[surfar]

This tech fetish BS really does get out of hand.

YES, but we can always go back to the horse and cart and smoke signals!

[Rondec]

It seems that including 4k is a no-brainer and marginal cost for the current/next generation cameras given modern technology.

I think the real issue isn't the ability to shoot 4k but the codec used. It's not like they're going to capture RAW images to make video out of. In the few instances I've worked with video in the past, the codec can make quite a difference in terms of editing. The real challenge will be capturing high enough quality while being able to maintain 4k at 30 fps (or whatever fps is desired).

I would suspect that if video really matters enough, users will buy a video camera just because I'd assume there is more option and control that photography equipment can't provide. For instance, being able to smoothly adjust aperture rather than on fixed intervals. I suppose there are lenses for our camera mounts that can handle that or perhaps tweaks. The ergonomics aren't exactly ideal either. I'm personally happy with the typical 1080p video and will be. I still struggle to find a reason to even need Blu-Ray vs. a standard DVD (720p)... I mean, I can see that one is better than the other, but the improvements don't necessarily make the DVD "bad". When watching movies, etc, it's more about the content at which point you forget whether you are watching BR or DVD but rather just enjoying a good movie.

I think for folks who are cinematographers, the appeal of SLRs that shoot video is the ability to get shallow depth of field shots for a fairly reasonable cost. But clearly, the cost is that the ergonomics aren't great and to do a steady cam set up with an SLR requires a lot of gear.

My guess is that if you were shooting a video you would use your SLRs only when you need artistic shots that require a specific that your typical camcorder wouldn't offer -- macro/shallow depth of field/ultra wide angle and then use the camcorder for the rest of the shots.

For me, personally, I mainly use the video on my SLR when I am out with my family and I didn't bring my camcorder along. It already pushes my computer pretty hard to edit HD video, I think it would go on strike if I started editing 4K video...

[surfar]

Yes,a top line processor and high end graphics card helps.

[TaoMaas]

But not on the A-roll because... A DSLR isn't up to the task.

True, but by the same token, we don't use our full-size EFP camera in tiny kitchens during the lunch rush because it's not really up to that task. Too big, too slow, liable to hit someone in the head while trying to catch the action...and the audio isn't much use because the exhaust fan over the range drowns everything out. It's just a matter of the right tool for the job and for some jobs, DSLRs work really well.

[lotech]

Just came across this video, it clearly explained why most of us (non working pro) do not need 4K video, for working pro 4K is a must, coz their gear means business, 'out dated' gear means poor business, no matter they use it or not they have to showoff what they have to the client !

You Tube

You Tube

A reason most people wanted 4K or higher is they want to grab the frame they missed from the video, or too lazy to think before shooting stills.