4K OMD 5 II on rumors

[D7k1]

I will admit that over the last 8 months I've fallen in love with my EP5 and my D7100. I've gotten more and more into video and was hoping that either the new D7200 or OMD would have 4K video at the $1K price point - to keep me from buying a Gh4 and a new set of pany m43 stabilized lenses. 43rumors says that the new OMD 5 II is designed to be direct completion to the Gh4.

I've been interested in the feature set of the rumored D7200 on Nikon Rumors, but while the 120 fps 1080P would be great (don't see how you have this and not 4K), the high probability of 4K on the OMD with its IBIS 5 Axis means that my EP5 will get a big brother as 4K has lots of advantages over 1080P in post production. I just took a trip where the IBIS of the EP5 made commercial microstock grade (with careful post processing) video possible without a tripod.

This camera will change my thinking on where I'll spend my photo budget over the next couple of years. While I plan on keeping my Nikon stuff, I can see getting the 12-40, 40-150 2.8 + convertor, and the 300mm f4 (at that point I'd probably keep my current Nikon stuff for a while but I also might sell it after owning Nikon for 40 years).

I can hardly wait for February to see what the D7200 & OMD 5 II specs really are. When I bought my EPL1 about three years ago on closeout for a travel camera I did not realize how insidious that little camera was with its size and image quality. The EP5 sealed the deal, and I am now a confirmed Olykon user.

 

[Promit]

Eh, we've heard this tune before. I'll believe it when I see it - or at least see it at FT5.

 

[D7k1]

Its rainy here and a good day for a "day dream believer":smile:

 

[Jonathan F/2]

I'd rather have some improvements in continuous AF, better DR, high ISO and maybe more MP.

 

[tosvus]

I should be getting the LX100 tomorrow, and that will probably take care of my 4k needs for at least the next year, but eventually I would like an interchangeable lens camera for 4K. Since Panasonic isn't doing IBIS with the GH4, I may have to look hard at the EM-5 mk2 if it does indeed have 4k.

 

[drd1135]

I'd rather have some improvements in continuous AF, better DR, high ISO and maybe more MP.

I agree with you completely but Olympus is feeling pressure to come out with 4K video. I'm hoping there's extra goodies for us non-video types.

 

[bye]

I will admit that over the last 8 months I've fallen in love with my EP5 and my D7100. I've gotten more and more into video and was hoping that either the new D7200 or OMD would have 4K video at the $1K price point - to keep me from buying a Gh4 and a new set of pany m43 stabilized lenses. 43rumors says that the new OMD 5 II is designed to be direct completion to the Gh4.

I've been interested in the feature set of the rumored D7200 on Nikon Rumors, but while the 120 fps 1080P would be great (don't see how you have this and not 4K), the high probability of 4K on the OMD with its IBIS 5 Axis means that my EP5 will get a big brother as 4K has lots of advantages over 1080P in post production. I just took a trip where the IBIS of the EP5 made commercial microstock grade (with careful post processing) video possible without a tripod.

This camera will change my thinking on where I'll spend my photo budget over the next couple of years. While I plan on keeping my Nikon stuff, I can see getting the 12-40, 40-150 2.8 + convertor, and the 300mm f4 (at that point I'd probably keep my current Nikon stuff for a while but I also might sell it after owning Nikon for 40 years).

I can hardly wait for February to see what the D7200 & OMD 5 II specs really are. When I bought my EPL1 about three years ago on closeout for a travel camera I did not realize how insidious that little camera was with its size and image quality. The EP5 sealed the deal, and I am now a confirmed Olykon user.

I am suspecting that the new OMD may incorporate what Hasselblad had already did with theirs -- multi-shot. Shift the sensor (or pixel shift) and shoot multiple times to increase the sensor resolution on a tripod of course. Since the OMD E-M5 already had the fantastic 5 axis IBIS, shifting the sensor to increase sensor resolution is not an impossible feat. Noting that Canon and Pentax has their own patented approaches as well in regards to pixel shifting to increase resolution so I would think that Olympus may implement it on their new OMD replacement. Probably the sensor itself physically will receive minor upgrades as it's getting pretty difficult to get major upgrades moving forward. 4K video probably included but they will need to solve the heat problem which may require some new redesign on the camera. If the sensor pixel shift is a reality, it will be exciting. Imagine a 32MP or higher from 16MP just by shifting pixels and if possible using 5 axis IBIS to stabilize 2 frames handheld, that would be also so cool plus extended DR because you have 2 frames or more to work with!

 

[cprevost]

They have a long way to go to get close to Panny in video. If they made that gap a bit smaller they could do well. If they closed the gap completely they may find themselves with something that could rival the excitement of the EM5 at launch. The 5 axis stability with the video quality of the GH4 would be quite a kit.

 

[drd1135]

I am suspecting that the new OMD may incorporate what Hasselblad had already did with theirs -- multi-shot. Shift the sensor (or pixel shift) and shoot multiple times to increase the sensor resolution on a tripod of course. Since the OMD E-M5 already had the fantastic 5 axis IBIS, shifting the sensor to increase sensor resolution is not an impossible feat. Noting that Canon and Pentax has their own patented approaches as well in regards to pixel shifting to increase resolution so I would think that Olympus may implement it on their new OMD replacement. Probably the sensor itself physically will receive minor upgrades as it's getting pretty difficult to get major upgrades moving forward. 4K video probably included but they will need to solve the heat problem which may require some new redesign on the camera. If the sensor pixel shift is a reality, it will be exciting. Imagine a 32MP or higher from 16MP just by shifting pixels and if possible using 5 axis IBIS to stabilize 2 frames handheld, that would be also so cool plus extended DR because you have 2 frames or more to work with!

Interesting. I'd never heard of this.

 

[pake]

Even Olympus must know by now that ignoring video will make them lose (potential) buyers since all the competitors have 10-100x better video in their cameras. So, I believe they actually have made progress and give us 4k with multiple frame rates.

And the rumour says something about a unique sensor as well so I'm excited already... In fact I've been excited for months already since I can't wait to get even better E-M5 in my hands...

 

[bye]

Even Olympus must know by now that ignoring video will make them lose (potential) buyers since all the competitors have 10-100x better video in their cameras. So, I believe they actually have made progress and give us 4k with multiple frame rates.

And the rumour says something about a unique sensor as well so I'm excited already... In fact I've been excited for months already since I can't wait to get even better E-M5 in my hands...

Nikon never had 4K video in their DSLR or Nikon 1 line up and they managed to outsell Panasonic, Sony and Olympus in a heart beat. In fact in terms of financials and sales, Nikon is doing very well despite the so called lack of 4K you will not get sales pitch.

4K is so overated. So much so that Panasonic paid and sponsored Neymar (the Brasil soccer player) to wear the stupid 4K head gear to do what? Shoot himself fooling around with the players for which most of which are gone to promotional videos and so forth. When I was there; we pros including the video guys laughed. Who's gonna watch it?!? The rich 6 figures and up income people who can afford all the 4K toys!! Too bad he was taken out of commission. Yes, 4K is important for video production people, but these people have money for projects. It's getting tough nowadays to make money in stills and video and basically if you shoot 4K, you have to accomodate yourself with more powerful computers to do color grading. Just take a look at the Da Vinci video editing system and see how much money you need to invest in those computers plus hard drive space where a mortal soul (people like myself) may not and could not justify as a toy unless I have a pure business reason to do it. Yes, Olympus main clientele, as Ray Avecedo of Olympus had indicated, are comprised of people earning 6 figures and up so really 4K is just to make rich people or those who need to boast they have 4K to have 4K. But unless we all have 4K displays in our homes today for $500 and below, then 4K is just that. Something to brag about, but in reality is little use to use who would shoot video for friends and families where they would more likely own a 720p or 1080i/p displays.

 

[tosvus]

Nikon never had 4K video in their DSLR or Nikon 1 line up and they managed to outsell Panasonic, Sony and Olympus in a heart beat. In fact in terms of financials and sales, Nikon is doing very well despite the so called lack of 4K you will not get sales pitch.

4K is so overated. So much so that Panasonic paid and sponsored Neymar (the Brasil soccer player) to wear the stupid 4K head gear to do what? Shoot himself fooling around with the players for which most of which are gone to promotional videos and so forth. When I was there; we pros including the video guys laughed. Who's gonna watch it?!? The rich 6 figures and up income people who can afford all the 4K toys!! Too bad he was taken out of commission. Yes, 4K is important for video production people, but these people have money for projects. It's getting tough nowadays to make money in stills and video and basically if you shoot 4K, you have to accomodate yourself with more powerful computers to do color grading. Just take a look at the Da Vinci video editing system and see how much money you need to invest in those computers plus hard drive space where a mortal soul (people like myself) may not and could not justify as a toy unless I have a pure business reason to do it. Yes, Olympus main clientele, as Ray Avecedo of Olympus had indicated, are comprised of people earning 6 figures and up so really 4K is just to make rich people or those who need to boast they have 4K to have 4K. But unless we all have 4K displays in our homes today for $500 and below, then 4K is just that. Something to brag about, but in reality is little use to use who would shoot video for friends and families where they would more likely own a 720p or 1080i/p displays.

Sorry, but you have COMPLETELY missed the point of 4K in a camera today. In a camera like the GH4 or the LX100 it allows you to:
a) downsize to 1080p and get a much better picture than any cameras that only shoot 1080p.
b) zoom into certain parts if you realize in post that you should have framed it differently, or you want to achieve a higher magnification (again outputting 1080p)
c) you can do pans in post, if you do not have equipment like a slider handy. (again, outputting 1080p)
d) down the line when 4K tv's become affordable, you have 4K material you can use. How many parents aren't just a tiny bit upset that only vhs recorders existed when they were filming their kids back in the 80's?

 

[D7k1]

Yes, 4K is the new battle ground. When you are a wildlife videographer such a camera as the rumored OMD 5 II with 4K would be a dream. And no you don't have to be rich to edit commercial videos or microstock files from 4K. Yes you have to have a fast computer, but an I7 will work and storage is now very cheap (I don't have to have my stuff "tomorrow" when I'm in post). Even something like Sony Movie Studio will work well with 4K. A $1000 camera is not that expensive as far a cameras go, Olympus if the codec is a good one, will sell more of these cameras then they think, look at the Gh4 which is most likely 50% more cost and doesn't have IBIS.

 

[Luckypenguin]

Olympus should investigate purchasing a cut-and-shut m4/3-sized variant of Samsung's new 28mp APS-C sensor for their future cameras.

 

[dornblaser]

Oh boy, Oh boy. Yes! I hope that these rumors are true. However, I feel a little like Linus waiting in the pumpkin patch for the Great Pumpkin waiting for Olympus to finally "get it" when it comes to video.

 

[bye]

Sorry, but you have COMPLETELY missed the point of 4K in a camera today. In a camera like the GH4 or the LX100 it allows you to:
a) downsize to 1080p and get a much better picture than any cameras that only shoot 1080p.
b) zoom into certain parts if you realize in post that you should have framed it differently, or you want to achieve a higher magnification (again outputting 1080p)
c) you can do pans in post, if you do not have equipment like a slider handy. (again, outputting 1080p)
d) down the line when 4K tv's become affordable, you have 4K material you can use. How many parents aren't just a tiny bit upset that only vhs recorders existed when they were filming their kids back in the 80's?

What you are saying are specs of 4K video. It's like you telling me that a Porsche Cayenne is in every way a better car than a Kia. After all, it is. It's also more expensive. Parents don't care about the future. They care about right now and parents unlike some of you young guys who seemed to be flushed with cash are saddled with heavy debt. You are aware that raising kids is not like trying to save for an iPhone 6. It's much harder unless you're flushed with 6 figures income and up and can afford both toys and kid's insatiable desires for phone toys as well. But then that's not reality in the total North America, Europe and maybe in some parts of Asia except maybe in China, because most people don't earn 6 figures and up.

Most parents in North America buy refurbished equipment or discounted. I work in the retail industry part time as well as would most other pro photogs to supplement income during our downtimes and find that most parents ask for cheap cameras and always questioned why Olympus and Panasonic are SOOOO EXPENSIVE?!? We always tell them you are paying a premium in size; size in lenses and bodies and 4K. They understand.

If you look at Panasonic's own mirrorless sales, the GH4 sales while good in NOT the panacea Panasonic is looking at and neither is Sony. The only people helped by having 4K are people who really need 4K. This is not the field of dreams where if you built it, people will come and use it. The time line is still a bit far off. In the meantime, I'm not complaining if I get 4K on the new Oly. Of course, I will need to see the actual price tag!

 

[dornblaser]

There is a serious and growing market for video, just look at the market that go pro has created in the last few years and all of indie and amateur movies out there. Many will not accept less than 4K and good codec. Is that everyone? No, but like all technological advances the rising tide of progress helps everyone.

 

[tosvus]

What you are saying are specs of 4K video. It's like you telling me that a Porsche Cayenne is in every way a better car than a Kia. After all, it is. It's also more expensive. Parents don't care about the future. They care about right now and parents unlike some of you young guys who seemed to be flushed with cash are saddled with heavy debt. You are aware that raising kids is not like trying to save for an iPhone 6. It's much harder unless you're flushed with 6 figures income and up and can afford both toys and kid's insatiable desires for phone toys as well. But then that's not reality in the total North America, Europe and maybe in some parts of Asia except maybe in China, because most people don't earn 6 figures and up.

Most parents in North America buy refurbished equipment or discounted. I work in the retail industry part time as well as would most other pro photogs to supplement income during our downtimes and find that most parents ask for cheap cameras and always questioned why Olympus and Panasonic are SOOOO EXPENSIVE?!? We always tell them you are paying a premium in size; size in lenses and bodies and 4K. They understand.

If you look at Panasonic's own mirrorless sales, the GH4 sales while good in NOT the panacea Panasonic is looking at and neither is Sony. The only people helped by having 4K are people who really need 4K. This is not the field of dreams where if you built it, people will come and use it. The time line is still a bit far off. In the meantime, I'm not complaining if I get 4K on the new Oly. Of course, I will need to see the actual price tag!

That is not at all what I am saying. I am saying that if given a choice, 4K is better. If you have the choice between two cameras that are in all ways identical and cost about the same, and one shoots 4K, pick the one that does 4K if you like shooting video. You may not feel you get the full benefit of it today, but down the road, you may look at it differently. Panasonic has been able to come out with very reasonably priced 4K cameras, including the LX100 which is $899. It also happens to be very good at taking pictures, so best of both worlds.

Looking at your equipment list, I don't get why you seem to be all up in arms about the 6 figure crowd or even think that that is required for 4K... Since you are in the Em-5 thread, you are clearly not looking at cheap $200 cameras either. If don't like 4K, by all means, don't buy equipment for that reason, but Olympus would be smart to include it in their upcoming camera (and I can pretty much guarantee you they will, they have already played with 4K in internal prototype cameras). I do believe Panasonic recently said they sold 2.5 times more GH4 cameras than expected, so clearly it is a selling feature too.

To re-iterated my previous post though;

a) Most people that shoot 4K today, do it to have more flexibility and higher quality, when outputting to 1080p.
b) 4K doesn't have to cost much. There are cellphones that do it, GoPro does it for about $500 and Panasonic cameras with 4K start at $800 or so (FZ1000, with the LX100 being a tad more expensive).

PS: This reminds me of previous discussions on this forum, where people don't seem to even like having video as an option on their camera as they feel it somehow happens at the expense of photo-quality/features. Well, I got news for those people, it is becoming very common to want to have cameras that do both.

 

[bye]

That is not at all what I am saying. I am saying that if given a choice, 4K is better. If you have the choice between two cameras that are in all ways identical and cost about the same, and one shoots 4K, pick the one that does 4K if you like shooting video. You may not feel you get the full benefit of it today, but down the road, you may look at it differently. Panasonic has been able to come out with very reasonably priced 4K cameras, including the LX100 which is $899. It also happens to be very good at taking pictures, so best of both worlds.

Looking at your equipment list, I don't get why you seem to be all up in arms about the 6 figure crowd or even think that that is required for 4K... Since you are in the Em-5 thread, you are clearly not looking at cheap $200 cameras either. If don't like 4K, by all means, don't buy equipment for that reason, but Olympus would be smart to include it in their upcoming camera (and I can pretty much guarantee you they will, they have already played with 4K in internal prototype cameras). I do believe Panasonic recently said they sold 2.5 times more GH4 cameras than expected, so clearly it is a selling feature too.

To re-iterated my previous post though;

a) Most people that shoot 4K today, do it to have more flexibility and higher quality, when outputting to 1080p.
b) 4K doesn't have to cost much. There are cellphones that do it, GoPro does it for about $500 and Panasonic cameras with 4K start at $800 or so (FZ1000, with the LX100 being a tad more expensive).

PS: This reminds me of previous discussions on this forum, where people don't seem to even like having video as an option on their camera as they feel it somehow happens at the expense of photo-quality/features. Well, I got news for those people, it is becoming very common to want to have cameras that do both.

If you considered broadcast quality 4K video systems, the lens itself is $250,000 US. Yes, it's $250,000 not a Go Pro 4K that's $500. Plus the machine itself is about $275,000 US totally a bit more than half a million dollars if you're talking about jaw dropping 4K video. I've seen what consumer versions of 4K video can do, but remember what I said before that most mortal souls won't be able to appreciate true high quality 4K UNLESS you watch the video as it was taken and fed into the editorial before compression? I've seen it and I know it is jaw dropping. I was there at FIFA and I tell you the blades of grass at the field was so real I thought it was real. Even when I was covering the Olympics when 1080p was the norm. I watched the actual feed 1080p at the stadium and then watch the re-runs back home and the quality are not the same. Again, it's due to compression. Most mortal souls won't be able to see what even a good 1080p uncompressed feed can do. It does look good, but most broadcast feed nowadays are heavily compressed to the limited bandwidth. And how are you going to share your 4K video via internet when more providers cap upload speed at slower than molasses?!? You need to compress the 4K. Sure 4K is going to look nicer downscaled to 2K. The same with a Nikon D810 or a Hasselblad or a Sinar medium format camera. Just take everything at 36MP or 50MP and then downsize to 16MP and it's a guarantee for a winning photo in any contest or jobs.

I never heard of technology overcoming the lack of talent of a still or videographers. To be honest, most Youtube videos are just showing the 4K prowness. The lack of a story line or the non-existence of it will eventually bore the normal viewers.

I'm not against video with DSLR, but I'm not sure 4K is the panacea much less 36MP or extended DR. If you look at the sales in general in regards to mirrorless, it doesn't shoot up like a rocket. In fact, both mirrorless and DSLR sales are not in better shape as they were 12 months ago. They are worst. So 4K wasn't the saviour and because many people are quite happy with their 720p or 2k recorders. It's the same many people are happy with their older 8MP to 16MP cameras. I'm more of a realist when it comes to sales. People who can afford a GH4 is not the same as someone who buys a D3200 or Canon Rebel T5i @ $500. If it comes with 4K video great, but the quality will be no where near broadcast quality. Is it important for families to just see a few more hair on their baby's forehead. Perhaps, but that's not driving sales at all. Money always talks.

 

[sgreszcz]

What you are saying are specs of 4K video. It's like you telling me that a Porsche Cayenne is in every way a better car than a Kia. After all, it is. It's also more expensive. Parents don't care about the future. They care about right now and parents unlike some of you young guys who seemed to be flushed with cash are saddled with heavy debt. You are aware that raising kids is not like trying to save for an iPhone 6. It's much harder unless you're flushed with 6 figures income and up and can afford both toys and kid's insatiable desires for phone toys as well. But then that's not reality in the total North America, Europe and maybe in some parts of Asia except maybe in China, because most people don't earn 6 figures and up.

Most parents in North America buy refurbished equipment or discounted. I work in the retail industry part time as well as would most other pro photogs to supplement income during our downtimes and find that most parents ask for cheap cameras and always questioned why Olympus and Panasonic are SOOOO EXPENSIVE?!? We always tell them you are paying a premium in size; size in lenses and bodies and 4K. They understand.

If you look at Panasonic's own mirrorless sales, the GH4 sales while good in NOT the panacea Panasonic is looking at and neither is Sony. The only people helped by having 4K are people who really need 4K. This is not the field of dreams where if you built it, people will come and use it. The time line is still a bit far off. In the meantime, I'm not complaining if I get 4K on the new Oly. Of course, I will need to see the actual price tag!

I thought agree, I think you missed the point of 4k. On top of what tosvus pointed out, there is also the stills from 4k feature, which looks great.

The 4k down scaled 1080p video from the gh4 and the lx100 look amazing, even when compared to the canon 5dIII: http://www.hackermovies.com/panasonic-lx-100-vs-5d-mk-iii-english