FrameFarmMedia
Veteran
I find the response I get to camcorder format like EX-1 is the '(waving hands) Hi Mom' like I am on some sort of live newscast. Is their already a thread about cameras/camcorders and the funny responses we get?
1D C Pricing
- Thread starter indiawilds
- Start date
Not me, I'd think it was overpriced warmed over technology from 2006 just like the C300.
indiawilds
Veteran
Really?
In 2006 I was clicking with Canon EOS 1D Mark II. ISO 200 in the 1D Mark II was fine. ISO 400 used to give noise. ISO 800 was a lot. Only couple of times I had used ISO 1600 just to document a scene. I have some fine images with that camera, however, to say that the technology of 1D C is same as 2006 era makes me speechless. I am giving the link of one article title Tiger Intelligence and it has a few images. http://www.indiawilds.com/diary/tiger-intelligence/
+1
The FS700 is expected to be $8K, but the 4K recorder isn't likely to be cheap, and there's speculation that it'll be around $5K. I suspect that the total will come to a similar sort of figure to the EOS 1D C.
The Scarlet is more expensive than both of these.
So for a large sensor 4K solution, and not that we really need that just yet, I think that you're looking at a starting price of around $12K or $13K.
I think that the FS700 is a very interesting camera, and it's got some nice features. (Is it wrong that having access to autofocus appeals?
) At the same time there are omissions:
Furthermore, spec sheets don't tell you if the camera suffers chromatic aberrance, moire, rolling shutter or other artefacts. The FS100 suffered from some of these (at least according to Philip Bloom's review). The C300 and F3 are where these kinds of things disappear or become significantly less intrusive.
What I'm trying to say (in a roundabout way) is that something like the C300 is slated on forums for missing certain fashionable features, and being too expensive, but it works very well in a broadcasting niche. If the 1D C captures clean 4K video without any nasty artefacts, gets approved by broadcasters like the BBC (and with a max 500 Mb/s throughput, it should), and Canon add 4K at 25 fps (they seem to have realised that's an omission, so it should turn up sometime) then it becomes a very attractive proposition because there are fewer shortcomings to work around. It might not do 300 fps, or 10-bit RAW, but it should get the basics right.
The Scarlet is more expensive than both of these.
So for a large sensor 4K solution, and not that we really need that just yet, I think that you're looking at a starting price of around $12K or $13K.
I think that the FS700 is a very interesting camera, and it's got some nice features. (Is it wrong that having access to autofocus appeals?
) At the same time there are omissions:- The internal codec records at 27 Mb/s, which is lower than the 50 Mb/s mandated by major broadcasters in the EU, so an external recorder would be necessary. (The C300 shoots at 50 Mb/s internally.)
- The FS700 has a 4:2:2 / 8-bit output. The F3 has 4:4:4 / 10-bit with the S-Log upgrade.
- S-Log is absent on the FS700. The 1D C has C-Log, or at least "Canon Log Gamma". OK, C-Log isn't as capable as S-Log from what I've read, but it's better than nothing.
Furthermore, spec sheets don't tell you if the camera suffers chromatic aberrance, moire, rolling shutter or other artefacts. The FS100 suffered from some of these (at least according to Philip Bloom's review). The C300 and F3 are where these kinds of things disappear or become significantly less intrusive.
What I'm trying to say (in a roundabout way) is that something like the C300 is slated on forums for missing certain fashionable features, and being too expensive, but it works very well in a broadcasting niche. If the 1D C captures clean 4K video without any nasty artefacts, gets approved by broadcasters like the BBC (and with a max 500 Mb/s throughput, it should), and Canon add 4K at 25 fps (they seem to have realised that's an omission, so it should turn up sometime) then it becomes a very attractive proposition because there are fewer shortcomings to work around. It might not do 300 fps, or 10-bit RAW, but it should get the basics right.
I think that the FS700 is a very interesting camera, and it's got some nice features. (Is it wrong that having access to autofocus appeals?
- The internal codec records at 27 Mb/s, which is lower than the 50 Mb/s mandated by major broadcasters in the EU, so an external recorder would be necessary. (The C300 shoots at 50 Mb/s internally.)
Though the encoding on the FS100 is mpeg-4 with a surprisingly good quality. C300 is mpeg2.
F3 has the exact same amount of rolling shutter as the FS100. Also moire and aliasing is pretty much 95% the same on the F3 as on the FS100. Chromatic aberrations are a feature of the lens.
Really? I think you would struggle very badly to get a C300 quality image in 2006 for less than $100k and nowhere near the size/weight. And the sensor is beautiful and very upto date.
I assume you are fixated on paper specs rather than images?
But it's not acceptable to the major broadcasters. I've heard of internally F3 footage (at 35 Mb/s) being sneaked into a Channel 4 production without complaints, so it might be more of a checkbox thing.
I haven't managed to find a comparison of MPEG-2 and MPEG-4 compression, and I'd really be interested in doing so. I'm not convinced that you can go from 50 Mb/s in the former to 27 to 35 Mb/s MPEG-4 in the latter and not lose image quality.
I was referring to the Philip Bloom mini shootout that he posted about a year ago, when he mentioned some. I think that it's probably a compression artefact, as he was shooting on the same lenses. I'd expect the F3 and FS100 to be pretty similar on Moire and rolling shutter as they use the same sensor, and probably quite a lot of the same electronics.
It's not so simple. Different encoders are different. For example, the Sony Nex-5n has a not so good AVCHD implementation. Eventhough the bitrate is the same as in the FS100, it loses badly to it. So even if the bitrates and the primary encoder are the same (mpeg4 at 24mbps 1080p) the encoding quality can still be quite different. Canon always had a better MPEG2 encoder in it's HDV cams than Sonys mpeg2.
indiawilds
Veteran
I agree with Jay. I am quoting from an article by Philip Bloom which I saw just now while browsing. In his article "The Tale of Lucasfilm, Skywalker Ranch, Star Wars and Canon DSLRs on a 40 foot Screen" he says "Rick and Mike had seen what these cameras were capable of and wanted to really know just how much you could push them. They had seen mine and others work online but really wanted to see how well they performed projected. The joy of these guys is they have a great attitude. If it looks great on the big screen then that is the most important thing. Not codecs, limitations, bit rates etc... all those are very important but the most important thing by far for them is how it actually looks and it passed with flying colours. That is what they really care about. "
So guys chill a bit. Lets think what all we can do with a camera, how to unleash its power rather than crying over limitations.
I can appreciate that.
The difference between the FS100 and 5N might be down to the sensor, and how video is pulled off it. I wouldn't be surprised if both used the same encoder (chips are expensive to design, but cheap to fabricate) though. Unfortunately I can't find a photo of a tear-down of an FS100 to confirm.
For the price of a 1dc or a c300 you could buy, with VAT in the uk, the BMC camera along with a Sony FS700 and almost cover the cost of a 5Dmk3 to go with it. Seems a bit disproportionate, but I understand why people want these cameras, it's the same as paying for a name like BMW, Mercedes etc...
Welcome to dvxuser. You started with very bold statement. Disproportionate? What's your measure here? You need one to speak about proportions, don't you? Is it just your subjective sense of value? Without such measure all you can say is that one is more expensive than the other. What about Alexa? F65? These are "disproportionate"! The attempts to quantify the esthetics just don't make sense. What for you is imperceptible or marginal, for someone else is huge. I'd much prefer to have one C300 for my job than dozens of 5Dmk3s and the only reason is the image it outputs. Sometimes, depending on job, I'd even prefer to have 1/3'' cam with DOF adapter than 5Dmk3! I don't agree it's paying for a name. It's paying for a car. If all that matters for you is fuel consumption and the ability to get from point A to point B then go drive Toyota - it's "as good" as BMW or Mercedes. Or walk!
If it's too expensive then buy something else. :smile:
I saw a comment over at No Film School pointing out that for the price of an FS700 body it's possible to buy a Panasonic AF101, some glass, and an Atmos Ninja. That'll give you a decent 1080P shooting set-up that would be acceptable for the BBC. Or you could pick up a cheap FS100, and build a similar package for a little more.
For example, since you're in the UK, an AF101, Voigtlander Nokton 25 mm, Leica Summilux 50 mm plus the Ninja would be around £7,500. CVP are quoting £7,200 including VAT for an FS700. I find that a compelling argument.
In the unlikely event that you need a large sensor 4K camera, then the options in the next few months for less than $15K / £10K are a Sony FS700, Canon EOS 1D C or RED Scarlet (with the caveat that you really need to spend more). But I expect that you're going to be looking at a minimum of $10K to $12K for a 4K solution.
On top of that you're going to need some decent glass, and cinema lenses make Leica look cheap.
I saw a comment over at No Film School pointing out that for the price of an FS700 body it's possible to buy a Panasonic AF101, some glass, and an Atmos Ninja. That'll give you a decent 1080P shooting set-up that would be acceptable for the BBC. Or you could pick up a cheap FS100, and build a similar package for a little more.
For example, since you're in the UK, an AF101, Voigtlander Nokton 25 mm, Leica Summilux 50 mm plus the Ninja would be around £7,500. CVP are quoting £7,200 including VAT for an FS700. I find that a compelling argument.
In the unlikely event that you need a large sensor 4K camera, then the options in the next few months for less than $15K / £10K are a Sony FS700, Canon EOS 1D C or RED Scarlet (with the caveat that you really need to spend more). But I expect that you're going to be looking at a minimum of $10K to $12K for a 4K solution.
On top of that you're going to need some decent glass, and cinema lenses make Leica look cheap.
Which options? If you want 4K, there is 1 option that is cheaper and that is the small sensor effort from JVC.... FS700 doesn't count, as there is no info on the 4K mode
You're right, the $18k Red One didn't come out until 2007 (2008 if you're not Soderbergh, I guess). My bad.
I'm fixated on how much Sony, Canon, etc rip us off.