LA StarShooter wrote:
Is this concept new to you? People have been touting stills from 4k for a while, prophesying that we will learn to live in world of continuous lighting. I have read editorials in photography magazines saying cameras like the Red are still photographers' future and we must love crisp light.

Canon is attempting to break into Hollywood. They have set up an office but as good as they are, there are companies who are way ahead in the Hollywood HD camera world and they don't care about stills. So, be afraid of the monster that was unleashed some time ago.

This

For some purposes, the spray and pray frames with cameras such as these may be part of the future.  But, IMHO, there will always be a demand for really good art and very high quality still images.  There are now a number of affordable cameras with full frame sensors on the market and the frame grabs from them are very good. They still don't match the quality of still images from a 1DX, or even a 5DII in my opinion.  It isn't just the machine that makes the photo.  The person operating it does.   24 FPS of crap is just more crap.

Robb Mann wrote:
Canon had some success with the 5DII being adopted by amateur and professional videographers. This success caused the company to litterally loose focus and start to develop products like these - packed full of features useless to actual photographers.

Canon is no longer chasing/competing with Nikon. Canon is now competing with RED. I know many hard core Canon shooters who have given up on them ever producing a wonderful new photographic tool.

I have read detailed technical comparisons of the Nikon D800 and the canon 5D MkIII in several European camera magazines.  The D800 may have more megapixels but the 5D MkIII is considered to be a better camera.

Zave Smith Photography wrote:
A 12k camera is not being marketed to the "spray and pray" crowd.  This camera helps bring together a Holy Grail of advertising agencies, that being, having to only hire one photographer/videographer, one production crew, one shooting day instead of having to pay for two entirely different groups to produce their ads.

The media world is merging.  Once you created an ad for distinct targets, print and TV.  Now, when it is so easy to post both stills and video on the web, there is a need to merge these medias into one single message and often usage.  Think of flipping through an online magazine and a still photo of some car or bottle catches your eye.  You click on the single image and it morphs into a 20-90 second video ad.....

This is way advertising agencies are looking for people who can shoot both stills and video.  But, shooting video commercially, is a very different animal than shooting a still campaign.  The differences arch from the business model to all the technical issues of shooting sound and movement to even how one interacts with talent on set.  This scares that crap out of us who have built a career and a method of working in the sill industry. 

Yes, we have to change, yes we have to learn new skills and some of us will make this transition, but many of us will not be able to.  While I embrace change, while I love walking down a new path, I still get the jitters wondering if I can really reach that distance destination.

Sincerely,

Zave Smith
www.zavesmith.com

Some people think that it is clever to use the term even if it is not appropriate.

BCADULTART wrote:
Wow, This is a game changer.  Appears to be quite a unit and in the hands of someone that knows what they are doing it appears to produce amazing images.

Meh, canon should stick to making copiers!

Zave Smith Photography wrote:
Let me add one more analogy.  Think of the sidelines of a sporting event with its hordes of video and still photographers.  Think now of the  editors who instead of having to pay for those still photographers can just Cawl through the video feed, in real time and pull what they need for their publication....

That puts a lot of people back to pouring coffee at Starbucks......

Sorry but broadcast video rights are totally different. The house cameras are the only ones shooting video of the game and they want to be exclusive unless you pay the hefty licensing fee to retransmit. The current 1080P is enough for majority of articles, especially low res of newspapers. There's no danger of sports photographers losing their job anytime soon.

Patrick Shipstad wrote:
It's unfortunate that for that price it only spits out 4k JPG stills. When we get to 4k raw exports, I think that'll be pretty spectacular. But the workflow of sorting through 4k footage to find one frame will be painfully slow.

its not slow at all. If you shoot video you have to look at it anyways.  you just pause/scroll for a second or two when you see something you like.  its no big deal.  what you aren't getting is that you shoot video because you wanted to. you dont shoot 2 hours of vid for a still or two.  if all you wanted was a still or two you would have shot stills in the first place.  You shoot 2 hours of vid for a reason (your vision or your client paying you for a video of something).  when you are shooting video this becomes a free extra basically.    You get some half decent still for free (or maybe an extra minute).  And for the record, I wouldn't call my self a videographer.  I suck at video.

AVD AlphaDuctions wrote:

its not slow at all. If you shoot video you have to look at it anyways.  you just pause/scroll for a second or two when you see something you like.  its no big deal.  what you aren't getting is that you shoot video because you wanted to. you dont shoot 2 hours of vid for a still or two.  if all you wanted was a still or two you would have shot stills in the first place.  You shoot 2 hours of vid for a reason (your vision or your client paying you for a video of something).  when you are shooting video this becomes a free extra basically.    You get some half decent still for free (or maybe an extra minute).  And for the record, I wouldn't call my self a videographer.  I suck at video.

Well I imagine since it's H264 codec it might be easier.. but unless yo've tried to play back 4k video that hasn't been transcoded down in quality to offline edit with (I've had to edit RED footage) it can bring your computer to a crawl.

Zave Smith Photography wrote:
Yes, and what happens when Getty or the NFL gives NBC or Fox some nice lump some for the rights to pull stills??  What happens with a company like Getty offers the NFL a nice payment for providing both the video feed and usage of any stills they might pull from that same feed???

I don't know what will happen, I do know that if somebody can figure out a less expensive way of providing content, they almost always win. 

We don't know where new technology will lead but it almost aways leads decent amount of people to the unemployment lines.

Sincerely,

Zave Smith
www.zavesmith.com

You have it backwards NBC or FOX pays the NFL to get the broadcast rights, and Getty is already exclusive partners with many leagues like MLB. The cost to rebroadcast goes to the millions. Do you know the average per assignment rate of a major metropolitan newspaper? $125. $125 for a guy to go there to take photos for you and send them to you in the middle of the game, plus royalties if you run it. Do you know how much Getty charges for editorial image 1 million print run? $550. Thats pretty cheap for a higher resolution and better image quality than a video still.

Plus what about all the local high school, college, or minor league games newspapers cover that don't have a video crew covering it? So you're going to need to have photographers and an additional editing suite to pull stills off of? that doesn't seem to make much sense

Jerry Nemeth wrote:

I have read detailed technical comparisons of the Nikon D800 and the canon 5D MkIII in several European camera magazines.  The D800 may have more megapixels but the 5D MkIII is considered to be a better camera.

The 5DIII is a better video camera. Yes.

Robb Mann wrote:

The 5DIII is a better video camera. Yes.

Yes, this.

As a stills, it's way behind the D800, in all areas.

Robb Mann wrote:
The 5DIII is a better video camera. Yes.

Better signal to noise ratio.  Lower visual noise.  Better contrast at high ISO.
D800 image quality starts to deteriorate at ISO 3200.
5d MkIII image quality starts to deteriorate at ISO 6400.
D800 shoots 10 JPEG or RAW frames at 4fps.
5D MkIII shoots 20 RAW frames at 5.7 fps or endless JPEG frames limited by the memory card.

CT Digital Photography from Germany

These specs are more useful to me than higher resolution!

Zave Smith Photography wrote:
Yes, and what happens when Getty or the NFL gives NBC or Fox some nice lump some for the rights to pull stills??  What happens with a company like Getty offers the NFL a nice payment for providing both the video feed and usage of any stills they might pull from that same feed???

I don't know what will happen, I do know that if somebody can figure out a less expensive way of providing content, they almost always win. 

We don't know where new technology will lead but it almost aways leads decent amount of people to the unemployment lines.

Would someone please call Chicken Little and let him know that the sky is falling........ again.

Oh, yes, the world is going to end on December 21st......  Oops.  It didn't. 

A little reality check is seriously overdue.