Can 4K eliminate the need for DSLR?

[jasonmillard81]

Sorry for a potentially naive question.  I have been filming/taking photos with my GH4 for about 2 years.  I have 2 native lenses and an adapter for another.  While I was considering looking for longer lenses to increase compression and achieve a different look I began reading about grabbing 4K stills from video and printing flawless photos in A3 size and even larger with slow degradation of quality.

 

I film for my students (I teach special educaiton, ESL, and history) and take video/photos for personal fun and creative means and not for professional use/production.

 

My questions is this:  If the FS5 and FS7 and other cameras shoot 4k with images that subjectively are better than the GH/A7/NX series does it make sense to stop investing in the MFT system I currently have and save up for a bit more expensive video body that records 4K?

My thoughts were as follows:  Why spend money on a DSLR that is primarily for photo with video add-ons and shortcomings, when you can spend a bit more and get a cinema quality video camera that allows for 4K frame grabs.  I then thought about, well what if I want to not take video primarily but photo at a family party etc.  I could have people pose, record video, focus on my subjects, and have them pose from 1-3 seconds.  The upside of this seems to be if someone does something funny/noteworthy outside of the standard photo pose I could go back into the 4K video and get a frame grab that typically would have been missed with a DSLR?

 

This sounds too obvious to be this good of an idea.  Please feel feel to knock me down a bit and provide me with some clarity.

 

The amount of noise and difficulty of achieving the highest quality video out of the GH4 internally recording has been a bit frustrating (again i'm not a pro but I do care about image quality pretty highly).

 

Thanks all!

[User]

Just now, Zach Goodwin said:

Ask the other filmmaker not from here who still uses a VHS camcorder even though it is 2016.

Are you an alcoholic? 

[User]

Just now, Zach Goodwin said:

Are you on drugs? Quit being miserable.

It's a serious question.

But hey, while we are at it, you should know that no regular forum users here read your posts. So while you may go after newer members with your asinine behaviour it's lost on the rest of us here.

I'm surprised that Andrew hasn't booted your inbred ass out of here already.

[User]

You going to bark all day little doggie, or are you going to bite?

[User]

Just now, jasonmillard81 said:

Sorry for a potentially naive question.  I have been filming/taking photos with my GH4 for about 2 years.  I have 2 native lenses and an adapter for another.  While I was considering looking for longer lenses to increase compression and achieve a different look I began reading about grabbing 4K stills from video and printing flawless photos in A3 size and even larger with slow degradation of quality.

 

I film for my students (I teach special educaiton, ESL, and history) and take video/photos for personal fun and creative means and not for professional use/production.

 

My questions is this:  If the FS5 and FS7 and other cameras shoot 4k with images that subjectively are better than the GH/A7/NX series does it make sense to stop investing in the MFT system I currently have and save up for a bit more expensive video body that records 4K?

My thoughts were as follows:  Why spend money on a DSLR that is primarily for photo with video add-ons and shortcomings, when you can spend a bit more and get a cinema quality video camera that allows for 4K frame grabs.  I then thought about, well what if I want to not take video primarily but photo at a family party etc.  I could have people pose, record video, focus on my subjects, and have them pose from 1-3 seconds.  The upside of this seems to be if someone does something funny/noteworthy outside of the standard photo pose I could go back into the 4K video and get a frame grab that typically would have been missed with a DSLR?

 

This sounds too obvious to be this good of an idea.  Please feel feel to knock me down a bit and provide me with some clarity.

 

The amount of noise and difficulty of achieving the highest quality video out of the GH4 internally recording has been a bit frustrating (again i'm not a pro but I do care about image quality pretty highly).

 

Thanks all!

Hi Jason, if you are not exactly aware of the 1DC or 1DX II, this is where I would go. Many pros will roll 4k with the intension to grab stills. Large file sizes with plenty of room to grade.

[User]

Just now, Zach Goodwin said:

I already did I made my statement above and agreed with it. You believe in new technology replacing stuff and instead would replace the nouns to show difference.

 

I directly go along with what I still believe and show it when given the opportunity. Love hating people talk and try to learn then go join the Neo-Nazi Party

Um, yeah.

[jasonmillard81]

I liked the 1dc move the best when I read about it and saw a ton of footage.  Andrew mentioned it could be be had for around $4K on eBay but the latest I saw was $8K, not sure why the 100% discrepancy.  With it being that high the FS5/FS7 option seemed like a viable option.

 I think that I am ready to upgrade in the next year or so and thinking both aesthetically, practically, and financially I wonder if an all-in-one solution is the way to go... the appeal of the a7sII > gh4 is less aesthetic and more ISO practicality since I don't and most likely won't have a lighting system ever for photo/video in the foreseeable future...the appeal of the 1dc/fs5/c300 is the visual appeal of the video image > gh4/a7sII/5d3.  I can rationalize the purchase of the 1dc/fs5/c300 class of camera if I save up knowing it will replace both stills/video.  I don't print anything and if I did it wouldn't be that large.  I could also still go for the higher class camera and maybe pick-up an inexpensive/used full-frame DSLR for stills.  Hmm..

[jax_rox]

Depends what you need from your photos. There's differences in resolutions, dimensions, quality etc.

Not to mention it's significantly easier to grab your SLR/ILC and take a few shots than it is to have to build/rig an FS7 and have to shoot video all the time if all you want is photos.

Each to their own.

You also may want to shoot high shutter speed so as to get rid of potential motion blur, which may not be the look you're after for a video.

My general feeling is - what are you doing more? What is more important? Photos or video? Personally, I think nothing beats a proper SLR/ILC for taking photos. Quick, easy, light fast AF etc. etc. etc.

I'd rather invest in an SLR/ILC and also a video camera that uses the same lens mount.

[sanveer]

2 hours ago, jasonmillard81 said:

Sorry for a potentially naive question.  I have been filming/taking photos with my GH4 for about 2 years.  I have 2 native lenses and an adapter for another.  While I was considering looking for longer lenses to increase compression and achieve a different look I began reading about grabbing 4K stills from video and printing flawless photos in A3 size and even larger with slow degradation of quality.

 

I film for my students (I teach special educaiton, ESL, and history) and take video/photos for personal fun and creative means and not for professional use/production.

 

My questions is this:  If the FS5 and FS7 and other cameras shoot 4k with images that subjectively are better than the GH/A7/NX series does it make sense to stop investing in the MFT system I currently have and save up for a bit more expensive video body that records 4K?

My thoughts were as follows:  Why spend money on a DSLR that is primarily for photo with video add-ons and shortcomings, when you can spend a bit more and get a cinema quality video camera that allows for 4K frame grabs.  I then thought about, well what if I want to not take video primarily but photo at a family party etc.  I could have people pose, record video, focus on my subjects, and have them pose from 1-3 seconds.  The upside of this seems to be if someone does something funny/noteworthy outside of the standard photo pose I could go back into the 4K video and get a frame grab that typically would have been missed with a DSLR?

 

This sounds too obvious to be this good of an idea.  Please feel feel to knock me down a bit and provide me with some clarity.

 

The amount of noise and difficulty of achieving the highest quality video out of the GH4 internally recording has been a bit frustrating (again i'm not a pro but I do care about image quality pretty highly).

 

Thanks all!

4k is about 8.3 Megapixels, 5k is about 14.5 Megapixels and 6k is a little under 20 Megapixels (they all depend upon the ration of the sensor, whether its 2:3, 3:4, 16:9 etc etc). 

While theoretically a 5k sensor should be more than sufficient for stills, there is a race for an Ever-Increasing number of Megapixels (as well as 'k' value resolution). So, now PhaseOne has brought out a 100MP camera with a Sony sensor, which in 5-10 years would sound less less to people in the Megapixel race. 

Quite Frankly a 12MP photo is more than sufficient for most needs including Billboards and Film Stills. Anything higher shows the weirdest details, which may need to be softened or worked in post (eg:- hair on someone's nose, or skin irregularities etc etc). 

Also, most cameras don't shoot RAW, so the ability to work in post on those photos (screen-grabs) is less. Plus slower sputter speeds (1/48th or 1/50th) for making things filmic and not the weird Hobbit experiment. So, maybe a middle-ground where 10-bit 4-2-2 detail is what is offered, or a very highly compressed version of RAW may be what's needed. 

For now, even the 4k in Panasonic's cameras is sufficient under most conditions. 

[jonpais]

I believe all the newer Panasonic cameras already have a built-in feature that allows shooting 4K video and selecting stills. To my knowledge, there isn't another manufacturer that makes it this easy. If I understand you correctly, I would just pick up Panasonic's newest camera, the GX80/GX85. And that way, you won't have to invest in more lenses. Especially if a good portion of your shooting is for your students. I consider the two Sony cameras you mentioned to be professional cameras. Do you really want to lug those things around at parties and family get-togethers? I know I wouldn't. 

Incidentally, if you're experiencing a lot of noise with the GH4, you might be underexposing a little. The sensor does not tolerate underexposure very well. I might suggest opening up the aperture a bit. And if you're doing a lot of low-light photography, a Metabones Speed Booster is a good investment.

[fuzzynormal]

Seems like the GX85 would be okay.  

You stay in M43, shoot 4K, and you get a nice little camera that can stabilize your hand held shots.  I wouldn't nessecarily invest in a bunch of new glass if you don't really have to.  However, only you know how much low-light you're trying to deal with.  Personally, I've never had too much trouble with LUMIX cameras in low light, but I also have a f1.2 lens with a speed booster for darker shots, which helps tremendously.

As for the "pro"ness of it all, here's my anecdote:  During my wedding I gave my GM1 to my 16 year old nephew.  It had the Oly 45mm 1.8 lens on it.  With the f-stop wide open, aperture priority, and everything else set on automatic, I told him to go to town, frame up faces at eye level from 5 feet away, and shoot stills of everyone at the reception.  No flash, available light.  Because of those simple rules, the nice magic hour light that was filtering into the ballroom, and his personality of being willing and able to effortless socialize with strangers and warmly interact with him, he got twice as many good photographs of the reception than the wedding photog that was paid thousands of dollars to be there and was running around nervously with a Canon 1D, 5 different lenses, and a flash.  Our wedding album is half of my nephew's shots.

And we got all those pictures simply because he was curious about the little camera I was carrying around so I thought I'd let him use it and see what happened.

This incident just shows that photography is more about how one interacts with the environment they're in and takes advantage of it rather than the gear.  (Although the gear does help if you're also good at the craft of it all.)

Anyway, something to consider.

[JurijTurnsek]

Sony or Samsung should offer shooting in 6K of original data until the biffer fills an output that as either 6K jpg or even RAW frames. I know Panasonic offers a lot of creative uses for their 4K clips and grabs, but there is no harm in getting more resolution.

One thing to note though: until there are no consumer 4K global shutter cams, a mechanical shutter is still relevant for photos. Also RAW. And increased resolution for cropping etc. True convergence is really not there yet.

[jonpais]

? For one thing, Samsung is no longer in the camera business. For another, I don't think I'd want to be processing RAW for things like family gatherings. Lastly, a 6K consumer camera isn't in the pipeline for a couple of years yet, but there is no question, stills extracted from 6K ought to be amazing. For the time being, I occasionally make screen grabs from video clips shot with my GH4, and they look fine on a 27" monitor. But it isn't so much resolution as color that interests me. 

[JurijTurnsek]

Sony A6300 and Sasmung NX1 both downscale the original 6K sensor readout to a 4K picture. They could enable or be hacked to skip the downsampling and fill the buffer with the 6K stream and then offload it to memory.

[dbp]

I don't think so. Most video cameras screen grabs will still be inferior to a DSLR still. DSLRs will all shoot raw, with higher bit depth and better dynamic range, for the most part.

Unless you pull stills from a really high end RED, ARRI, or Varicam in RAW, I don't see  them competing. Honestly, even then, I don't.

Take a 5D MkIII still at full resolution and picture any current video reproducing that in motion? I don't see it. Maybe I'm wrong.  

[Damphousse]

6 hours ago, jasonmillard81 said:

My questions is this:  If the FS5 and FS7 and other cameras shoot 4k with images that subjectively are better than the GH/A7/NX series does it make sense to stop investing in the MFT system I currently have and save up for a bit more expensive video body that records 4K?

My thoughts were as follows:  Why spend money on a DSLR that is primarily for photo with video add-ons and shortcomings, when you can spend a bit more and get a cinema quality video camera that allows for 4K frame grabs.  I then thought about, well what if I want to not take video primarily but photo at a family party etc.  I could have people pose, record video, focus on my subjects, and have them pose from 1-3 seconds.  The upside of this seems to be if someone does something funny/noteworthy outside of the standard photo pose I could go back into the 4K video and get a frame grab that typically would have been missed with a DSLR?

 

As someone mentioned no one wants to build up an FS7 just to take a couple of snaps.  This is the exact opposite of what is going on in the consumer world.  People are so lazy they won't even put down their cell phones to take advantage of all a DSLR has to offer.  They are not going to lug around an FS7.

Also the cameras you mentioned aren't DSLRs.  DSLRs have mirrors so you aren't looking at a little TV screen you are looking at real life in real time even when the power is off.  You can't get that in a video camera or a mirrorless camera.

I use raw files extensively.  When you get into difficult lighting situations they are invaluable.

I also take advantage of resolution.  8 megapixels in 4k is a huge step backwards.  People crop, reframe and blow up prints.

Also I like full frame.  Full frame for family photography is invaluable.  In tight spaces like most modern homes you can get a nice wide angle image without a lot of distortion and aberrations with a full frame camera.

I could actually see a commercial person with a studio and controlled lighting using a 4k camera to take pictures.  I mean if they have a specific end use and a very controlled situation and time why not, if it fits their needs.  But as someone with no budget to speak of, no studio, and no desire to fiddle with a video camera when all I want to do is take a few quick snaps a DSLR is still king for me.

Also who is going to wade through all those stills frame by frame?  The DSLR workflow is already overwhelming compared to film.  Now continuous shooting at 24 fps or higher?!

[independent]

When the RED Epic came out, a few photographers here in NYC were using them on shoots and pulling stills. They looked great. 1DX II apparently looks pretty good, motion jpeg, but if you're looking to get high quality stills over 1-3 seconds like you said, you might as well use the 14-16 burst mode on the 1DX II. 

[joema]

10 hours ago, jasonmillard81 said:

...I have been filming/taking photos with my GH4 for about 2 years.  I have 2 native lenses and an adapter for another...If the FS5 and FS7 and other cameras shoot 4k with images that subjectively are better than the GH/A7/NX series does it make sense to stop investing in the MFT system I currently have and save up for a bit more expensive video body that records 4K?...Why spend money on a DSLR that is primarily for photo with video add-ons and shortcomings, when you can spend a bit more and get a cinema quality video camera that allows for 4K frame grabs.  I then thought about, well what if I want to not take video primarily but photo at a family party etc.  I could have people pose, record video, focus on my subjects, and have them pose from 1-3 seconds.  The upside of this seems to be if someone does something funny/noteworthy outside of the standard photo pose I could go back into the 4K video and get a frame grab that typically would have been missed with a DSLR?

The GH4 is a good camera and if you have issues with that you may want better glass or a speedbooster for lower light. The lens is as vital as the body, if not more so. Quality glass is expensive and there is just no way around that.

Re why spend money on a DSLR vs getting a cinema quality 4k video camera for a bit more: it's not a bit more, it's a lot more. The cheapest large-sensor 4k camera I would want to use is the Panasonic AG-DVX200. Our team uses one -- it is very good and convenient for a certain class of shooting, esp run-and-gun field documentary and interviews. However it cannot produce the lush, cinematic feel of a DSLR using pro lenses. It's $4200, but at least it has a good quality Leica fixed zoom lens.

The idea about people posing for 1-3 sec and using frame grabs is OK and we use 4k H264 8-bit 4:2:0 frame grabs for some things but they cannot replace 42-megapixel 14-bit raw stills. In carefully controlled conditions, 4k *raw* frame grabs from high-end video cameras can compete with stills for some applications, e.g, these magazine covers are video frame grabs from a RED camera, but you aren't talking about this level of camera: http://www.red.com/shot-on-red/photography

IMO for event shooting, 4k 8-bit 4:2:0 video does not eliminate the need for raw high-megapixel stills. You either need a 4k camcorder *and* a still camera or a 4k hybrid camera like the A7RII, etc.

4k is very useful for reframing shots in post but good quality 1080p is still very good. I would rather have superb 1080p shot with a quality lens than mediocre 4k.

[jax_rox]

On most major film sets, they still employ stills photographers. The reason is not because they can't be bothered grabbing stills from the footage.

[ricardo_sousa11]

I have actually stoped taking pictures all together, and only pull video frames.

Full collection - http://imgur.com/a/KeilF

These are all videoframes, I think they work great, on some cases better, others worse, but can they replace taking a snap? Of course they can, would this be possible without 4k? No it wouldnt.