Must my next cam be 4K?

D

dslr_sc

Active member
I'm in the market for a new cam and am having trouble deciding between something like a Panasonic 130/160 or 270, or a 4K cam like the X1000 or GH4. Keeping in mind that I'd like my investment to be current for at least the next 3 - 5 years, if I don't get a 4K cam now in 2014/2015 do you think I'll regret it later?

I've been looking at test footage shot with the 270 and it's breathtaking. Just about as good as what I've seen on the GH4. So this makes me wonder how important 4K is to the average viewer. Then again, in 3 years we may all have Retina-style monitors and TV's so maybe the quality of 4K will be more noticeable?

I suppose I could get a non-4K cam now and just keep an eye on the market. If it looks like 4K really starts to take off I can sell my non-4K cam and upgrade.

What would you do... buy into 4K now or stick with a really nice regular HD cam?
 
Sit back and relax. Let all early adopters shell out their wallet first for 4K. I'm just laughing inside for they have to pay so much for extra storage and all sort of upgrades that to me doesn't make any sense. Yes they can argue that it's future proof, but by 2017, 4K cameras will even be better than 2015's models. Now if you produce shows that has absolutely need for 4K, then it's justified. For me I'm absolutely in no rush because my main market is broadcasting. By 2017-18 is ripe. 4K cams will be competitively priced and more to choose from. Make sure you have a solid business plan to recoupe your investment. Most of the stations are still in 480i, let alone 1080i. And 1080i is really not at all 1080i. Heavy compression due to extremely scarce bandwidth makes it 3/4" hd resolution. And a considerable # of broadcasters are stuck with 720p. When broadcasters are doing real 4K, then you know it's time. This will take a while. And I don't think it'll happen in the next 3-5 years.

dslr_sc said:
I'm in the market for a new cam and am having trouble deciding between something like a Panasonic 130/160 or 270, or a 4K cam like the X1000 or GH4. Keeping in mind that I'd like my investment to be current for at least the next 3 - 5 years, if I don't get a 4K cam now in 2014/2015 do you think I'll regret it later?

I've been looking at test footage shot with the 270 and it's breathtaking. Just about as good as what I've seen on the GH4. So this makes me wonder how important 4K is to the average viewer. Then again, in 3 years we may all have Retina-style monitors and TV's so maybe the quality of 4K will be more noticeable?

I suppose I could get a non-4K cam now and just keep an eye on the market. If it looks like 4K really starts to take off I can sell my non-4K cam and upgrade.

What would you do... buy into 4K now or stick with a really nice regular HD cam?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
First, tell us what you need to shoot with the camera? The difference between the PX270 and the GH4 is pretty large from a usage point of view. If you only need shallow DOF and are working in controlled situations I would say yes, get a 4k camera because they are out there and look stunning. If you need a workhorse video camera I would say the PX270 before knowing the light sensitivity of the X1000. For me, low noise light sensitivity is the hallmark of a great working video camera. Great color comes in a close second. Resolution is down the chart a bit because lets face it, 1080p will always look good. But I can't answer for you, so let us know how you are using the camera(s) and we can all make an educated guess.
 
The broadcast of tomorrow will be streamed and not just by Netflix, Hulu and Amazon Prime either. CBS and HBO are jumping onto the streaming bandwagon because there's a lot more control of the material, revenues and the image quality that way.

In terms of equipment, their prices will be dropping precipitously and there's very little that can be done about that. With that in mind, I'd personally look into the new Samsung NX1, which will be shipping soon and seems to offer some camcorder-type features as well as 4K. Then again, you'd have to invest into their lens system as well. If that isn't a problem, however ...
 
If you find what you have must be replaced today I'd say it's better to go with a 4k camera but if you have a camera that works fine for what you do keep it for now and purchase something when you have the need for it.
 
Ever since Ive been in video (coming from stills) the video images have just looked a bit thin and not very sharp - I have no standard but my own.

Im sure a high bandwidth 1080 camera (like the F35) could produce an image that hit my own personal 'bar'

Im guessing that that bar is at about 400mbs

The route to that 400mbs via a consumer camera will be through a '4k' camera..

S
 
Osslund said:
If you find what you have must be replaced today I'd say it's better to go with a 4k camera but if you have a camera that works fine for what you do keep it for now and purchase something when you have the need for it.
Click to expand...

For these 4K cinema cams to really take off to the rest of the production community, PL lens prices must come down. So far that's not happening at all. Cinema lens production is a very slow and meticulous manual process. The Canon 50-1000 mm lists for $78K. If Canon has an entry level 4K PL lens for $8-12K, then we'll likely see a huge surge in 4K in 2014-2015. They also will have to figure out how to make it smaller and more compact, similar to 2/3" B4. So will take some time.

For me, I'll have no choice but to get the best of 1/3", 2/3" B4 and PL cams and lenses on the market to cover all my shooting needs. There's no such thing as 1 size fit all cam.
 
Ask 20 different people, you get 20 different answers.

My thoughts…. If you really need a camera, purchase the camera that you need now.

Unless you do this as a hobby, forget about it lasting 5 years. The current camera cycle is now roughly 18 months.
 
There is no need to swap cams every 18 months - or there won't be once cams hit a certain level - f55 and Amera are good full stop - as will future cheap cams c400 or whatever maybe even the fs7
 
Totally agree. There was a time, when film cameras hit a certain plateau, that you could buy a 10- or 20-year-old medium format camera and shoot just-as-nice-of pictures as the latest breed. I think that will come again when F55 quality sits within a DVX100 form factor. After that, I'll be good for 20 years or so.
 
Buy what you can afford and what you will be able to market to your clients. One of the worst things is to get caught up in the buzz and end up spending your profit margin. I bought a PMW 300 because I was not getting work that I wanted to get from networks and local broadcast outlets. I now get that work. My two year old FS100 kit still makes awesome pics and my clients last week are thrilled with the images meaning more wor down the road. If you can't make a living and pay off your camera in a year or as Mr. Jones suggests within 18 months, I say don't buy it. If you are going with a large sensor camera, buy glass, good glass, it will hold its value and always work for you.
 
combatentropy said:
... I think that will come again when F55 quality sits within a DVX100 form factor. After that, I'll be good for 20 years or so.
Click to expand...
This assumes that, in the intervening years, there'll be only marginal improvement in sensor technologies effecting the DR and ISO performance.

As to F-55 quality for ~ $5K-$7K, we might see it at the very next NAB (in 2015) with the exception of the global shutter (although, there are various ongoing projects that purport to deliver a global shutter type IQ off an RS or a combined RS/GS sensor).

Where I do agree is that the difference between the DVX 100/$5K type and the high end/pro will soon be almost imperceptible to an average viewer as the final image.
 
DLD said:
This assumes that, in the intervening years, there'll be only marginal improvement in sensor technologies effecting the DR and ISO performance.
Click to expand...

In stills most professionals just got bored of upgrading after about 16mp raw (in about 2009) - because really that is good enough for most applications - that doesn't mean that bigger/better cams are not there it is just that for basic communication with an audience that res communicates enough.

I for one did not leave Skyfall feeling robbed of image quality.

S
 
David W. Jones said:
Unless you do this as a hobby, forget about it lasting 5 years. The current camera cycle is now roughly 18 months.
Click to expand...

This is untrue, at least in my field (corporate video) - we're still shooting on Panasonic HMC151/AF101's and apart from investing in a PX270 soon we will continue to use them well into the foreseeable future
 
Where is the OP?...

I think 4k will be that resolution limit in the video world. The internet is the reason resolution is capped. Yes you can say YouTube can stream 4k and 4k TVs are out but the realty is lower resolutions are what the vast majority uses. So a nice 1080p or 4k camera will easily e useful in three years.
 
Funny, I can remember when I thought I'd never get rid of my SDX900, or my Eclair NPRs, or my BL4. When we got rid of our Red One M, I swore I would never shoot with a Red again, and then partnered on a Red Epic, then sold my half and leased an Alexa XT. Now we just keep a few cheaper cameras in-house and rent nicer cameras. Since camera technology is changing so quickly, I don't want to get locked into a camera that will take 5 years to pay off and be stuck.
 
morgan_moore said:
... I for one did not leave Skyfall feeling robbed of image quality.

S
Click to expand...
A few weeks ago I wandered into a local sports bar that had an NCAA football game on (American football, FSU - Notre Fame, if anyone cares or needs details). Right in the middle of it hanged an 84" flat screen and I immediately thought that 1080p (or, likely, a very compressed 720p off a satellite) wasn't good enough for an 84" TV. And, had I watched "Skyfall" on it with the same data rate, I would have said the same thing.
 
Bassman2003 said:
Where is the OP?...

I think 4k will be that resolution limit in the video world. The internet is the reason resolution is capped. Yes you can say YouTube can stream 4k and 4k TVs are out but the realty is lower resolutions are what the vast majority uses. So a nice 1080p or 4k camera will easily e useful in three years.
Click to expand...
Akamai just released a survey stating that an average broadband speed in the US is about 11.5 Mbps, which is below the "preferred minimum" 4K speed of 15 (actual 4K speed may require anywhere from 12 to 25 Mbps, depending on a streamer).

On the other hand, the gigabit internet is already being offered via fiber or cable in places (there's already technology to offer 3 Gig speeds without much improvement of the infrastructure itself). And that is the next step in broadband - upward of 100 Mbps, which will have the premium subscribers capable of 8K on demand. Next generation Blu-Ray might be capable of 8K too. The market penetration rates will vary and the chances are the image quality will be contingent on willingness to pay for it. From the 8K home projectors to the 720p tablets, available at an instant and made to order.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top