IMHO is "top tier video, high resolution stills".

Canon's own press release is hinting at that:

the next-generation digital SLR camera currently under development will enable exceptional image quality for the creation of innovative and expressive images
...
ideally suited for cinematographic and other digital high-resolution production applications

[eronald]

 The product needs to go after a different market, one that will justify the investment in R&D and generate new revenue, and the most logical step IMHO is "top tier video, high resolution stills".

 The same *size* as 1Dx sensor ie. fullframe means same cost.
 More pixels do not justify more price (real manufacturing cost) unless the bandwidth has moved up or unless the 1Dx is artificially crippled.
 Bandwidth (at the sensor, processing writing) costs money. But not that much money as to multiple the body price.

Edmund

[Stefan.Steib]

If you break down the spec and take a look at the 18Mpix sensor this fits pretty well.
The press release does not once use the word Photography - just "Images"
and - I think the interpolation of a full size chip downwards actually diminishes image quality and puts additional processing load to a 4k system.

Greetings from Munich
Stefan

[Sheldon N]

I look at it this way....

Is this camera going to have higher video quality than the C300? It's 4k output but the C300 is only 1080 output.

No. Canon is not going to make the DSLR body the top tier video quality. They just put a huge show on in Hollywood all about the C300. This camera can't even use the new EF Cinema zoom lenses, since it's APS-H and those only cover Super35 or APS-C. Video quality is going to be better than the 1D X, but not as good as the C300.

This is a DSLR body. It has a pentaprism and a mirror and was meant to take still images.
 
It has to be compelling first as stills camera and secondly as a video camera, or it doesn't make sense. If this was a "baby C300" it wouldn't be in a DSLR form factor.

Canon is spending money to develop this camera, both hardware and R&D costs.

I suspect that there's either new hardware to speed up the readout from the chip to allow 4k video, or a new sensor altogether, or a combination of both. I don't think this is just a software tweak of the 1D X. If additional costs are being incurred to develop this, and it's in a 1 series body form factor, I can't possibly imagine that this will be sold at a price less than the 1D X. It wouldn't make sense to have a camera with better video than the 1D X at a lower price than the 1D X.

It has to differentiate itself from the 1D X. Canon wants to attract new buyers, not cannibalize existing sales.

I don't think people will line up to buy a 1D X with 4k video. And those who would buy it would probably have bought a 1D X instead, if this camera was not available. We've already seen that a camera like the 5D II can be used at very high levels (shooting an episode of "House", etc) and the video on the 1D X is going to be markedly better than the 5D II.  I don't see much of a price premium being able to be charged for 4k video if the 1D X video is really good.

Which leads us to....

Canon needs to differentiate this camera on the basis of BOTH still image capability and video if they want to attract additional buyers.

That's why I predict that this body will have a new sensor capable of high resolution stills + high quality video. It's the only way that Canon draws in new buyers who wouldn't have bought the 1D X since it appeases the market that wanted a high resolution studio body. Plus it makes sense that the camera would be at the top of the heap for both stills and video, since we already know it's going to be above the 1D X for video.

It's not wishful thinking, just my predictions and analysis. I'm coming from a 1Ds III, and I'm going to buy the 1D X even if this new camera is what I'm guessing it is.

[BernardLanguillier]

One thing is sure, Canon's communication on video is awfully unclear.

For now, it really looks like they are exposing externally internal fights between their pro video division and their DSLR one. The product announcement/release time line is messed up, the specs are unconfirmed,...

Beyond my initial enthusiasm, I have to agree that Red sounds a lot more tempting right now. I hope they release a native F mount adapter for the Scarlet.

Cheers,
Bernard

[eronald]

I think Canon have just let Red scoop their market; what is worse for them is that as soon as Red have 20K users, which should happen this year, they can tax these users with software upgrades at $1000 per head and thus have an R&D budget of 20 million a year which is enough to pay for everything including chip design. Canon and Nikon's deadly mistake with still cameras is that they have let Adobe seize control of the software, so only hardware sales finance the R&D.

Edmund

One thing is sure, Canon's communication on video is awfully unclear.

For now, it really looks like they are exposing externally internal fights between their pro video division and their DSLR one. The product announcement/release time line is messed up, the specs are unconfirmed,...

Beyond my initial enthusiasm, I have to agree that Red sounds a lot more tempting right now. I hope they release a native F mount adapter for the Scarlet.

Cheers,
Bernard

[design_freak]

Canon and Nikon's deadly mistake with still cameras is that they have let Adobe seize control of the software, so only hardware sales finance the R&D.

Edmund

+1
Tell that to the guys from Hasselblad 

[jduncan]

Canon and Nikon's deadly mistake with still cameras is that they have let Adobe seize control of the software, so only hardware sales finance the R&D.

Edmund

The problem for Nikon and Canon is not that they "let" adobe control the software, is that adobe was controlling the software well before they enter the digital market my far.

In fact Nikon did tried to take the market from adobe, and that hurt Nikon but not Adobe.
It's true that in the D2x days Nikon was struggling, but even in the current strong position I don't believe they can conquer (not get back) the market.

Even if they build an extraordinary software Adobe will just pull a "Microsoft" on them, as they did with quark: Bundle lightroom with CS.


Best regards,

James
 

[eronald]

The problem for Nikon and Canon is not that they "let" adobe control the software, is that adobe was controlling the software well before they enter the digital market my far.

In fact Nikon did tried to take the market from adobe, and that hurt Nikon but not Adobe.
It's true that in the D2x days Nikon was struggling, but even in the current strong position I don't believe they can conquer (not get back) the market.

Even if they build an extraordinary software Adobe will just pull a "Microsoft" on them, as they did with quark: Bundle lightroom with CS.


Best regards,

James
 

Adobe had an inferior Raw product at the outset - actually still inferior in conversion quality and expensive, while even tiny Phase One have managed to salvage their software division. Canon and Nikon even have good products in DPP and NX and have managed to keep them hidden by means of antipiracy measures when what they should really do is encourage everyone to steal them. And by the way, although I own a Phase back, the fact that I would need to pay or use two converters for my dSLR files apart from Phase has has led me to drop C1: Antipiracy measures always backfire.


Edmund

[HarperPhotos]

Hi Edmund,

I have to strongly disagree with you about Adobe having a inferior Raw product. The ACR system is the back bone of my business on both my Nikon and Leaf systems. Its fast reliable and has the fantastic ability to control high lights and shadow but of course you would know this yourself.

Every client I know uses the same system so in cases of extreme deadlines I do a quick profile of my images in ARC and then hand them over the raw shots to the AD so they can meet the demands of there client.

I remember when Nikon had locked the Nikon D2x raw files so you had to use there Capture NX system. It was so bad that I sent a email to Nikon Japan saying that they should take the technician who invented this crap out side and impale them on a samurai sword. As you can imagine they never relayed. When Nikon finely let Adobe ACR work with the Nikon D2x I extremely relieved

I have tried Phase, Leaf, Lightroom and half a dozen other raw converters and ACR is the best system for me.

Cheers

Simon 

[BernardLanguillier]

Just wondering, does anyone have factual data about the sales of Capture NX? It is widely used in Japan and believe that it has at least tens of thousands of users WW which must at least pay back for the development cost of software.

Capture NX's interface is still clunky and the performance is a bit slow, but it can do things much faster than PS thanks to the Nik U-Point Technology. Just like any other tool, you need to invest time to master it. The paradigm is different that PS, but is in fact far ahead of Lightroom in terms of concept since a U-Point is nothing but a smart live mask that can totally automate the difficult task of masking.

Canon is a lot worse from that standpoint.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Schewe]

Adobe had an inferior Raw product at the outset...

I guess your memory of 2003 is a bit faulty...at the time both Nikon and Canon software blew chunks...the same time ACR was first released (Feb 2003) it toasted the Canon software (sorry, I gave up Nikon in the 1980's). Ironically, that was the same timeframe Capture One Pro came out and started processing DSLR files from Canon and Nikon.

As far as the Nikon files being "locked", they weren't...the white balance info was encrypted, but it didn't mean the files were locked, just the WB data...Nikon fixed that by releasing a special WB SDK so Adobe could process the the embedded WB data.

In fact, Camera Raw has aways lead the way in terms of image processing. Yes, Thomas Knoll decided against trying to match the "camera looks" (until he developed the DNG Profile). If you know how to use ACR/LR you can extract color, tone and detail that matches or exceeds the processing of the camera software. It's really not that hard...even with P65+ and IQ180 files, I still prefer ACR/LR for final processing. Possibly because I'm real good at ACR/LR processing and only competent using C1.

Adobe "owns" the digital image processing environment because, well they kick the crap out of the competition...there are some niche areas where some 3rd parties can exceed Adobe software, but very, very few areas.

Nikon and Canon software sucks because, well, they don't know how to write software. Heck, they can barely write file formats...they make great cameras though.

[DaveCurtis]

Nikon and Canon software sucks because, well, they don't know how to write software. Heck, they can barely write file formats...they make great cameras though.

Well said!

Nikon and and Canon should stick to what they are good at. To be honest their Raw processing software is crap.

[eronald]

Adobe "owns" the digital image processing environment because, well they kick the crap out of the competition...there are some niche areas where some 3rd parties can exceed Adobe software, but very, very few areas.

And Microsoft dominates the computer business because, well, they kick the crap out of the competition?
I'll take a Mac instead of a PC any day, in spite of Microsoft's "domination"


Does Lightroom have a superb workflow? YES.
Does ACR merge seamlessly with Photoshop? YES.
Which is why most of us cannot be *bothered* to use anything else for the hundreds of images we quickly deal with.

What about the file quality?
It's very much open to debate.
 I'll take DPP file quality for Canon instead of ACR's any day. The day I used it on my 1Ds2 files back then was teh day I suddenly thought I had a new camera!  and even tiny cr*ppy little Danish PhaseOne's C1 did a much better job on images the last time I could be bothered using it. Myself I fire up Irident's Raw developer whenever I really really need to get the most out of a single image. Even the various dcraw based converters have things going for them.

As for Lightroom/ACR color?
Wahahaha.

Adobe makes useful solid software, if I can put it in car terms it has nice trunk space plenty of legroom, four doors, takes the shopping and the kids, starts up every time you need it, doesn't break down, and it's a Mercedes. The real competition make Ferraris - single purpose fast tools. Bad workflow, slow support for new file formats, superb files.

Edmund

Oh and by the way, with two Photoshop and Lightroom updates per SLR pro generation, guess who makes more money from that D700 or 5DII, Nikon, Canon, Apple, HP, or Adobe? 

There is an old joke among PC journalists: Dell, HP, Asus make the PC, Microsoft makes the profit. Well, it applies to cameras too. Nikon and Canon and Sony may make the SLR, but Adobe makes the money. And that explains why the camera companies are running out of R&D funds, in the same way as every PC maker except for Apple ran out of money to develop differentiated products.


Edmund

[fredjeang]

I have to say That I'm very much on the line of what Schewe and Simon said.

I like the C1 workflow, but in terms of results, my experience match with what they are saying. Now, image is not an exact science.

[Josh-H]

Im with Jeff Schewe on this one. DPP does a very fine rendering, but its controls are hopelessly limited and I can get exactly the same results (better in fact with a little tweaking in LR / ACR.

[ctz]

I very much respect Jeff's and Simon's opinions, but in my own view ACR is just unbelievably useless compared to C1, at least for my p45+ files. Also, for Canon files you can achieve better results a lot quicker in C1 software. Workflow wise, of course LR is quicker, at least when you process hundreds of images at once.

IMHO.