cameranut Loc: North Carolina

The "big deal" is they want your money. They (Canon, Nikon, etc.) can't make money if you hang onto your old tried and true camera.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

I use 4K stills a lot. My GH4 does them. 4K is 8.2 MP, same as my old Canon 20D and 30D. That’s plenty for my purposes.

As for video being the future, it’s just one of the “convergence media” Steve Jobs started talking about back about 1982. Many others had been dreaming before him about a media-rich future. HD video was being developed in the mid-1970s. The Internet dates to the mid-1960s. LED and OLED flat screen technologies were known to be viable concepts 40 to 50 years ago. So were online shopping and banking.

So now we live in a melting pot of:

Audio
Radio
Photography
Video
Telephony
Internet
Text
Graphics
Print
Etc.

I use them all. They’re complementary communications media.

Those who see one medium in isolation from the rest are missing so much power!

HT

I see Bill answered, and well. However I’ll inject an opinion anyway 👀

Video and stills may merge for let’s call it, casual use. However, videography is fundamentally different to photography in ways unrelated to the technical imaging system. I won’t go on and give a full treatise on why, I’ll just point to one such difference...

Videography generally prefers blurred images to replicate the smooth imagery we observe through our own eyes. “They” call it a cinemamstic effect or feel. Individual images making up the video reel are deliberately blurred for visual smoothness when played at 25fps, and largely achieved with slow shutter speeds. “Sharp” images used in video reels results in video “jello”. Of course for a photographer, some exceptions aside for artistic reasons, would find blurry images completely unacceptable. A photographer can rarely therefore simply pull a video image frame of the “reel” and find it acceptably sharp by a photographers standard. And vice versa, a videographer would be unhappy with minutes, or hours of super-sharp photographs strung together to make a video, even the photographer kept up the frame rate at 25 fps.

For casual or uncritical use; convergence between video and photography is likely; here now even. But for for the more deliberate videographer or photographer, it’s much less likely. And there are other fundamental differences to 😎

But that’s just my humble opinion 🙄

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Fundamentally, this is correct. I usually use 1/25 second for 24 fps cinematic video, and 1/30 for American ATSC HD video. Maybe I’ll use 1/50 or 1/60 when I need less blur. I carry ND filters so I can do all that at any aperture in any light.

Most of the times I’m using video, I’m creating training instructions (web videos and/or PDFs and printed reference manuals and procedures). I’m probably using a tripod, so I’m able to capture both stills and video via 4K. When/where it doesn’t work, I make a separate still capture.

That said, the key for me is that the Lumix GH cameras are TRUE hybrid tools. I have all the controls I need for both cinematic and documentary video — and stills — in one body. I grab one small bag, and go. I can record everything with a consistent, intuitive workflow.

Most of the time, even the on-board audio is good enough. Occasionally, I’ll add a separate audio recorder, but I may wind up not needing it (I feed the pass-through from the audio recorder through a -35db pad, into the mic input of the camera.)

There is no need for the separate, clunky Canon camcorder and dSLR I used a decade ago. Often, I need only one take. All my video is used as 1080P HD, so working in 4K let’s me crop, stabilize in post, and use a quarter-frame crop as a closeup or “second camera” effect when needed.

HT

One tool, used for two seperate tasks which are both well executed; it’s a beautiful thing

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

I get done twice as fast with much higher quality than I had before.

chris100849

Heck yes. Our President does. Why not?

HT

1. Image quality in marginal light conditions still goes towards theDSLR’s. In good light the quality from either is pretty much indistinguishable. MILCs will get better, but so will DSLRs for the foreseeable future.

2. Removal of the mirror box and viewing prism is not about recalibration or even reliability. It’s about oncoming “obsolescence”. Manufacturers can perform more “tricks” when reading direct from the sensor. In short, software can be created to do new things off the data read from the sensor whereas a DSLR sub-contracts tasks to other components (seperate AF Module, Light Meter etc).

3. Mirrorless bodies might be lighter. But the law of physics can’t be bent. That 400mm f2.8 will be every bit as big and heavy for a FF Mirrorless as it is for a FF DSLR...

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

No, I meant what I wrote. There are more folks waiting on word from Canon because there are more people who own Canon. Then there are those, like myself, who own both Canon and Nikon.

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

What does that mean!?

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

Why would I do that?! All my Canon EF and EF-S lenses work on my Canon mirrorless camera.

aellman Loc: Boston MA

It's only a big deal for members with an acute case of GAS. >Alan

PH CIB

I want to Thank You! both for your kind responses,,,what if you only wanted to shoot stills and not video,,,then shooting frames for video at 20 to 60 frames per second with a shutter speed not at 50 to 120 of a second for each frame but at a much higher shutter speed at 1/250 or 1/500 or higher the video would be terrible but the stills hopefully would be great and you would be getting 20 to 60 frames per second,,,this for landscape shooting video where the light changes in a matter of seconds at sunrise or sunset or even mid day with clouds,,,or for portraits where you cover every move and facial expression the model makes and cover her face from every angle,,,or for wildlife or sports where you never miss an action shot,,,actually this is probably a moot question with the Sony A9 shooting 20 frames per second with no rolling shutter,,,future stills cameras will probably exceed the 20 to 60 frames per second of video capture....one even wonders with advancing sensor and buffer and card technology with a very high megapixel count and ability to crop how much longer a lot of lenses will be relevant especially the huge, heavy, and expensive long telephoto lenses,,,oh well I love my old high quality precision engineered and manufactured hardware,,,but technology marches on and Dick Tracy and Buck Rogers would be proud,,,perhaps if I look long enough I will find my old slide rule !!! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5jEKDljAuM

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

What's with the ,,,

Muddyvalley Loc: McMinnville, Oregon

oops. old one