Canon Announcement: 1D MK4!

Here it is folks, and welcome to the world of video! And the thing does 10FPS. Whoa.
Here is one more page with info, but the images won't load in my browser.

Here is Canon's official page. BTW, $4999.

But the most amazing is this video shot at 6400 ISO. Can you say CLEAN? So how good will the stills be? Probably jaw dropping I would say!

UPDATE, 10/21/2009: Canon requested that the video be taken down due to server overload. But the power of the Net is vast, so you can now see it here.

Just as a point of clarification, it's the 1D MkIV, not the 1Ds (APS-H still?). All in all pretty cool - looks like a response to the recent Nikon D3s.

You're right Joel, thanks for that. I fixed the title. Yes, it's 16MP APS-H.

That really is pretty amazing video quality, and the video content was also excellent. But I have to admit there is something that is starting to rub me the wrong way here. Don't get me wrong, I think the advancements in the field of digital photography have taken some amazing strides, BUT in my opinion the Canon 1D Mk (whatever version) as well as the Nikon D3(whatever version) are considered professional camera equipment, and I am having a really hard time seeing the video formats move into the pro lines. It was difficult enough seeing them go into the upper end consumer lines (D300s and 5DMK II). I guess I am somewhat of a purest, build something to do the best it can do, want stills? get a still camera; want video? get a video unit. At some point it will get too muddled and confusing and neither is going to work right. Sorry, I just don't care much for the blending of the 2 art forms

...want stills? get a still camera; want video? get a video unit. At some point it will get too muddled and confusing and neither is going to work right.

I think you're making two invalid assumptions there about stills and video - that people don't want both, and the either will be harmed by merging them. Lots of people (probably not close to a majority, but a sizable number) seem to want both stills and video, and having them in one unit is fantastic. And I would completely disagree with the assumption that trying to combine them will hurt either stills or video. From a technological stand point, video really is just a series of stills. They aren't that different in terms of the internals of your camera - which is why they've been able to quickly adopt it. If it does start to hurt stills, and there's a market for pure still cameras, you'll still wind up with those available. In the mean time, adding video doesn't seem to be taking anything away from the photo side of things.

One great advantage Scott is that the current push to engineer noiseless images at high ISO for video only helps us still photographers. Dual DIGIC processors are almost required for 1080p 24p video, so that by default gives us 10FPS. It's really a win-win situation. We can always leave the video button off, just think of it as a Direct Print button.

The same argument bubbled up years ago when people didn't want to abandon film for this new-fangled digital stuff (I was one of the gripers!), but film users don't have a choice now, that's fading in the 35mm world (bye bye Kodachrome and B&W paper for instance). People might balk at that, but it's going to happen, 35mm film will join the LP and cassette one day soon. But, we have a choice, video won't overtake or interfere, we can just choose not use it. You'll still be holding a photo body that has benefitted from video research, and your image quality will continue to improve.

I remember when the 5D2 was announced with video, and I said "Huh? What am I, a soccer mom??". Then I saw Reverie and my socks landed in the neighbor's koi pond. Now using HD video and learning Premiere, it's actually quite exciting to work with, I really enjoy both sides now. The long-time video editors that hang around on Adobe forums aren't entirely enthralled by these "newcomer DSLR video newbies"... it's actually quite funny to see them try to discount it all.

Anyway, just some thoughts...

A minute-and-a-half of that video's run-time is devoted to credits. Something to remember when you go out to duplicate the awesome vibe.

And say we find our own actors, put together some makeshift dollies, get the permits and insurance, and head on out there, I still wonder whether these video-enhanced cameras come with royalty-free music, or if we're just supposed to hum a little ditty in the background?

I still wonder whether these video-enhanced cameras come with royalty-free music

lol! The Canon Vixia HD camcorders DO come with built in music to embed into your video. Too funny...

A great camera for sure but I'm not so sure its worth the extra $3000 over the 7D. I guess thats why its a "Pro" camera, only the pros can justify spending that much extra on a camera which isn't that much more.

A quick scan of the new features: Here's one that I really like - C.Fn III -16-1 Orientation linked AF point selection. Apparently, if you have selected the top center AF point, when you rotate from horizontal to vertical, the AF point shifts to the one that is now the top center.

David Bostedo wrote:
And I would completely disagree with the assumption that trying to combine them will hurt either stills or video. From a technological stand point, video really is just a series of stills. They aren't that different in terms of the internals of your camera - which is why they've been able to quickly adopt it.

Exactly!
The only problem is video standards are fairly low resolution compared to still photos. Image if you could shoot 20 megapixel images at 30 frames per second. Is the wind getting you down? No problem! Just shoot a 30 second clip and pick the frame with the least motion blur.

I can envision high resolution digital picture frames playing a continuous loop of wildflowers waving in the breeze or water flowing over a waterfall or clouds scudding across a landscape. I predict we will call these motion pictures. The more it changes, the more it stays the same.

Cheers,
Mark

I believe one of the main reasons the pro-cameras all will have HD video is, the photographers making a living in producing AV shows (many, many here in Europe) like to mix videos with stills. It's a neat addition.
georg

You are right Georg,
a couple of my clients have recently been asking if it was possible to shoot some video footage in addition to the stills. So the video function of the mk4 alone will probably make me upgrade from the mk3

Wim.

If the auto focus tracking and the low noise high ISO settings live up to the billing this is quite a camera!

Most print is going away. Most delivery will be on devices that can display both still and video. If professionals want work, they're going to have to deliver both. So a professional camera must have video.

There are starting to be clever adaptations of magazines to screen: A magazine cover with an attractive photo that turns into video when clicked.

Magazines and newspapers are going out of business every day. The market has spoken.

I admit I side with Don. Look at this article written by Vincent Laforet just 3 months before he was handed the 5D2 to shoot Reverie. It's like he knew the future. It's a long read, but every photographer should at least think on it.

I still believe that big matted nature prints are immune, people like wall art, and the work done by so many on this site continually gets better. Those artwork prints aren't going anywhere.

Paul, yes you are right but... that's not the biggest money maker for most of us,
and if you want to stay in business you have to make some! simple as that.


Wim

Very true!