The future - Panasonic Lumix GH4 Mirror Less with 4k Video

[runnah]

Going on a limb here but I say this is what all cameras are going to be in the next 5-10 years.

Panasonic's Lumix GH4 Packs 4K Video Into a Sweet Mirrorless Shooter

Now if Canon/Nikon can get onboard I will be stoked.

 

[Gavjenks]

Dunno much about trends in Nikon tech, but Canon IS on board.
The Canon 70D in my opinion is blatant evidence of a lot of R&D money going into setting up for mirrorless mainstream cameras of the future.
Don't let the fact that they aren't literally putting it on a mirrorless camera yet fool you. The #1 issue with mirrorless cameras is autofocus compared to DSLRs, and that's precisely what the newest tech implemented in the 70D is about.

With a few more similar advances, such as near-light-speed LCD updates to rival the instant feedback of an optical viewfinder, and the actual switch to literal mirrorless will be nothing but a formality when they decide the time is right.

 

[runnah]

Dunno much about trends in Nikon tech, but Canon IS on board.
The Canon 70D in my opinion is blatant evidence of a lot of R&D money going into setting up for mirrorless mainstream cameras of the future.
Don't let the fact that they aren't literally putting it on a mirrorless camera yet fool you. The #1 issue with mirrorless cameras is autofocus compared to DSLRs, and that's precisely what the newest tech implemented in the 70D is about.

With a few more similar advances, such as near-light-speed LCD updates to rival the instant feedback of an optical viewfinder, and the actual switch to literal mirrorless will be nothing but a formality when they decide the time is right.

Agreed. I still see data transfer as the biggest hurdle for 4k. The files sizes are massive and it takes alot of brute force to handle it. Either they will come up with external recorders like the Panasonic or forgo removable storage and stick a huge SSD in the body. Either way mirrors are going to be a thing of the past very soon.

 

[lambertpix]

I think it's at least as thought-provoking to consider what capabilities like that imply for the industry. It seems that we're nearing a point where lines between still & video production start to break down.

In addition to equipment, you're looking at skill sets, editing, sound, you name it -- but I think the direction is pretty irrepressible. I don't know about you guys, but I'm seeing a whole lot more outstanding video productions popping out these days in addition to the great photography work that's being turned out. There are tons of new products popping up for video productions, too -- look at all the sliders, stabilization rigs, lighting, etc., that are coming out of the woodwork. The same mass-market effect that brought DSLRs to millions of soccer moms around the world is now happening to video, too.

Time to get your video on.

 

[Derrel]

The number one issue with mirrorless cameras is that sales of them are weak,weak,weak, all over the world, EXCEPT in the Japan home market...

Some of the manufacturers are trying to introduce 4k video in hopes that it will create markets in which to sell huge volumes of high-profit 4k-capable televisions. But, so far, those are almost nonexistent in the real world, and we do not yet have the broadband capability/capacity to make 4k video a reality over internet distribution.

But the huge corporations, like Panasonic, which have teeny-tiny camera and video divisions, really want to be able to prime the pump, so to speak, and hopefully, to in that way, develop a market for mass consumer electronics sales of expensive 4k TV sets. The cameras are an effort to drive sales in another area: new TV sets.

Can anybody say "Lazer disc" or "blue ray disc" or "Zune"? It's almost impossible to "force" a disruptive product into becoming a successful sales/technology proposition when it is only one or two large corporations attempting to influence world-wide trends or demands. 3-D television for example, has been a TOTAL failure. Lazer Disc was wonderful, but died on the vine. Sony's BetaMax was technically great, but an utter sales dud versus VHS. Blue Ray never had wide support, so it has never really become a widely-adopted format for delivery. 4k video...yes, high-quality but demands a VERY expensive TV system that nobody owns....and in this day and age "good-enough" cell phone pictures and 6-second Vines and 2-minute low-fidelity iPhone and Android video clips for YouTube are what people have shown they are interested in doing.

More and more people watch video content on mobile devices; 4k video has utterly zero place in that entire reality.

4k video appeals to cinephiles and videographers--and to large electronics companies hoping to sell millions upon millions of ALL-NEW, $3,000 TV sets, now that the market for formerly $3,000 TV sets has been reduced to sets that have seen their retail price over the last five years drop to as low as $699. Predicting the "camera of the future" has ALWAYS, always, always been a Fool's Errand. Same with entertainment formats. Lazer disc, blue ray, VHS-C,Betamax, 3-D TV, etc.etc..

 

[runnah]

4k video appeals to cinephiles and videographers--and to large electronics companies hoping to sell millions upon millions of ALL-NEW, $3,000 TV sets, now that the market for formerly $3,000 TV sets has been reduced to sets that have seen their retail price over the last five years drop to as low as $699. Predicting the "camera of the future" has ALWAYS, always, always been a Fool's Errand.

I would disagree. It's being adopted like crazy in the video world. People are shooting stuff now at 4k and shrinking it down for HD. This way in a few years when 4k tvs are out there all their stuff will still look good. 4k will become the standard in the next few years. The switch to 4k broadcasting will be made much easier than with SD-HD because the digital network is already in place.

This fool thinks mirrorless and 4k is here to stay.

 

[Derrel]

Lazer disc was supposed to become the standard. It never did. BetaMax was technically very solid, but it died. Microsoft's Zune was supposed to "take over the MP3 player world," but it died. Hi-8 video was awesome, and was supposed to take over...but it lost out to a newer format, Digital Video... BlueRay was supposed to be the next big thing...but it never got aloft fully. Blackberry had the smart phone market almost all to itself....then Apple came along and beat them to death with an iPhone.
CD AUdio was king, then the MP3 format was invented, and once APple began selling individual songs for 99 cents on-line, CD-audio kind of died out. APS-C film was the debacle that crippled Minolta and forced them into eventual bankruptcy, and digital killed APS-C film within 5 years, and took 35mm and 120 film almost to their graves within 7 years.

4k video may be adopted in the video world, but it will need a huge SHIFT in home television sets and a HUGE expansion of internet broadband capability in order to realize its potential. I realize it might seem great to videographers, but the public world-wide has most recently shown a reluctance to spend $3,000 per TV set in order to gain "better" home viewing experiences.

Mirrorless might very well take off someday. But 4k video could easily be the next...Lazer Disc. Or APS-C film. Panasonic is trying to get 4k to fly as a way to enrich themselves; the problem is that unless people buy a way to "show" in 4k, it's yet another format that dies due to indifference. Maybe you're not familiar with the way disruptive technologies actually work, or fail. Technical quality is only one, tiny aspect of success.

My point is that MILLIONS of people need to be willing to upgrade in order for 4k video to succeed. So far, people want MORE TV sets, in more rooms, and are now unwilling to pay for $3,000 TV sets. Computers were once $3,000; now? I can buy a decent PC at Fry's for $329. The trend is always toward lower-cost electronics, but Panasonic thinks they can convince people that a "better picture" is worth ALL-new everything. I think they're wrong. People want CHEAPER, not better.

The statement that, "4k will become the standard in the next few years," is based on I guess, faith in technological superiority being the driving force behind mass-market revolutions. I understand where you're coming from, but I cannot agree with the hope you express.

(The USA will be all-metric by 1976 as well.)

 

[Derrel]

 

[runnah]

Lazer disc was supposed to become the standard. It never did. BetaMax was technically very solid, but it died. Microsoft's Zune was supposed to "take over the MP3 player world," but it died. Hi-8 video was awesome, and was supposed to take over...but it lost out to a newer format, Digital Video... BlueRay was supposed to be the next big thing...but it never got aloft fully. Blackberry had the smart phone market almost all to itself....then Apple came along and beat them to death with an iPhone.
CD AUdio was king, then the MP3 format was invented, and once APple began selling individual songs for 99 cents on-line, CD-audio kind of died out. APS-C film was the debacle that crippled Minolta and forced them into eventual bankruptcy, and digital killed APS-C film within 5 years, and took 35mm and 120 film almost to their graves within 7 years.

4k video may be adopted in the video world, but it will need a huge SHIFT in home television sets and a HUGE expansion of internet broadband capability in order to realize its potential. I realize it might seem great to videographers, but the public world-wide has most recently shown a reluctance to spend $3,000 per TV set in order to gain "better" home viewing experiences.

Mirrorless might very well take off someday. But 4k video could easily be the next...Lazer Disc. Or APS-C film. Panasonic is trying to get 4k to fly as a way to enrich themselves; the problem is that unless people buy a way to "show" in 4k, it's yet another format that dies due to indifference. Maybe you're not familiar with the way disruptive technologies actually work, or fail. Technical quality is only one, tiny aspect of success.

My point is that MILLIONS of people need to be willing to upgrade in order for 4k video to succeed. So far, people want MORE TV sets, in more rooms, and are now unwilling to pay for $3,000 TV sets. Computers were once $3,000; now? I can buy a decent PC at Fry's for $329. The trend is always toward lower-cost electronics, but Panasonic thinks they can convince people that a "better picture" is worth ALL-new everything. I think they're wrong. People want CHEAPER, not better.

The statement that, "4k will become the standard in the next few years," is based on I guess, faith in technological superiority being the driving force behind mass-market revolutions. I understand where you're coming from, but I cannot agree with the hope you express.

(The USA will be all-metric by 1976 as well.)

I think what is the key point is that 4k isn't a thing rather its a standard. 4k tv prices aren't that much more compared to an HD set. With everything quickly moving to online rather than cable all you need is the bandwidth to keep up.

 

[JerryLove]

BlueRay was supposed to be the next big thing...but it never got aloft fully. Blackberry had the smart phone market almost all to itself....then Apple came along and beat them to death with an iPhone.

At the beginning of last year, 60 million homes had at least one BD player. BD sales grew 30% that quarter. I have no idea what makes you think it failed to be the next big thing.

Most of the rest were not predictions... they were hopes of the manufacturing companies stated as fact.

Some other things predicted to take over. CDs. MP3. Solid-state players. Solid State drives. Digital cameras. Downloadable songs.

4k video may be adopted in the video world, but it will need a huge SHIFT in home television sets and a HUGE expansion of internet broadband capability in order to realize its potential. I realize it might seem great to videographers, but the public world-wide has most recently shown a reluctance to spend $3,000 per TV set in order to gain "better" home viewing experiences.

Except that movies use it.

Mirrorless might very well take off someday.

I hope so. Mirrors are useless in digital photography. The only advantage they carry (besides some potential for better power management in some circumstances) is around phase-detection focus. Canon seems to have solved that.

Even keeping the existing focal length (which makes smaller unlikely); Canon could put out a EF-compatable camera tomorrow that would be lighter, more rugged, cheaper, faster, simpler (no need to worry about "mirror lock" or the like) and more reliable than its nearest match (simply because they could pull out the mirror, pentamirror/pentaprisim, and everything related to them).

When will that happen? No idea. The only remaining hurdle is gone now, and it's just a matter of Canon deciding to do it.

 

[Ron Evers]

After adopting the first mirror-less dSLR in 2009 (Panasonic G1) I proclaimed mirror-less was the future & I was the subject of ridicule. But hey, I have often been the only guy in the parade in step.

 

[vipgraphx]

After adopting the first mirror-less dSLR in 2009 (Panasonic G1) I proclaimed mirror-less was the future & I was the subject of ridicule. But hey, I have often been the only guy in the parade in step.

Yeah I can see where mirrorless is going to be the way. I have been very impressed with sony nex 6 and A7.

I have even played around with the Olympus EMD wow also a great camera.

 

[sashbar]

With a few more similar advances, such as near-light-speed LCD updates to rival the instant feedback of an optical viewfinder, and the actual switch to literal mirrorless will be nothing but a formality when they decide the time is right.

I am not sure that a mirrorless camera inside a bulky DSLR body using DSLR lenses is what Canon (and Nikon) need. They will have to introduce the new mount and a whole new range of lenses that require shorter flange distance in order to make their bodies and lenses more compact and competitive. Otherwise Panasonic, Olympus and Fuji will eat them alive.
A big advantage of a mirrorless system is more compact lenses that allow better IQ for the same manufacturing costs, if done properly. Look at Fuji - their APS-C lenses are already better than anything Canon or Nikon can offer for their cropped cameras.
Switching to a mirrorless range effectively means for Canon/Nikon killing their DSLR cameras AND LENSES, and probably that is why they are hesitating.

 

[JerryLove]

I am not sure that a mirrorless camera inside a bulky DSLR body using DSLR lenses is what Canon (and Nikon) need. They will have to introduce the new mount and a whole new range of lenses that require shorter flange distance in order to make their bodies and lenses more compact and competitive. Otherwise Panasonic, Olympus and Fuji will eat them alive.

They already did that. On Canon that is the EF-M mount, and I forget on the Nikon (the Nikon 1 line). This puts them in line with Sony which has the Alpha DSLR and NX mirror-less.

One barrier to replacing the DSLRs is existing lenses. to get rid of DSLRs, I think you will need to be able to full exploit existing lenses. Also I, for one, like large bodies that provide good grip and lots of buttons (note: Panasonic, Olympus, etc all put out SLR-sized bodies too). The major hurdle has been the fact that lenses designed for phase focusing (which I prefer) are not well suited to contrast focusing; and phase focusing on a mirror-less has been basically non-existent. Therefore: even though there's an EF to EF-M adapter: the cameras have not been able to fully control the lens.

A big advantage of a mirrorless system is more compact lenses that allow better IQ for the same manufacturing costs, if done properly. Look at Fuji - their APS-C lenses are already better than anything Canon or Nikon can offer for their cropped cameras.

Really. Wasted my money on my 70-200mm L did ?

Switching to a mirrorless range effectively means for Canon/Nikon killing their DSLR cameras AND LENSES, and probably that is why they are hesitating.

I think you have it backwards. The lenses (and focus) are what are keeping SLR's afloat. Cannon, Nikon, Panasonic, Samsung, Sony, etc all offer mirrorless alternatives *now*; yet SLRs are still around.

Even if we just abandoned SLRs for mirrorless tomorrow (without creating proper compatability): Canon and Nikon are still lens manufacturers in that arena as well.

Personally: I hate the kit lenses on the Sony NX. Not because of image quality; but because of controls.

 

[sashbar]

I am not sure that a mirrorless camera inside a bulky DSLR body using DSLR lenses is what Canon (and Nikon) need. They will have to introduce the new mount and a whole new range of lenses that require shorter flange distance in order to make their bodies and lenses more compact and competitive. Otherwise Panasonic, Olympus and Fuji will eat them alive.

They already did that. On Canon that is the EF-M mount, and I forget on the Nikon (the Nikon 1 line). This puts them in line with Sony which has the Alpha DSLR and NX mirror-less.

One barrier to replacing the DSLRs is existing lenses. to get rid of DSLRs, I think you will need to be able to full exploit existing lenses. Also I, for one, like large bodies that provide good grip and lots of buttons (note: Panasonic, Olympus, etc all put out SLR-sized bodies too). The major hurdle has been the fact that lenses designed for phase focusing (which I prefer) are not well suited to contrast focusing; and phase focusing on a mirror-less has been basically non-existent. Therefore: even though there's an EF to EF-M adapter: the cameras have not been able to fully control the lens.

A big advantage of a mirrorless system is more compact lenses that allow better IQ for the same manufacturing costs, if done properly. Look at Fuji - their APS-C lenses are already better than anything Canon or Nikon can offer for their cropped cameras.

Really. Wasted my money on my 70-200mm L did ?

Switching to a mirrorless range effectively means for Canon/Nikon killing their DSLR cameras AND LENSES, and probably that is why they are hesitating.

I think you have it backwards. The lenses (and focus) are what are keeping SLR's afloat. Cannon, Nikon, Panasonic, Samsung, Sony, etc all offer mirrorless alternatives *now*; yet SLRs are still around.

Even if we just abandoned SLRs for mirrorless tomorrow (without creating proper compatability): Canon and Nikon are still lens manufacturers in that arena as well.

Personally: I hate the kit lenses on the Sony NX. Not because of image quality; but because of controls.

Your 70-200L is a fabulous lense, but what I mean is Canon/Nikon will not be able to compete on even terms with other manufacturers if they stick to their current DSLR lense range and just replace a mirror with an EVF. I do not understand how can they possibly fully exploit existing lenses. That means they wiil be handicapped by thier current flange distance (the one between the lense and the sensor), wich is longer than the competition. Theoretically it means bulkier bodies and lenses that are larger and more costly to manufacture.
My wild guess is, a future ( full frame) professional mirrorless gear will have slightly more compact lenses, well balanced ( i.e. not small but much, much flatter) bodies with a very large EVF and a really large screen (akin to a very thick small tablet) and a good (detachable?) grip with batteries (and probably controls ?). I guess you will be able to download Lightroom directly into your camera, post process, store your image in a cloud and send it to your client straight away without any need for a laptop. Maybe I am wrong. Nevertheless, the shape of the body will evolve and Canon/Nikon will be very limited, unless they ditch their DSLR range and introduce a whole new range of lenses. Again, I can be completely wrong, I am not an expert. But I have a feeling that the photo market is at the crosstroads at the moment and those who think "bodies will change but lenses are here to stay" are probably a bit too optimistic. I am not talking about the next 2-3 years, rather about the next 10-15 years.
There is one other thing that I do not understand in current DSLRs: why do they keep a mechanical shutter? Why not replacing it with an "electronic shutter" (aka frame transfer shutter) that simply controls how long the image from the sensor is being read from? My other guess is future sensors wil be round ( to fully exploit the round lenses) with an electronic shutter and capability to automatically store both landscape and portrait frames or switch between them in PP.