Can 4K eliminate the need for DSLR?

[Jpr]

4K raw cdng files from fs5 absolutely can be as good as still images and it can do 120fps. The image quality is extremely impressive. But it's an inflexible and heavy setup.

this was a test frame someone posted using Sony fe 16-35

https://www.dropbox.com/s/jhu8ngin9ib6l1j/CLIP0000139_0000368.dng?dl=0

When o7q+ supports slog3 it will be even better IMO.

it says fs700 in acr but it was just pre fitmware. 

[M Carter]

I guess if all you need is web-sized images? If instead of "eliminate the need for a DSLR" your headline was "eliminate the need for a phone camera" it would make more sense (to me anyway).

I've seen this thread about 50 times on various forums. I have a 4K mirrorless camera. I can't use screen grabs for print advertising, I can't color correct them to use for most commercial web work, I can't use all my Speedotron strobes in video, and so on. I can't use a 4K screen grab for a billboard or vehicle wrap gig.

If all you need is a tiny shot that's really compressed and is difficult to correct, to isolate and retouch, and you don't mind shooting video at higher shutter speeds (not knocking ya, if that's "all you need", then I can't see a flaw in your methodology). If someone wants an 11x14 print, you're a little hosed. 

If you're shooting video and someone wants a still, then it's better than nothing (I have one client that still hires me for events, and I continually have to remind them that if they want stills AND video, they need to tell me which one has to actually be good".) 

There's a massive difference between the mindset for shooting stills and shooting video. In stills, you're looking for the perfect moment, and adjusting everything you do to get it captured. In video, you're looking for a temporal sense of what the moment felt like and how it evolved (that's the best i can explain it).

So what gets me is the idea that a need is "eliminated" or a technology is "replaced". It's focusing on hardware and not on the final results that the hardware can deliver.

This shot could have been a video frame, it only used reflectors - but it would not have had the impact it got from methodically thinking through a still setup. And (she's my granddaughter), I really kind of want a 16x20 iris print of this on, like, watercolor paper... 

[tomekk]

I think this question doesn't make sense. 4K is resolution. There is much more to photography than resolution. In this sense, it obviously can't. On the highest level, photography is all about pushing boundaries in every aspect. On your average joe level, 4k still grabs are easily good enough, though. So it depends on a lot of factors ;). 

[Damphousse]

On 6/12/2016 at 7:05 AM, ricardo_sousa11 said:

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.

That is precisely the type of photograph that it wouldn't make sense to use a video camera to take.  There is no movement.  Landscape photography is all about a slow methodical process.  I've never heard anyone say they needed 24 fps to do landscape photography.  I remember not that long ago Arizona Highways used to only really accept large format film images.  Landscape photography is pretty competitive.

 

1 hour ago, tomekk said:

I think this question doesn't make sense. 4K is resolution. There is much more to photography than resolution. In this sense, it obviously can't. On the highest level, photography is all about pushing boundaries in every aspect. On your average joe level, 4k still grabs are easily good enough, though. So it depends on a lot of factors ;). 

Actually if you are shooting sports or modeling taking 24 fps or more is "pushing boundaries".  You can pick up a lot of subtleties that would otherwise be missed.  Of course you have to trade off with resolution.  And the average Joe doesn't have time to sift through a mountain of images.  4k stills capture definitely has its place but landscape photography and a few snaps for Joe Blow aren't those scenarios.

[tomekk]

56 minutes ago, Damphousse said:

Actually if you are shooting sports or modeling taking 24 fps or more is "pushing boundaries".  You can pick up a lot of subtleties that would otherwise be missed.  Of course you have to trade off with resolution.  And the average Joe doesn't have time to sift through a mountain of images.  4k stills capture definitely has its place but landscape photography and a few snaps for Joe Blow aren't those scenarios.

As I said it depends. My point was that 4K alone won't replace the need for DSLR and that the question is too broad to answer. It might, but only partially and in certain situations depending on a lot of variables. Shooting sports for a newspaper might be one, because it doesn't require a lot of post processing. High end modelling is all about light, posing, retouching, grading so 24fps+ is not the only factor (if at all) and is hardly pushing boundaries.

I didn't say that average Joe will be taking stills from 4K footage. I just said the quality of a 4K 8bit image is good enough for this type of person. I thought it's clear because average Joe is not using DSLR in the first place nowadays, anyway.

 

56 minutes ago, Damphousse said:

That is precisely the type of photograph that it wouldn't make sense to use a video camera to take.  There is no movement.  Landscape photography is all about a slow methodical process.  I've never heard anyone say they needed 24 fps to do landscape photography.  I remember not that long ago Arizona Highways used to only really accept large format film images.  Landscape photography is pretty competitive..

Well, it makes sense if you're shooting a video and don't have another pair of hands doing still photography but want a still photo, doesn't it? 

[Eduardo Portas]

I don't see it, even though it may be attractive from a financial point of view.

You are forgetting something really important in photography: the pleasure of taking a picture.

This has been true for 100 years. There is a real, tactile, physical pleasure in the act.

Same goes for the pencil, I suppose: it's older than dirt, apparently useless, but people

still use them because they are simple, practical, and give us joy when writing with our own hand.

[jax_rox]

There are so many things that just wouldn't work very well, or at all with a video camera. Long exposures, short exposures, flash triggering... Flashes at all - video lights are inferior to an external flash.

[jasonmillard81]

Thanks for the feedback and lively discussion. There are many posts that contradict each other but I personally see the perspective and intellect behind their contradictions. 

As someone not doing this for a living but more of an interest and amazement at what can be done with such tools I think a few qualifiers are in order. 

I certainly concede that based on what I'm reading and the responses here, buying a cinema camera to cover both photo and video probably hasn't reached a point of feasibility for me Ina price range that I can live with. Yet, in the next 1-5 years the possibility of getting 12+mp stills with enough data for minor color corrections etc. may allow the average consumer to purchase a cinema camera that can cover 90% of video and stills. In fact some of you may be able to argue that's possible now. If I absolutely want stills to be the focus il sure I can use my GH4 as that tool if I decided to save up for a cinema camera. 

 

One me thing that I can't get out of my head is the potential for picking up a used Canon 1DC. It seems to be the most balanced of all options for my needs. But so many options exist it makes it difficult. 

Ive gone from a 60D to a 5d3 to a GH4 and feel that I've learned a few things:

1. While enough detail needs to be present in an image, the most detailed image isn't always the best. 

2. Color reproduction is more important to my eye and those of most of the people I know than detailed images. 

3. How a camera handles roll-off contributes more to a pleasing look than how sharp it is. 

4. FF/S35 seem to be a sweeter spot for appealing images than mFt. Many mFt users spend time buying add-one to achieve that look done naturally by larger sensors. 

 

5. Being a run and gun person who isn't looking to/able to control light situations should really consider how a camera performs at higher ISO ranges. If I had taken the time to learn my 5d3, I may have kept it and not gotten my gh4 which introduces noise patterns even in sunny situations at times. Being able to shoot at 3200 and above cleanly is very important. 

 

So, it appears that alongside a well detailed image that can shoot at higher ISOs, handle roll off, produce high quality color, and perform well in video and allow for usable stills is the next upgrade I seek. 

Where does this leave me?

 

1DC

1DXII

a7sii 

fs5

???

 

or wait until see what comes this September? 

[Guest Ebrahim Saadawi]

Hundreds pf thousands of people are shooting both smateur and professional photography using Canon DSLRs, set to JPEG. The 1Dc and 1DxII video is identical to their JPEGs. If 1DC and 1DX JPEGs are good enough for you, go ahead and shoot 4K bursts. 

[ricardo_sousa11]

9 hours ago, Damphousse said:

That is precisely the type of photograph that it wouldn't make sense to use a video camera to take.  There is no movement.  Landscape photography is all about a slow methodical process.  I've never heard anyone say they needed 24 fps to do landscape photography.  I remember not that long ago Arizona Highways used to only really accept large format film images.  Landscape photography is pretty competitive.

 

 

I was doing video and not photography, what I intend to show with the image is that the detail is there, its easy to color grade, and for most usage, its quite impressive. Of course its not a 40mpx picture, and its not intended to be, or else, I would take a photo, but check the rest of the collection.