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

[robbins.photo]

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.

Derrel - Jesus.. get out of my garage will you? I put all that crap in there for a reason. Now wash your hands and get to the table already.. lol.

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..

Yup.. technology comes and goes, and just because it might give you something that no other technology can really is no guarantee of success. A lot of other stuff factors in. I know we've seen the mirrorless vrs DSLR thing go on and on and were likely to see it a lot more. I still maintain that in order for mirrorless to take over for DSLR it has to be able to offer features that DSLR can't, and lets be honest, 4k video isn't going to be "it".

I'm sure there are some folks who who might get pretty excited about high end video but lets face it, that's not going to be the majority of the DSLR market. So yes it is quite possible that mirrorless might eventually take over, but in order to do so they need to make it better than DSLR in the majority of categories that people who take pictures really care about, and from what I've seen they just aren't there yet.

That isn't to say that the technology won't advance and won't eventually replace DSLR - but really at this stage, who knows? At the time the beta machine I owned was "better" technology than the VHS machine I had - but that didn't mean it was a success. Probably why it's sitting in the trunk of the Edsel now.. lol

 

[rexbobcat]

When I talk to local video people who have 4K cameras, it seems like what it comes down to is that they just want the biggest cinema boner on the playground.

Also, to even be able to perceive a difference between 1080p and 4K at normal viewing distances, wouldn't the TV have to be like 50 inches?

It just seems impractical for those who aren't willing to invest in a $10,000 complete entertainment system.

 

[Derrel]

The Sochi winter Olympics will be shot in 4k...but almost nobody will see any of the footage...
4K TV comes to the Winter Olympics, but you won't be able to watch it | News | TechRadar

And OMG, here's an article by Thom Hogan entitled, "Why 4K? Here's Why Not". Interesting reading. Very interesting.
Why 4K? Here's Why Not | byThom | Thom Hogan

Here's Thom's coverage of the camera that started off this post, the brand-new Pansonic GH4. Panasonic GH4 Camera Introduced | Sans Mirror ? mirrorless, interchangeable lens cameras | Thom Hogan

Looks like this approximately $2,000, big, blocky, m4/3 camera is more of a video camera than a still camera. My guess is that it'll gain traction with some videographers, but will be an utter dud in the still camera segment, due to the high price, and big body. But hey...apparently some people think that big, blocky, $2,000 4k cameras represents the direction the mirrorless segment is headed. I'm not so sure that this thing can compete against smaller d-slr bodies that can shoot 1080p video, which cost less than half as much money, and have larger, higher-MP count and well, simply better sensors, and for which we actually have video distribution and display devices for NOW, TODAY.

 

[JerryLove]

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.

True... but that is the case today as well.

The SLR is bigger and bulkier and because of the distance to the sensor and potentially large frame uses larger, more expensive lenses. Yet they continue to thrive.

I agree that, were we starting from scratch, the SLR would make no sense, and the longer flange distance the SLRs have would make no sense on a mirrorless. But we are not from scratch. We are in a world with millions of lenses.

I would think the ideal option would be a mirrorless that was fully compatible (with an adapter to lengthen flange) to existing SLR lenses. If, for example, the EF-M camera could fully operate the EF and EF-S lenses (there is an adapter, but I believe you lose things like autofocus). That would allow someone to get all the advantages of mirrorless designs while still retaining full compatability to massive existing glass stockpiles.

And that gets to another area where the current crop of mirrorless bodies don't really work. The Panasonic being discussed here is $2k. Other than (very compressed unless I get their big price unknown adapter; and even at compressed I need their custom SD card) 4k video: what does this $2k camera get me that I don't get with a Nikon 5200 or Canon T3i at 1/3rd the price (and with 50% more pixels in the case of the Nikon)?

In theory the lenses will be cheaper (how many do I have to buy to make up for the higher up-front costs), but is that true in practice?

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.

That's what I'm trying to tell you. Nikon and Canon have had a whole range of such lenses for some time. For Canon it's the EF-M mount. Not sure what it's called for Nikon. Both these companies already do compete in this space.

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.

Why Digital Cameras Have Mechanical Shutters

 

[Gavjenks]

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...

Yeah, and sales of cars were weak weak weak, when they ran on steam engines and had cotton brakes and wooden wheels, etc.


There are obvious technological hurdles that need to be jumped to make mirrorless equal:
- autofocus in "live view" = to autofocus on the bottom of the camera
- The LCD being fast enough to update that you can't notice any lag compared to a light speed optical viewfinder
- The battery drain of an LCD being equal to the battery drain saved by not flipping a mirror (this may already be true, I'm not sure).

If you can do all those things, then there is absolutely zero advantage to using an SLR, so why would anybody carry around all the extra weight and all the extra bulk, AND have much more expensive lenses due to the design constraint of having to leave room for a mirror instead of glass being as close to the sensor as needed, etc. etc.?

It's clearl not an issue of fads, it's just blatant common sense that something better in every single way would take over the market.