Canon 4K DSLR?

Sort by date Sort by votes
Here's the downside: To fully take advantage of this (eg. you want to shoot video that can be projected on a full-sized theater screen at real 4K resolution), you'll need lenses with 4K resolving power.

Canon's cinema lenses go for around $7000.

Each.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
The primes are that much, Canon's Cinema zooms are upwards of $50k.

The Zeiss CP Series is about $3900 each.

Though, L Series glass holds up to about 18mp and 18mp > 4k. Should be ok for most stuff.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
It still records in mpeg though which is the worst part about shooting with a DSLR right now. I wonder about memory cards? Solo CF and SDHC cards are barely fast enough for Canon to write 1080p to, they're either compressing the crap out of 4k or using a new storage system.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Kholi said:
Yes.

Also, as great as being able to resolve 4K is, old glass can look quite charming on cameras that resolve a ton of detail. I expect the C300 to look quite nice with old glass.
Click to expand...

I man that old glass was made for film, which is higher resolution that a 4K camera.
At least by Ken Rockwell calculations (which may not be 100% accurate) you'd need an 87 Mega Pixel sensor to equal the resolution of film.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
Gonzo_Entertainment said:
I man that old glass was made for film, which is higher resolution that a 4K camera.
Click to expand...

THe issue is that it was also made for film, meaning that it's designed for a film plane and not a digital sensor. Which can alter the dynamics (resolved detail measurements included) of the relationship between the lens and camera body.

Things like CA, Micro Contrast, etc may differ. That said, I personally don't really care: Super Baltars are old OLD lenses, but some of my favorites to work with after my friend Matt introduced me to them. They're flawed to heck and back, but boy do they look nice in a digital application.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Boy, my last post was typoville!

True.

I have noticed that my "shot on Takumar" stuff like 109 and the new commercial look TOTALLY different than most of the other 5D stuff I see. Softer, more saturated, with the distinct red shift.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Gonzo_Entertainment said:
Boy, my last post was typoville!

True.

I have noticed that my "shot on Takumar" stuff like 109 and the new commercial look TOTALLY different than most of the other 5D stuff I see. Softer, more saturated, with the distinct red shift.
Click to expand...


Back in the 35mm Adapter days, my friends and I talked about how we have more freedom than ever to change the look of our projects from the onset, by using different adapters and especially glass. As digital begins to boil down to very subtle differentiating factors, the next thing is to explore glass--cheap and expensive.

My favorite lenses are the oldest ones. Up until recently I shot everything on a cooke 18-100/T3.1 and loved the images coming out of that beast. I hope to do more with it, again, but most of all I can't wait to use a Canon mount on the Epic or C300 cams in conjunction with my 20.00 ebay vivitar and contax zooms.

The combination of achingly slow apertures and over-sensitive sensor tech seems promising!
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Gonzo_Entertainment said:
I man that old glass was made for film, which is higher resolution that a 4K camera.
At least by Ken Rockwell calculations (which may not be 100% accurate) you'd need an 87 Mega Pixel sensor to equal the resolution of film.
Click to expand...

Do you have a link to this? A fully-square 4k x 4k frame is 16MP, so I can't really figure out where the 87MP figure comes from. Is it because of the RGB mask?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
escher said:
Got it. Seems he's confusing color resolution with luminescence resolution. Luminescence is far more important to the human eye so his calculation, while kinda sorta technically correct, is not *operationally* correct. His conclusions are awfully misleading. Grr.
Click to expand...

That's Ken Rockwell in a nutshell… he's an entertaining writer, but often massively misleading.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Gonzo_Entertainment said:
I don't buy his numbers either, BUT I buy the larger point that there is still no digital camera that resolves as well as film.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure 4K pushes up pretty close to high-quality 35mm film. It's the latitude that's been lacking and that gap has been rapidly closing, and there are already a few prototype HDR video cameras that surpass film in latitude by an order of magnitude.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
This is just camera porn on my part. But still...fun to dream about, right? =)

Canonrumors says:

Canon EOS-1D C Available?

And:
I do think it’s a good sign that more people are getting their hands on the camera, as we should start to see lots of 4K footage from the EOS-1D C.
Click to expand...

Anyway, here's a promotional video.

And yeah...look at the list of lenses they used for this.

Too bad it's not even 1080P on youtube though.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UB8ulHWBWsU


Take a look at the camera's specs on B&H. Sounds pretty good?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top