Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
gethin

D850 released. Nothing to see here, move along

Recommended Posts

DPAF isn't the only advantage (it's a big one though!). The 5DIV now has C-Log with view assist. It can shoot full read-out DCI 4K. MJPEG is a high bitrate 422 codec (for some that's a plus). Wi-fi remote capability is superior to Nikons. 

3 hours ago, Eno said:

The crop factor is actually 1,75x in UHD (16:9 aspect ratio) - just horrible (an nod, the APS-C lenses do not work on the EF mount, you're stuck with FF glass on a huge crop)! The codec is very inefficient, the "4K" image (more like 2,5K actually) is very soft, high ISO is worst than on the Gh5 (in video mode), FHD is like any other Canon DSLR a pour 720p resolution full of moire and aliasing (the only exception was the 5D mk3 which was even softer). It has 0 advanced video controls but hey, Canon "must be praised" for it's dual pixel AF, to do exactly what with it if the image quality is so pour?!

The 5D mk4 deserves all the hatred, it is an expensive embarrassment video wise!

Another false statement. Canon EF-S lens aren't compatible, but third party APS-C EF mount lenses absolutely are. The Sigma 18-35mm 1.8 is a perfect pair for the 5D4 and gives a very workable range for video work.

As for the 4K image quality, I disagree. Sharpness isn't everything (and I wouldn't call the 5D4 4K very soft). As far as color sampling (422), motion, lack of artefacts etc.. the 5D4/1DC/1DX2 DCI 4K is superior to most internal 4K from the competition imo..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
EOSHD Pro Color for Sony cameras EOSHD Pro LOG for Sony CamerasEOSHD C-LOG and Film Profiles for All Canon DSLRs

I think if you want video there are better options from Panasonic, Canon, and Sony. All these cameras could use canon lenses. 

I don't think D850 solves any particular problem in the video market.  Maybe if they had DPAF and a fully articulating swivel screen, and clean 4K like the GH5, then it would offer a solid argument for people to switch their entire set of lenses with the blind faith that Nikon will keep up to date with video tech in the future.  It's a risky leap of faith. I think it's a great camera for Nikon shooters and people who that aren't heavily invested in one system

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose it solves the problem of the stills camera part, as the D850 can do things, with nicer ergonomics, that a mirrorless camera can't on the stills front - optical viewfinder, 45MP, best AF system in the world from D5, all in one body... Add on video we already have on the A99 II, tweak the colour science and skintones to Nikon's taste, add flat profile instead of S-LOG, making the footage easier to grade, and you have reasons to buy it... but a lot of reasons not to as well, for example the fact the GH5 exists and soon probably the A7S3!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Django said:

DPAF isn't the only advantage (it's a big one though!). The 5DIV now has C-Log with view assist. It can shoot DCI 4K. MJPEG is a high bitrate 422 codec (for some that's a plus). Wi-fi remote capability is superior to Nikons.

As for the 4K image quality, I disagree. Sharpness isn't everything (and I wouldn't call the 5D4 4K very soft). As far as color sampling (422), motion, lack of artefacts etc.. the 5D4/1DC/1DX2 DCI 4K is superior to most internal 4K from the competition imo..

C-LOG is close to useless in a 8 bit only IMO, + it exhibits banding in the shadows (even Canon themselves caution this). MJPG is an dinosaur of a codec, it's superiority ended in 90's. + if you dare to think about the "luxury" of recording 4K externally from the 5D mk4, you don't have it...nada, niente, no...you're stuck with the very old, extremely inefficient Motion JPOG encoding...That's it, end of story!

I never said anything about sharpness, I was referring to detail or the lack of it. The so called Canon 4K is more like a 2,5K resolution wise, the FHD is as pour as in 2008 (this year Canon celebrates 10 years of unchanged "1080" quality).

Did I missed anything? :grin:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, OliKMIA said:

No, they do cripple on purpose. Magic Lantern proves that the hardware is capable of so much more:

Consumer cameras are optimized for size and weight, which means they must compromise power somewhere.  YES, Canon cameras can shoot RAW.  Yes, RAW makes the camera more powerful.  

But NO, the cameras can't shoot RAW without risk of sensor or other electronics failure.  The camera gets UNNATURALLY hot!   NO, you can't shoot 10 minutes of RAW and then expect to shoot 100 normal photos on your trip to Italy (the battery will be dead).  NO, you can't just use any memory card to shoot RAW--try explaining why to most people.   Bottom line, un-crippling the camera creates risk, heat, battery strain, consumer confusion, etc., etc.  

Let me explain it another way.  You're one kind of high end user.  To you, Canon is crippling the camera.  There's another kind of user "John Q Public" who just wants the camera to work as they expect it, as the camera is advertised.  I think if you imagine any of your normal friends or family shooting RAW on a consumer camera you'll see all the issues that will come up that won't make them blame their own lack of knowledge, but Canon.  

Most people who try RAW photography still end up in nightmare valley!

No, Canon isn't crippling their camera.  Don't you think they'd love to advertise their cameras as having RAW.  Say they set it to 5 minutes shooting time only.  They'd get lots of great camera press.  Two days later their help desk will be swamped with calls and everyone will complain that they're crippling that camera at 5 minutes!!!!  Or look at Samsung.  H.265. Where's their "thank you" card for not-crippling their camera with yesterday's CODEC? :)  Nope, all they got for their troubles is people not buying the camera because they couldn't be bothered to install an extra piece of software!  

"Expectations lead to resentment".  All successful businesses, like Canon, keep that in mind.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Canon's brand in photography is getting known for being behind on technology and too conservative.

I can completely understand the business / customer / support reasons for not having raw video on a DSLR.

But as a gesture of goodwill they should release a development platform camera for enthusiasts, which has a full SDK supplied with it on digital media, an open OS for Magic Lantern to fully develop the functionality, and to make features like raw video bullet proof reliable. And Canon's consumer division will NOT offer support for it. It's supplied as-is and not sold in regular shops to regular Joes.

It would take minimum effort for Canon to do this and reap HUGE PR rewards, but they won't do it because A) not imaginative enough and B) it isn't a billion dollars of sales to pros.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/24/2017 at 7:48 PM, Eric Calabros said:

By the way, it should be embarrassing for Canon that the first DSLR with focus peaking is from Nikon known for its irrelevancy in video market. 

In a way I'm not at all surprised in the slightest!

People keep on forgetting that Nikon has been beating Canon to the punch in video over and over again, when we compare Canon vs Nikon directly. (if we ignore Canon's Cinema range)

First ever HDSLR: Nikon.
First with 4K DSLR: Nikon. 
First with 1080 60fps: Nikon.
First with focus peaking: Nikon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, IronFilm said:

First ever HDSLR: Nikon.

First, but crap!

1 minute ago, IronFilm said:

First with 4K DSLR: Nikon.

No, that was Canon with the 1D C.

1 minute ago, IronFilm said:

First with 1080 60fps: Nikon.

No, again that was Canon (1D C and 1D X)

1 minute ago, IronFilm said:

First with focus peaking: Nikon.

Except it doesn't work properly!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Andrew Reid said:

First, but crap!

Yes, but still, FIRST! 
And thus the D90 at the time represented a massive leap forward from everything else indie filmmakers at the time had access to. 
And it is what finally forced Canon hands to add video too (don't ever forget the 50D was capable of video!! But Canon didn't implement it, as didn't bother giving consumers video until forced to by Nikon).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes but really they were only first once out of about 20,000 lost opportunities.

And when they were first, they screwed it up and left Canon to capitalise on video for about 5 years, creating the conditions for an entire new business (Cinema EOS) for their most competitive rival.

So hardly a stunning performance from Nikon, me thinks :)

Nice post though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

No, that was Canon with the 1D C.

 

2 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

No, again that was Canon (1D C and 1D X)

 

Directly above I said beforehand: 

6 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

People keep on forgetting that Nikon has been beating Canon to the punch in video over and over again, when we compare Canon vs Nikon directly. (if we ignore Canon's Cinema range)

For many many many student / indie / prosumer / hobbyist filmmakers, we can basically pretend the Canon Cinema range doesn't exist. 

Nikon brought out 1080 60fps and 4K to cameras we could actually afford such as the D5300 and D500 respectively. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope, Panasonic was first with affordable 4K.

Sony was first with 1080/60p.... And that was affordable too.

Nikon have always been a laggard, ever since the D90 they have lagged in video. They are still lagging now even with the D850.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

Yes but really they were only first once out of about 20,000 lost opportunities.

And when they were first, they screwed it up and left Canon to capitalise on video for about 5 years, creating the conditions for an entire new business (Cinema EOS) for their most competitive rival.

So hardly a stunning performance from Nikon, me thinks :)

Nice post though.

I won't deny for a second that Nikon is KING when it comes to screw up missed opportunities to capture the HDSLR marketplace!

Which just makes it hurt even worse, when you think about how many times they were first to market but lacked going that extra half step further so they're delivering a really polished implementation of the camera as well. (unlike Panasonic, who not only push specs forward, but deliver a polished experience too! Such as no overheating or quickly dying batteries, like Sony will serve you up)

11 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

Nope, Panasonic was first with affordable 4K.

Sony was first with 1080/60p.... And that was affordable too.

Nikon have always been a laggard, ever since the D90 they have lagged in video. They are still lagging now even with the D850.

I refer you back to my key line in my original post in this thread ;-) 

26 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

People keep on forgetting that Nikon has been beating Canon to the punch in video over and over again, when we compare Canon vs Nikon directly. (if we ignore Canon's Cinema range)

I'm just simply here comparing Canon vs Nikon directly. 

As for many people, and for many parts of the world, the Canikon duopoly is a real thing. 

However, I won't deny either for a second that Panasonic has been doing great things for us! :-D  (and Sony too)
My first ever camera for filming with was a Panasonic, a GH1 to be precise. Loved it!

Yes Nikon is lagging, but only relative to Sony/Panasonic (and a few others, such as BMD, and Samsung back when Samsung existed). 


However within the little bubble that is the Canikon duopoly, then Nikon is at least broadly equal with Canon and arguably even has pulled ahead of Canon (their non-Cinema range that is). 

 

23 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

Except it doesn't work properly!

Yes focus peaking in the D850 is limited to only in 1080 (which is DUMB!! You want it for 4K too), but the sheer existence of this feature means a major shift is going to happen within the Canikon duolopy. Just like what happened when the Nikon D90 arrived on the scene as the first HDSLR.

You will see all future Nikons having focus peaking, and you'll see the focus peaking improve (such as for 4K), and I bet within the next year or two we will see Canon add focus peaking to one of their DSLRs. Just like what happened with the D90, then Canon had to respond to Nikon. If the D850 didn't have focus peaking, I bet we'd need to wait an extra couple of years (or more!) before Canon would finally in its own sweet time add focus peaking to its DSLRs.


Personally the D850 is not for me (too expensive! And I don't need such a serious hardcore photography camera, even though a like a bit of photography too as a hobby). But I am excited for what this means for the wider Canikon duopoly struggle, and thus what it means for the wider camera marketplace for everyone. Plus I'm excited for what this means for the future D750/D610/D5600 successors (cameras which I would be more likely to consider buying for myself). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Eno said:

C-LOG is close to useless in a 8 bit only IMO, + it exhibits banding in the shadows (even Canon themselves caution this). MJPG is an dinosaur of a codec, it's superiority ended in 90's. + if you dare to think about the "luxury" of recording 4K externally from the 5D mk4, you don't have it...nada, niente, no...you're stuck with the very old, extremely inefficient Motion JPOG encoding...That's it, end of story!

I never said anything about sharpness, I was referring to detail or the lack of it. The so called Canon 4K is more like a 2,5K resolution wise, the FHD is as pour as in 2008 (this year Canon celebrates 10 years of unchanged "1080" quality).

Did I missed anything? :grin:

You missed the part people have been using 8bit C-Log for years with very little issues with banding.  Are you saying GH5 has better LOG because it is 10bits? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Eno said:

C-LOG is close to useless in a 8 bit only IMO, + it exhibits banding in the shadows (even Canon themselves caution this). MJPG is an dinosaur of a codec, it's superiority ended in 90's. + if you dare to think about the "luxury" of recording 4K externally from the 5D mk4, you don't have it...nada, niente, no...you're stuck with the very old, extremely inefficient Motion JPOG encoding...That's it, end of story!

I never said anything about sharpness, I was referring to detail or the lack of it. The so called Canon 4K is more like a 2,5K resolution wise, the FHD is as pour as in 2008 (this year Canon celebrates 10 years of unchanged "1080" quality).

Did I missed anything? :grin:

Have you ever shot with the 5D4? because it sounds like baseless erroneous assumptions you are making here.. fyi FHD has improved since the 5D3. 

As for C-Log it is far from useless.. for matching footage from other C-log cams, getting creative with grades or extending DR.. it doesn't seem to break much on the "dinosaur codec"

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Michael Ma said:

You missed the part people have been using 8bit C-Log for years with very little issues with banding.  Are you saying GH5 has better LOG because it is 10bits? 

Yes, I'm saying any LOG recorded in 8 bit is useless IMO. You can disagree of course but I wont change my mind cause my repulsion for very flat profiles and 8 bit comes from experience (problems that needed solving, headaches etc).

The 5D mk4 is a nice photo camera... and it's better to remain that way. :)

53 minutes ago, Django said:

Have you ever shot with the 5D4? because it sounds like baseless erroneous assumptions you are making here.. fyi FHD has improved since the 5D3.

The images speak from themselves. I owned the 5D mk2 and it was a great filming tool in 2008...Unfortunately the Mark 4 looks way to similar in 2017.

 

You should check the video on minute 1:18 seconds for some "nice banding" and all sorts of nasty artifacts:

 

1080p.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, maxotics said:

Consumer cameras are optimized for size and weight, which means they must compromise power somewhere.  YES, Canon cameras can shoot RAW.  Yes, RAW makes the camera more powerful.  

But NO, the cameras can't shoot RAW without risk of sensor or other electronics failure.  The camera gets UNNATURALLY hot!   NO, you can't shoot 10 minutes of RAW and then expect to shoot 100 normal photos on your trip to Italy (the battery will be dead).  NO, you can't just use any memory card to shoot RAW--try explaining why to most people.   Bottom line, un-crippling the camera creates risk, heat, battery strain, consumer confusion, etc., etc.  

Let me explain it another way.  You're one kind of high end user.  To you, Canon is crippling the camera.  There's another kind of user "John Q Public" who just wants the camera to work as they expect it, as the camera is advertised.  I think if you imagine any of your normal friends or family shooting RAW on a consumer camera you'll see all the issues that will come up that won't make them blame their own lack of knowledge, but Canon.  

Most people who try RAW photography still end up in nightmare valley!

No, Canon isn't crippling their camera.  Don't you think they'd love to advertise their cameras as having RAW.  Say they set it to 5 minutes shooting time only.  They'd get lots of great camera press.  Two days later their help desk will be swamped with calls and everyone will complain that they're crippling that camera at 5 minutes!!!!  Or look at Samsung.  H.265. Where's their "thank you" card for not-crippling their camera with yesterday's CODEC? :)  Nope, all they got for their troubles is people not buying the camera because they couldn't be bothered to install an extra piece of software!  

"Expectations lead to resentment".  All successful businesses, like Canon, keep that in mind.  

Yes I totally understand that. I'm not asking for crazy specs on Canon DSLR. I tried raw on the 5D3 and the whole process is a nightmare with the file size, instability and need to transcode.

Raw is the extreme end of the spectrum however there is a middle ground. First I don't think that many "John Q Public" would buy a $3500 camera. Then there are plenty of missing features which are not related to hardware AND would not confuse the average soccer mom. For instance why did we have to wait for so long for 1080/60 ? Plus the peaking, zebra and all these non-computing intensive stuff. Hell if Canon is scared of customer support issue, be my guest and make it a paid upgrade like Panasonic supposedly did for the VLOG on the GH5.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

 

But as a gesture of goodwill they should release a development platform camera for enthusiasts, which has a full SDK supplied with it on digital media, an open OS for Magic Lantern to fully develop the functionality, and to make features like raw video bullet proof reliable. And Canon's consumer division will NOT offer support for it. It's supplied as-is and not sold in regular shops to regular Joes.

It would take minimum effort for Canon to do this and reap HUGE PR rewards, but they won't do it because A) not imaginative enough and B) it isn't a billion dollars of sales to pros.

Something akin to the automotive world like Shelby or AMG or Brabus etc where tuned versions of base products could be produced, sold and maintained as separate products by independents would be good.

A low rent version of Panavision for prosumer cameras if you will.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...