1DC: 1DC at 5K

indiawilds

indiawilds

Veteran
Just saw a mail that there is an instant savings of 3000 usd on 1DC till 7/31 and Price is 4999 in B&H. So the price of 1DC is even lower than the 1DXII. Wonder why this price is only till 7/31 ? Is the savings also offered by other dealers?
 
Eric, I think we know where this is headed. You need to sell me all your gear at pennies on the dollar and go into standup. I'm told you can "pull a ton of tail", and have all the drugs you want. Plus you get to travel to exciting places like Lubbock and El Paso! What's not to love?
 
I say that, with 5D MKIV beta-testers spotted around the globe, 1D C specs will be matched in less than a month and for a lot less.
 
ReelWorksMedia said:
Without 1 key feature.....LOG. I'll be shocked if they give the Mark IV LOG.
Click to expand...

Sony has LOG in A6300 for $1,000. Fuji XT2 has "bullt-in LUTs" and F-Log to an external recorder for $1,600. GH4 has it for $1,300. I'd honestly be shocked if 5D MKIV did not have some sort of a Log for $3,500 (its rumored price).
 
DLD said:
Sony has LOG in A6300 for $1,000. Fuji XT2 has "bullt-in LUTs" and F-Log to an external recorder for $1,600. GH4 has it for $1,300. I'd honestly be shocked if 5D MKIV did not have some sort of a Log for $3,500 (its rumored price).
Click to expand...

Were you shocked when they left it out of the 1DX Mark II which is almost double the price of the 5D4? i definitely was. So...I assume the 5D4 will not see it either. I really hope I am wrong.
 
Here we go again. Camera company produces 8 bit 4:2:0 camera, people ask for log, which is a good way to destroy your image with that weak codec. Camera company gives people what they want, and they create a lot of cruddy images full of noise and artifacts, but at least they're happy they have log. On top of that, a large percentage of those log shots aren't graded properly because the vast majority of projects using cameras in the $1,000-$10,000 range don't have the budget for a dedicated professional colorist. Crazy.

I guess it's a tradeoff; some people would rather have higher dynamic range in a noisy image full of artifacts than a cleaner non-log image with less dynamic range.

But the real kicker is when people are shooting in a controlled environment, like a sit down interview, where they're shooting a scene with say eight stops of dynamic range, with their 10 stop non-log image, but then switch to log to get an unneeded extra two stops, at the cost of getting a noisy image with artifacts. Because log is cool, or something. And takes more time to grade, with no real benefit except in high dynamic range scenes, of which most scenes are not high dynamic range. Well, perhaps the benefit of better highlight roll-off of images below 100 IRE, though that's debatable.

But yeah, let's keep complaining about not having Log as an option on 8 bit 4:2:0 cameras, while people with the 1DX Mark II are forced to get images that actually look good straight out of camera, and after grading.
 
ReelWorksMedia said:
Were you shocked when they left it out of the 1DX Mark II which is almost double the price of the 5D4? i definitely was...
Click to expand...
I wasn't shocked but I still think it was a horribly self-crippling move not to make 1D XII into a more universal camera. At the same time, I understand how the corporate strategy often plays out. If they had made a 1D CII type, then it would have taken away sales from C300 MKII. In other words, 1D CII would have been ~ $8,000 and it was too close to C300 MKII's new $12,000 price.

Now, they're obviously not going to make 5D MKII as good as C300 MKII either. I just think 5D MKIV would be a hard sell in the market that is getting pretty crowded, if it doesn't include Log and 10-bit (to, at least, an external recorder). From the early rumors, it's going to be the most video-centric of all Canon DSLR's (with 5Ds/r being portrait/studio and 1D XII being more sports/action) In which case, it needs to bring something to the dance.
 
Eric Coughlin said:
Camera company produces 8 bit 4:2:0 camera, people ask for log, which is a good way to destroy your image with that weak codec. Camera company gives people what they want, and they create a lot of cruddy images full of noise and artifacts, but at least they're happy they have log. On top of that, a large percentage of those log shots aren't graded properly because the vast majority of projects using cameras in the $1,000-$10,000 range don't have the budget for a dedicated professional colorist. Crazy.
Click to expand...

To make a discussion meaningful, let's limit it specifically to Canon Log here. Canon Log was designed for 8bit from scratch, as this was what the C300 offered. When Canon introduced 10bit/12bit they offered Canon Log[SUP]2[/SUP] and now Canon Log[SUP]3[/SUP]. Other brands have simply introduced, as far as I know, 10bit log curves in their entry level 8bit cameras—and that isn't optimal.

Eric Coughlin said:
But the real kicker is when people are shooting in a controlled environment, like a sit down interview, where they're shooting a scene with say eight stops of dynamic range, with their 10 stop non-log image, but then switch to log to get an unneeded extra two stops, at the cost of getting a noisy image with artifacts. Because log is cool, or something.
Click to expand...

My answer to this ties into what I'm writing below.

Eric Coughlin said:
And takes more time to grade, with no real benefit except in high dynamic range scenes, of which most scenes are not high dynamic range. Well, perhaps the benefit of better highlight roll-off of images below 100 IRE, though that's debatable.
Click to expand...

Just changing the picture profile shouldn't necessarily effect dynamic range. A flat profile doesn't inherently have more DR than a profile with more of an S-curve—the ratio between black and white would be the same if black and white points were mapped to 0 and 100 IRE respectively.

A normal S-curve might take 5 stops (out of 10 or 12) of luminance and give them great importance by setting lots of luminance values aside just for them, while in return compressing highlights and shadows. A log curve treats all stops more evenly. This shows up in the image and you get what I like to call a different "light distribution". Regardless of scene, shooting Canon Log produces a result that is hard to replicate with let's say 'Neutral with contrast reduced'. Of course, if you grade lots of contrast back into your Canon Log images, then the differences become less noticeable.

Canon Log has also proven to be a pretty good starting off point for LUT workflows trying to emulate film.

Unfortunately, some of what you say about users not really understanding log rings true to me. Shooting log should perhaps be reserved for users already in command of general photography and exposure techniques and who have at least average technical understanding of codecs and so on.
 
Eric Coughlin said:
Here we go again. Camera company produces 8 bit 4:2:0 camera, people ask for log, which is a good way to destroy your image with that weak codec. Camera company gives people what they want, and they create a lot of cruddy images full of noise and artifacts, but at least they're happy they have log. On top of that, a large percentage of those log shots aren't graded properly because the vast majority of projects using cameras in the $1,000-$10,000 range don't have the budget for a dedicated professional colorist. Crazy.

I guess it's a tradeoff; some people would rather have higher dynamic range in a noisy image full of artifacts than a cleaner non-log image with less dynamic range.

But the real kicker is when people are shooting in a controlled environment, like a sit down interview, where they're shooting a scene with say eight stops of dynamic range, with their 10 stop non-log image, but then switch to log to get an unneeded extra two stops, at the cost of getting a noisy image with artifacts. Because log is cool, or something. And takes more time to grade, with no real benefit except in high dynamic range scenes, of which most scenes are not high dynamic range. Well, perhaps the benefit of better highlight roll-off of images below 100 IRE, though that's debatable.

But yeah, let's keep complaining about not having Log as an option on 8 bit 4:2:0 cameras, while people with the 1DX Mark II are forced to get images that actually look good straight out of camera, and after grading.
Click to expand...




its actually an 8bit 4:2:2 codec. And it's currently the only full frameish camera with 60fps at 4K. Pretty capable. I'm excited to see what a 1dc mkii may look like. This 1dxii is just a pre cursor to 1dcii I'm sure
 
Maybe so - BUT remember, it will probably not have c-log, the low light capability, or even CLOSE to the tank-like build of the 1DC. Just sayin... Oh and I'm as obsessed with specs as the next person, but honestly - the images out of the box on the 1DC are absolutely stunning (if you know how to light compose and operate,) and so who CARES if it's 8 bit and not 10 - specs don't make you a better shooter and there are 2 movies at Sundance this year shot on the iPhone 5S, obvs specs are important, but the forest is beautiful to just admire sometimes despite the trees which comprise it...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top