S1H new price

[icarusfilm]

Can someone explain why 6K is desirable?
I really don’t know what to do with. I have it on my S1H.


QUOTE=Bassman2003;1986869533]That sounds like the upcoming Canon R3.[/QUOTE]

 

[NorBro]

It's desirable for different reasons for different people. For videographers, more resolution could provide better-looking motion pictures (when done right) either in the native resolution(s) or when starting at 6K/8K and recording at 4K (or lower).

Then it's also an option in business conversations. Never hurts to mention you offer 6K because you never know who's making the decision about hiring you and if they know any better.

And eventually more people are going to start asking for it and the forums will continue to say, "But my clients still want 4K!"...and then in 5 years when most are shooting 8K we'll hear..."But my clients still want 6K!".

This happens every few years and eventually the lower resolutions become mostly obsolete and we forget about them.

 

[DLD]

Can someone explain why 6K is desirable? ...

A Bayer pattern sensor typically has a 20% loss rate in terms of resolution after processing, so 6K is really a clean 4K. (remembering old tests, GH-4 produced about 1,550 lines rather than 2160) An RGB 4K is 26.4 MPX, though a 4:2:2 is sufficient for a human eye at 17.6 MPX.

That sounds like the upcoming Canon R3.

If it's around $4,500, it might sell like a hotcake.

 

[Doug Jensen]

For videographers, more resolution could provide better-looking motion pictures (when done right) either in the native resolution(s) or when starting at 6K/8K and recording at 4K (or lower).

This is precisely one of the reasons why the S1H and FX9 look so much better than the FX6. Starting with a 6K sensor and then down-rezzing to 4K on-the-fly definitely provides a superior picture.

 

[Bassman2003]

I would consider a $4,500 R3 but I do not think Canon will be that aggressive with the pricing. Maybe it will be known shortly.

 

[NorBro]

The R3 is supposed to have the same exact video specs (more or less) as the R5 so it could easily be $4500 for just a bigger body with "cooling" and some modest improvements.

The R5c and/or R1 are supposed to be the better video cameras announced early next year.

 

[Bassman2003]

I agree but there is a legacy tradition with Canon that the "big" bodies always cost a lot more. I would be happy to see change as I am sure a lot of folks have a hopeful $4,500 number for this camera.

 

[NorBro]

Definitely could be right, but IMO no one's going to buy it for much more than that when the 8K version is around the corner and will be priced accordingly with Sony's A1. So why buy a $5K, $6K inferior model now when the 8K will be just a bit more.

The R5 is already such a great bargain that they can't main the same business model anymore and it's better to recycle camera tech in different bodies for around the same price so people are more likely to mentally justify upgrading.

 

[ahalpert]

Well, based on the current level of available technology, a "perfect" wedding camera body would record in 6K with a minimal line skip, 10-bit log internally, have a stills resolution from mid-30's to mid-40's with a decent high ISO/low light performance, a top notch auto focus in both stills and video and not overheat.

And, not so oddly enough, there are no such cameras.

I dont know a single cameraman who shoots both wedding photos AND wedding videos, let alone simultaneously.

Meanwhile, the ISO performance of the A7SIII is barely adequate for some of the situations I encounter. I could use another stop for perfect exposure (and that would still leave me forced to stay wide open). Maximal sensitivity is way more important to me than extra resolution

As for 6K, only about 20% of my weddings currently shoot in 4K. The rest are still HD. And the 4K I get from the A7SIII is plenty detailed for my purposes. The shooting is mostly portraiture, and I frequently use lens filters to take the edge off

Your post sounds like what people who don't shoot the work think shooters need, not what shooters will tell you they need

 

[Bassman2003]

Definitely could be right, but IMO no one's going to buy it for much more than that when the 8K version is around the corner and will be priced accordingly with Sony's A1. So why buy a $5K, $6K inferior model now when the 8K will be just a bit more.

The R5 is already such a great bargain that they can't main the same business model anymore and it's better to recycle camera tech in different bodies for around the same price so people are more likely to mentally justify upgrading.

From our video perspective, $4,500 is the right price for an R5 without the limitations. Sort of like the S1H of the Canon world. But Canon never misses an opportunity to not give something away. I would not be surprised to see the R3 at $5,500 MSRP suggesting the R1 would be $7,000+ I am still waiting for my perfect combo which might be R3 + R6 or Sony A7IV + A7sIII. This depends on the two unknown cameras in the mix. Canon has been trying in the last 18 months, so maybe they will make the R3 an A9 competitor which would make the $4,500 price tag more realistic.

 

[Bassman2003]

I dont know a single cameraman who shoots both wedding photos AND wedding videos, let alone simultaneously.

I agree with you Abe but I have shot more than one wedding where I did both. I do not shoot weddings anymore and would not do both now that people want a feature length movie made out of their day! It would be tough to cover them both well.

 

[icarusfilm]

Oversampling to get superior 2k and 4K totally. But considering the size of screens we are all producing for I just don’t know what could 6K do.

This is precisely one of the reasons why the S1H and FX9 look so much better than the FX6. Starting with a 6K sensor and then down-rezzing to 4K on-the-fly definitely provides a superior picture.

 

[ahalpert]

I agree with you Abe but I have shot more than one wedding where I did both. I do not shoot weddings anymore and would not do both now that people want a feature length movie made out of their day! It would be tough to cover them both well.

That's impressive. Most of the weddings I shoot have 2 photographers and 2 videographers. (Some have 2 photogs plus a photo assistant. Some have just 1 videographer. I've never been asked to do both and I've met scores of shooters in the field, including some who have switched from one to the other, but none who currently offer both services.)

The thing is that video and photo need to cover the same events, and the video coverage is often continuous. (Not for everything, but for key moments.) And the rigging, lighting, orientation, shutter speed, etc needs are all different.

Maybe if you could trigger a flash during a video recording and capture one of your frames as a full resolution still in addition to the frame in your video clip...

As for stills resolution, I don't think wedding shooters need more than 20 or 24MP. Mostly they are framing in-camera. (Composition is really important. I shot alongside a Nikon ambassador who fired off a million subtle variations of each composition he took.) You're not going to crop your way to glory, and the delivery resolution doesn't need to be that high. And they each carry 2 or 3 bodies, typically with different prime lenses mounted, so they can shoot with optimal quality glass rather than a zoom

 

[Bassman2003]

This was back when the video requirements were not has continuous and the couples were not asking for everything. But, if I would still be doing weddings, as a hybrid person, I might market for both services and perform both skill sets, just on separate jobs. So the need for a do it all camera might still be valid. Anyway, I do agree with you and it is impossible to do both at the same event in today's market.

 

[DLD]

... Your post sounds like what people who don't shoot the work think shooters need, not what shooters will tell you they need

No. I posted the specs that would make people want to buy their camera of tomorrow today.

 

[Doug Jensen]

Oversampling to get superior 2k and 4K totally. But considering the size of screens we are all producing for I just don’t know what could 6K do.

6K is on the S1H mostly as a marketing gimmick. That's really all you need to know.
If you want 6K, then techincally the camera can do it, but there's not much reason for a pro to use it.

 

[ahalpert]

No. I posted the specs that would make people want to buy their camera of tomorrow today.

But you called it

a "perfect" wedding camera body

Now, if you're offering hybrid services as in bassman's hypothetical, then your camera description might fit the bill

For a strictly video shooter like myself, an A7SIII with eND, improved autofocus, improved wifi interface, improved low-light would be better. Don't need 6K, least of all in exchange for lower sensitivity and a slower readout speed and no or crappy 120fps. (The 120fps 4K on the A7SIII is really, really good)

 

[ahalpert]

This was back when the video requirements were not has continuous and the couples were not asking for everything. But, if I would still be doing weddings, as a hybrid person, I might market for both services and perform both skill sets, just on separate jobs. So the need for a do it all camera might still be valid. Anyway, I do agree with you and it is impossible to do both at the same event in today's market.

I getcha. And also, there could be niches today where the approach would work. I shot one wedding (and only one) where there was no professional photographer hired. (The reverse is much more common: that the couple will hire a photog but not a videographer. Because everybody gets wedding photos but not everybody gets a video.) It was a budget thing. They figured that they could get decent iPhone photos from their wedding guests but couldn't get a decent wedding video without hiring a pro. So, if they were willing to make that compromise, it's easy to envision a budget-constrained client hiring someone to do double-duty and figuring that it won't be as good as getting dedicated shooters but it's better than nothing.

And if I really wanted to go crazy, I could leave video cameras rolling on tripods and pull out a stills camera with flash and break away to shoot simultaneous coverage that way. Though in that case, I still wouldn't need a perfect unitary hybrid body, and could take advantage of using a specialized photo camera and a specialized video camera

The point I'm belaboring is that I've never seen a stills shooter using an a7s line camera, yet it's currently the best choice to go on my gimbal

 

[OnSet]

6K is on the S1H mostly as a marketing gimmick. That's really all you need to know.
If you want 6K, then techincally the camera can do it, but there's not much reason for a pro to use it.

The reason becomes when your clients start requesting higher than 4k resolution (as some of mine have) to give them more re-framing options in post.
Seems to be more of an issue for teleprompter shoots where they're afraid to ask the CEO to do it again and they want 3 framing sizes to cut with. (Having done prompter shoots in the past rigging two cameras shoehorned together behind the glass, the higher resolution single camera recording starts to almost sound reasonable.)

 

[Bassman2003]

That is a great real world use of higher resolution. Although this approach forces one to shoot wider than probably would be used in order to have options other than nostril closeups.