Whoo hoo - new camcorders!

Just what we've been waiting for.

http://www.bhphotovide​o.com …upgraded-eos-c100?BI=4906

for that much money those things should do 4k

Since I don't give two hoots about video, I didn't notice that. But you're telling me that even Canon's high dollar video gear is behind the times?

KatManDEW wrote in post #16805109
But you're telling me that even Canon's high dollar video gear is behind the times?

I laughed at that as well.

KatManDEW wrote in post #16805109
But you're telling me that even Canon's high dollar video gear is behind the times?

If you think those are Canon's "High Dollar" video gear... You might not want to go look at their actual expensive stuff.

4k isn't trivial tech to deal with. Especially if you are including a fair bit of kit beyond just a sensor.

Luckless wrote in post #16805801
If you think those are Canon's "High Dollar" video gear... You might not want to go look at their actual expensive stuff.

4k isn't trivial tech to deal with. Especially if you are including a fair bit of kit beyond just a sensor.

Well it's not a bargain basement camcorder. And there's a phone that shoots 4k video now.

The point is that many of us are not thrilled with Canon's still photo development (specifically sensor capability), and Canon seems to be favoring video when it comes to still photo camera development. So two new "mid range" camcorders, and still no still photo camera with a competitive sensor, is not what we've been waiting to see. It just represents more concentration on video instead of still photo development.

And there are little point and shoot cameras that have way more megapixels than any DSLR out there. Plus they're cheaper too! Clearly those would produce far better photos, right?

Luckless wrote in post #16806391
And there are little point and shoot cameras that have way more megapixels than any DSLR out there. Plus they're cheaper too! Clearly those would produce far better photos, right?

Didn't Sony recently introduce a camcorder in the same price range recently which does 4k video?

At last! My dreams have come true. Now I can do frame grabs and call it photography!

oh joy! rapture!

ptcanon3ti wrote in post #16806575
At last! My dreams have come true. Now I can do frame grabs and call it photography!

oh joy! rapture!

Finally - someone who understands...

Luckless wrote in post #16805801
If you think those are Canon's "High Dollar" video gear... You might not want to go look at their actual expensive stuff.

4k isn't trivial tech to deal with. Especially if you are including a fair bit of kit beyond just a sensor.

for 400 dollars more you can buy professional sony camcorder of higher quality that does 4k.

nekrosoft13 wrote in post #16806807
for 400 dollars more you can buy professional sony camcorder of higher quality that does 4k.

That's what I thought. And it probably has more dynamic range

KatManDEW wrote in post #16806548
Didn't Sony recently introduce a camcorder in the same price range recently which does 4k video?

It is close, but as far as I can see their cheapest 4K model is still more than 10% more than Canon's most expensive new 1080p camera. Plus the Sony units are XQD memory, which sadly is still far more expensive than the already overpriced CF cards.

Glancing at things it looks like the Sony unit also has fixed ergonomics, while the Canon is offering their take on a highly adjustable grip that I've heard many people praise, and the Canon unit appears to offer a wider range of IO than the Sony does.

Plus there is the questionable value of 4K and all the added costs that roll along with it. Buying into a 4K system now means you are buying into beefier and far more expensive computer hardware (Cheapest decent 4K monitor I've seen is still over a grand, while a few hundred will get you a great 1080P monitor these days. Then there is the added processing power to actually work with and encode 4K video. Plus, who are you actually going to have watch 4K? Personally I'm really rather on the fence on the value of 4K content consumption in the home. More data, higher costs, etc, and not a huge jump in quality. Watching stuff in 4K vs 1080P isn't nearly as impressive as the jump from SD to HD was.)

So when you consider the 'cost' of 4K gear, don't forget all the extra that goes along with it so you can actually use it. That aspect puts any 1080P camera in a totally different price range than a 4K unit.


But of course the real issue is how well these new Canon units are going to stack up against the competition in actual video quality. I'm not interested in comparing them against stuff producing 4K gear, because as I said earlier that has a load of extra costs of questionable value still. (I would say give it a few more years before jumping solidly on the 4K bandwagon) What I really want to see are these units stacked up against other systems recording to 1080P at various frame rates, and how well the controls are laid out.

What features are other cameras offering at 1080P that these Canon units won't? Lack of 4K isn't a huge issue in my mind, and I want to know things like in camera ND filters, image stabilization, controls, etc.

In short it isn't my view that because it is a Canon product that these cameras are instantly good, but rather my view is that the camera's lack of 4K doesn't instantly make them bad.

Luckless wrote in post #16806925
It is close, but as far as I can see their cheapest 4K model is still more than 10% more than Canon's most expensive new 1080p camera. Plus the Sony units are XQD memory, which sadly is still far more expensive than the already overpriced CF cards.

Glancing at things it looks like the Sony unit also has fixed ergonomics, while the Canon is offering their take on a highly adjustable grip that I've heard many people praise, and the Canon unit appears to offer a wider range of IO than the Sony does.

Plus there is the questionable value of 4K and all the added costs that roll along with it. Buying into a 4K system now means you are buying into beefier and far more expensive computer hardware (Cheapest decent 4K monitor I've seen is still over a grand, while a few hundred will get you a great 1080P monitor these days. Then there is the added processing power to actually work with and encode 4K video. Plus, who are you actually going to have watch 4K? Personally I'm really rather on the fence on the value of 4K content consumption in the home. More data, higher costs, etc, and not a huge jump in quality. Watching stuff in 4K vs 1080P isn't nearly as impressive as the jump from SD to HD was.)

So when you consider the 'cost' of 4K gear, don't forget all the extra that goes along with it so you can actually use it. That aspect puts any 1080P camera in a totally different price range than a 4K unit.

But of course the real issue is how well these new Canon units are going to stack up against the competition in actual video quality. I'm not interested in comparing them against stuff producing 4K gear, because as I said earlier that has a load of extra costs of questionable value still. (I would say give it a few more years before jumping solidly on the 4K bandwagon) What I really want to see are these units stacked up against other systems recording to 1080P at various frame rates, and how well the controls are laid out.

What features are other cameras offering at 1080P that these Canon units won't? Lack of 4K isn't a huge issue in my mind, and I want to know things like in camera ND filters, image stabilization, controls, etc.


In short it isn't my view that because it is a Canon product that these cameras are instantly good, but rather my view is that the camera's lack of 4K doesn't instantly make them bad.

The thing is that I don't care about video. I would like to see some improvements in still photo cameras. Not new camcorders...

Luckless wrote in post #16806925
It is close, but as far as I can see their cheapest 4K model is still more than 10% more than Canon's most expensive new 1080p camera. Plus the Sony units are XQD memory, which sadly is still far more expensive than the already overpriced CF cards.

Glancing at things it looks like the Sony unit also has fixed ergonomics, while the Canon is offering their take on a highly adjustable grip that I've heard many people praise, and the Canon unit appears to offer a wider range of IO than the Sony does.

Plus there is the questionable value of 4K and all the added costs that roll along with it. Buying into a 4K system now means you are buying into beefier and far more expensive computer hardware (Cheapest decent 4K monitor I've seen is still over a grand, while a few hundred will get you a great 1080P monitor these days. Then there is the added processing power to actually work with and encode 4K video. Plus, who are you actually going to have watch 4K? Personally I'm really rather on the fence on the value of 4K content consumption in the home. More data, higher costs, etc, and not a huge jump in quality. Watching stuff in 4K vs 1080P isn't nearly as impressive as the jump from SD to HD was.)

So when you consider the 'cost' of 4K gear, don't forget all the extra that goes along with it so you can actually use it. That aspect puts any 1080P camera in a totally different price range than a 4K unit.


But of course the real issue is how well these new Canon units are going to stack up against the competition in actual video quality. I'm not interested in comparing them against stuff producing 4K gear, because as I said earlier that has a load of extra costs of questionable value still. (I would say give it a few more years before jumping solidly on the 4K bandwagon) What I really want to see are these units stacked up against other systems recording to 1080P at various frame rates, and how well the controls are laid out.

What features are other cameras offering at 1080P that these Canon units won't? Lack of 4K isn't a huge issue in my mind, and I want to know things like in camera ND filters, image stabilization, controls, etc.

In short it isn't my view that because it is a Canon product that these cameras are instantly good, but rather my view is that the camera's lack of 4K doesn't instantly make them bad.

100% agree. Storage space being one of them. 4K = LOTS of space!!!