1DC: 1dc or 1dx Mark ii

S

soulofrev

Member
Hi everyone

About two weeks ago, I purchased a 1dx Mark ii for travel video. I am really liking the image so far, dynamic range can be bit of an issue though.

Are there any users on here that have used the 1dx Mark ii and the 1dc?

How does the image compare between the two cameras?

Would It have been better If I had got a 1dc for video work?

I am well aware of the features, and advantages of each camera slow motion, used price, auto focus, etc. My questions is purely about the image quality of the two cameras.





Cheers

Chris :)
 
Most people (who have used both cameras) will probably tell you the 1DC has a bit more magic/mojo in its image and I would agree, but I would still choose the 1DX Mark II for all of its features.

It should be a delightful camera for traveling.
 
I own the 1DC. Recently, demo ed the 1DXii for a week. For whatever reason, there's something about the 1DC image that can't be beat... True, not having the DP focus is a drag, but a SmallHD Focus is a great solution. Anyway, will hang on to the 1DC.
 
1DX Mark II is much better. 4k at 60fps, DPAF, Touch Screen, etc... 1DC has C-Log, So what? James miller has a great log profile for the 1DX Mark II. Sure it's not exactly the same but close enough to enjoy as well as those bonus features. :laugh:
 
soulofrev said:
I am well aware of the features, and advantages of each camera slow motion, used price, auto focus, etc. My questions are purely about the image quality of the two cameras.
Click to expand...

I'm a long time user of both, and I still own both.

For all the updates the 1Dx mkII has received, it's my primary camera. And I guess that is sort of a conclusion of its own. But…

Sensor readout on the 1Dx mkII is faster. Less rolling shutter and also more forgiving shooing stuff like computer screens or various display panels (less rolling bands). The 1Dc has Canon Log. I would much prefer that to anything the 1Dx mkII has—and I wouldn't personally use any home grown profiles from other people. I do however use Technicolor Cinestyle on my 1Dx mkII. Don't confuse the performance of Cinestyle on lesser Canon bodies with how it performs with the 422, 520Mbps intra frame codec.

I much prefer using documented profiles like Canon Log or Cinestyle, since it makes some post workflows easier with existing tie in to LUTs or color conversions.

Canon Log is very nice for shooting outdoors. It tends to make even pale blue skies come alive.... but I have had less issues than expected with Cinestyle. I does irritate me though, that Canon doesn't offer Log on the 1Dx mkII after the 5D mkIV got it. I would have been fine with a paid option. Certainly $795 for a Canon Log 3 mode with base ISO 400 to 800.

Anyway, I never stopped loving the 1Dc image but I still use the 1Dx mkII due to its other advances.
 
Thanks for the advice everyone.

And thanks Andree for your detailed reply.

Could I ask you a few follow up questions?


1 - In regards to log on the 1dx 2, every custom log profile that I have seen examples of on the internet, I have not liked the images. Why do you find Cinestyle better?

2- Do you have any tips to boosting the dynamic range? I have been playing with HTP turned on, but im still testing and im unsure about it. (Seems to dull the skin tones a little).

3- Do you still prefer the 1dc image, if so then why?


Its a shame they don’t bring a Clog update for 1dx2, as you say charge for it, then it wouldn’t compete too heavy with other cameras in similar price ranges.
Its an unbelievably good camera, myself I can’t believe I got such a high end stills camera for video work. Something about all this cameras parts together, makes it so enjoyable to shoot with.


Thanks

Chris
 
soulofrev said:
Andrée, could I ask you a few follow up questions?


1 - In regards to log on the 1dx 2, every custom log profile that I have seen examples of on the internet, I have not liked the images. Why do you find Cinestyle better?

2- Do you have any tips to boosting the dynamic range? I have been playing with HTP turned on, but im still testing and im unsure about it. (Seems to dull the skin tones a little).

3- Do you still prefer the 1dc image, if so then why?
Click to expand...

1: The profiles you find online—free or commercial—are made with Canon's Picture Profile Editor. Note that it says "editor" and not "creator". This software lets you start with one of Canon's picture profiles and then make lots of adjustments to it. But whatever you create doesn't get applied to the raw data, but rather the base profile you select gets applied and then whatever adjustments you've made. So, the PPE is like a pimped up version of the settings you have in camera: like Neutral with 0 Sharpness, -4 Contrast, -2 Saturation or whatever.

Now, there's lots you can do here in terms of adjusting colors and their hue/luminosity—and that's all well and good—but you don't get a curves editor for raw data (which would have been incredibly useful).

Technicolor got to bypass Canon's internal profiles—something the rest of us can't do—and made a profile that was set out to replicate the Cineon log curve with 12 stops. I've seen this PP fall apart on 5D mkII and mkIII and never liked it there, but I have no real issues on my 1Dx mkII. It's free to try. Make up your own mind. It's also meant to be used with contrast all the way down and saturation at -2.

Lastly, Canon Log is a 'mode' on the 1Dc. You need to set ISO to 400 (a 2 stop boost). It's been my speculation since 2013 (when I bought my 1Dc) that Canon pulls the exposure internally by 2 stops to recover highlights and then applies the appropriate curve to the images to lift shadows and mids back up again. You can see this if you set ISO to less than 400 that you'll never reach the top of the waveform regardless of exposure. The Canon Log mode is unique to Canon and allows them to effectively increase the DR by stipulating minimum ISO of 400.

2: Using HTP is the only thing you can do to increase DR for baked in footage. I've done my own tests here, but most of these discussion happened a few years back. Consider HTP has half-Canon Log, but with a normal Picture Profile as base. But HTP works the way I say Canon Log does above, but Canon Log adds another stop on top. Also, HTP only works at the very top of the waveform, whereas Canon Log reaches much deeper, recovering more highlights.

But even if we assume that we can't change total DR, we can still change how contrast is distributed within that DR. The main issue I have with normal profiles isn't only the total DR, but how contrast is applied. That's why I prefer Cinestyle as starting point as opposed let's say Neutral where I'd then have to massage the contrast in a different way.

3: Well, that would be on account of Canon Log's slightly different color and light distribution, I'd say. The sensor uses slightly larger photo sites, but I wouldn't go there making an argument out of that.


Yes, it's a very versatile tool. I would wish for Canon to embrace the idea of having a high end stills and video camera in their lineup as a permanent addition. I'd love to see a 1Dc mkII at a more competitive price with built in NDs.
 
AndreeOnline said:
1: Yes, it's a very versatile tool. I would wish for Canon to embrace the idea of having a high end stills and video camera in their lineup as a permanent addition. I'd love to see a 1Dc mkII at a more competitive price with built in NDs.
Click to expand...

I love the 1DxII. Travel with it all the time. Most of my wildlife is done with it. There is no stills camera that can beat it. The 4K image is very good. The DPAF is very good. For me that is the most important thing. Log would have been a killer. Canon didn't want to kill their lower end C series with this, so they didn't include log in the 1DXII. Too bad. But that is how it is. So I have to live with it. I can live with it.

Also, I need a smaller 4K camera for certain situations where I need to be discrete. At times placing a smaller camera in a corner for some specific shots is also a requirement for some of my productions where my assistants can handle.

I would love to have a 1DXII replacement only in end 2019 or 2020 with a bump up in resolution. 8K? :)
 
1DX Mark ii 120fps in HD is also amazing. I shoot 4K on the camera a lot and like the 4K 60p, but dropping to HD 120fps is like butter. Need some examples? Check out Peter McKinnon! lol

Just a word on the James Miller profiles, I've been using them for 6 months and need to move away from them. Using those profiles when trying to match C-log 1/2/3 on a C200 or other Canon cine camera has just caused me so much work in post. It does something to the colours which I just can't easily tweak. If shooting just on the 1DX2 the Miller profiles are fine.
 
indiawilds said:
I would love to have a 1DXII replacement only in end 2019 or 2020 with a bump up in resolution. 8K? :)
Click to expand...

I would like to move to around 35MP for stills. It would then be cool if the camera could do at least 25p at full frame readout to a good codec. Then it could drop to S35 for higher fps. That seems like a very good sweet spot camera to me, as I'd like to stay within my current lenses for now.

So... while the 'sports oriented' version of the 1D body (the one we have now) will remain and likely stay with modest resolution for speed, I'd welcome a 1Dxs mkII that did video well. Or, as mentioned a million times: a proper 1Dc mkII (which would also be higher res both for stills and video).
 
Thanks for all the advice everyone.
I thank you Andree for going into such detail, cant tell you how helpful that was, really starting to get my head around it all now.


After a few more tests and to the advice I have got, I have decided I am very happy with my choice of the 1dx2. But as everyone has said, its such a shame not have Canon log.


I have started playing with Ciniestyle. I was looking at the waveform and with cinestyle the blacks dont go all the way to the left, like they do on the natural profile.
Doesn't that mean Im losing information ? Or losing Dynamic range?
 
aygie said:
1DX Mark ii 120fps in HD is also amazing. I shoot 4K on the camera a lot and like the 4K 60p, but dropping to HD 120fps is like butter. Need some examples? Check out Peter McKinnon! lol

Just a word on the James Miller profiles, I've been using them for 6 months and need to move away from them. Using those profiles when trying to match C-log 1/2/3 on a C200 or other Canon cine camera has just caused me so much work in post. It does something to the colours which I just can't easily tweak. If shooting just on the 1DX2 the Miller profiles are fine.
Click to expand...

I have heard similar from others about the Miller profiles and color. In general I have had good luck with Neutral on the 1DX2, Prolost Flat, and mixing that with Rec 709/Wide DR on the C300M2. The main issue with the 1DX2 seems to be that it's still somewhat contrasty even with the Prolost Flat settings. To try and mitigate that you can go into Canon's Picture Style Editor and tweak the settings. Boost the black point a little and raise the curve a bit. All while staying in Neutral. It's not log but it'll give a bit more room in the shadows.

I have only just started to play with that so I don't have samples yet.

I do have a blog post from December where I was playing with the 1DX2, 60p 4k conformed to 23.98 in post, DPAF with a Canon 35 f/1.4 wide open. Black dog on white snow. Neutral with Sharpness, Contrast, and Saturation at 0, -4, and -2.

DPAF wasn't perfect but all things considered did really well.

 
soulofrev said:
I have started playing with Ciniestyle. I was looking at the waveform and with cinestyle the blacks dont go all the way to the left, like they do on the natural profile. Doesn't that mean Im losing information? Or losing Dynamic range?
Click to expand...

A few reasons for this:

As I said, CineStyle is modelled on Cineon, which is one of Kodak's early digital film systems with log encoding designed for print film. So the CineStyle curve matches that of Cineon. The raised black point is common in many log formats. One way to look at it is that you raise the lowest recorded value from the sensor's noise floor. In post production you can lower the blacks back down and get rid of some noise below them at the same time.

It's true that you're effectively giving up code values in your precious 8-range, but this is equally true for Canon Log that also sits up above absolute black. You're not losing dynamic range or information, but you get less code values per stop of light.

It is known that log profiles should normally be used with 10+ bit codecs, but the original Canon Log was designed with 8 bits in mind and targets 12 stops. I think everyone involved went into that design project knowing they would be spreading the butter thin, but at the same time, the result was worth the compromises—especially compared to the other vanilla picture styles.
 
Thanks Andree, the detail to your answers have really helped.

I have to admit I am liking Cinestyle so far on my 1dx ii. I remember using on the 5d ii and it just wrecking the footage.

Im going to do some more tests on Cinestyle, see what I think after a few weeks, though I do like that it pushes the shadows, so there is less contrast.


Actually pretty amazing how good the 1dx 2 is and how near it is to a camera that ticks most boxes. Just need a little more DR and 10bit. Shame they cant push raw out of it as well, as Im pretty certain it has the horse power for it.

Then again who knows maybe Canonraw light will make it to a 1dc 2.
 
soulofrev said:
Im going to do some more tests on Cinestyle, see what I think after a few weeks, though I do like that it pushes the shadows, so there is less contrast.
Click to expand...

Yes, de-crushed shadows and classic log contrast are the exact things you can't get around with the normal picture profiles.
 
Yes indeed.

Im going to test to see if I can have the raised shadows with a more neutral look. I don't need to match the camera to anything, so I can work with out luts.
 
I've owned the 1dc since release (and an F35 and fs700r for perspective) I'd go 1dxii without question. yes the 1dc has something unique about it's image, which seems to me related to sharpness and motion. opposite of the gh5, which looks crispy for lack of a better term, unless its in slowmo. From the sound of it though the benefits of the 1dxii outweigh that for your purposes. or just get an iphone (edited for clarity)
 
Last edited:
mavs said:
I've owned the 1dc since release (and an F35 and fs700r for perspective) I'd go 1dxii without question. yes the 1dc has something unique about it's image, which seems to me related to sharpness and motion. like when the gh5 looks all crispy for lack of a better term, unless its in slowmo. From the sound of it though the benefits of the 1dxii outweigh that for your purposes. or just get an iphone��
Click to expand...
Sorry, No... if the 1dc looked anything like the gh series.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top