Canon 1 DC compared with Sony A7r ii and A7s ii

Here is an informative video that illustrates the A7SII's shortcomings versus a camera with Intraframe recording and a higher data rate (250 Mbps). Pay close attention to the lack of detail and the compression artifacts in the water evident in the A7SII footage, but you will see great differences everywhere in the image:


Unfortunately, because of its highly compressed codec and 4:2:0 subsampling, the A7SII internal 4K doesn't even look as good as the older A7S to Shogun option when it comes to color information:


Yet, even with a Shogun, the A7S cannot escape its video roots. It never quite looks entirely filmic in texture, dimensionality/depth, or cadence when compared to the 1DC in motion in a video file.
 
Last edited:
Paul schefz said:
DXO marks tests DR on the sensor level and the even 5Diii does not have 12.5 stops DR, the latest 5DS barely has it....highlight roll off is impossible to judge from youtube or vimeo watching and lenses play a big role as well.....i generally like sony color.....
but i believe that it comes down to personal preference anyway, i haven't seen anything shot with the 1DC that would make me choose it over the FS7....i do agree that it generally looks better then A7RII but it is also much more expensive....
btw: i am pretty sure that bloom could have shot these "postcards" on the A7RII and they would not look much different...the grading looks pretty contrasty to me, not saying i don't like it but it hides certain shortcomings....
Click to expand...

Aside from rolling shutter, the 1DC's image quality really has no "shortcomings" and no need to hide anything. The contrast was just an aesthetic choice. Even so, there are plenty of instances of outstanding DR in Bloom's Postcard from Chania. If you download the original (albeit compressed) file, or any of his Postcard series shot on the 1DC, you will be astounded. I guarantee it! This is not to say that Bloom's FS7 footage that I watch every week on CNN's The Wonder List isn't great, as the FS7 seems to have replaced the F55 as his dedicated A-Camera, but his 1DC footage is unique in that it resolves an amazing level of detail and does so with very little noise.

Also, I only mentioned the DR tests as a baseline comparison between cameras to demonstrate that there really isn't much of a difference between the FS7 and 1DC. I don't believe I've seen any camera with more than 4 or 5 stops in each direction in an over and under test, which I see as a better examination of DR than a Xyla chart. In which case, 10 stops of DR might be the theoretical maximum of current digital video cameras despite what some manufacturers want to claim.

And I've not seen anything from the FS7 footage that would make me want to run out and buy one over the 1DC, but I appreciate both cameras for what they offer. As a portable DSLR with a large 4K sensor area, the 1DC image quality is unmatched. Likewise, as a 4K documentary workhorse for under $10K, the FS7 is also unmatched for its 4-channel audio, built-in ND, efficient codecs, and amazing functionality and design. It's a much better value for someone who doesn't already own a 4K camera. Unfortunately, the FS7 is going to be undercut by Sony's own FS5 with RAW output. It seems that only Sony competes with Sony and Canon's "C100 III" and "C200" are nowhere to be found.
 
Last edited:
NorBro said:
Regarding touchscreen AF and tracking...I was always skeptical when people said, "It's really that good." or "I'm surprised with how well it worked."

So I'm just going to say:

OMG
Click to expand...
the AF on 1Dx2 is actually the best one among the A7 series FS series and all canon C series or DSLR, however I still feel the Panasonic one can are more accurate and user friendly for face detection
 
Kinok said:
I like the People of series as well. It really shows off the 1DC's use as documentary and travel camera. As for the director of the Ugly films, Michael Ori, he recently acquired a 1DX II and has posted a couple of videos with it if you haven't already seem them. I can definitely see why he would reach for that camera over his 1DC for its 4K slow motion capabilities. It does make a difference in terms of broadening the camera's aesthetic possibilities in 4K:


And you have nothing to worry about on the 1DC II. It will be at least a year away and will cost more. Your investment in the 1DX II will be well protected. The 1DC II probably won't even be announced until after the Rio Olympics when everyone has already bought the 1DX II. At that point, Canon will have exhausted the initial sales run and will look to extend the 1D platform's market reach. But it's a very fine balance that companies like Canon and Sony know all too well.

Photokina in September would be the perfect place and time for the 1DC II announcement so that they can maximize the 1DX II's sales run without losing customers like me who are simply waiting for the 1DC II. Based on that timeline, the 1DC II should make some kind of an appearance at NAB 2017 along with a new C500 or something.
Click to expand...

Quite agree with your estimated timeline.
I am a 1DC user and been seriuosly run and gunning the 1DX2 for more than 2 weeks now, except for the touch screen AF and 4K60P and probably the DR at ISO 100. The 1DC is actually is a much better camera. Having only one cfast slot on the 1DX2 is the worst decision Canon have made and what I hate most for the 1DX2, having a recording time limit is another it make it a very inconvenient camera to use. The operation of the movie/still switch is also another thing I hate, on the 1DC I can start LV+ start recording by just pressing one switch. However for run and gun the better AF is more useful for me, as a result I just have to buy the 1DX2 and probably sell it when I get my hand on a new 1DC2.
 
Kinok said:
Here is an informative video that illustrates the A7SII's shortcomings versus a camera with Intraframe recording and a higher data rate (250 Mbps). Pay close attention to the lack of detail and the compression artifacts in the water evident in the A7SII footage, but you will see great differences everywhere in the image:


Unfortunately, because of its highly compressed codec and 4:2:0 subsampling, the A7SII internal 4K doesn't even look as good as the older A7S to Shogun option when it comes to color information:


Yet, even with a Shogun, the A7S cannot escape its video roots. It never quite looks entirely filmic in texture, dimensionality/depth, or cadence when compared to the 1DC in motion in a video file.
Click to expand...
Canon tend to have an organic image while the Sonys feel digital.
 
I disagree. Sony can look great if you know how to work with it. Same as almost every other option, actually.
Since the second generation of video DSLRs (5D3 and onwards) I tend to think the "organic vs digital" debate is more based on throwing catchphrases that confirm your original beliefs than anything else. You can create a great image with any of them if you know how to work with it.
 
I will never say Sony equipment cannot create a great image, I spend more or less the same amount of budget on Sony and Canon equipment each year, and I spend them money because they are good equipment that fit my different needs and simplify my task.
Both company have a slightly different idea the color they think is standard image out of the box. As you have mention if someone know how to use them, both can create the same great image wanted. I always have to match the images for multi-cam works.
As for the digital/organic comment, is what my feeling is for their image everytime when shooting out of the box, may be I have use some in-approiate description for what I feel.
 
I'll mention that, while FS5 has very little to offer in terms of stills or auto focus, its Raw capabilities are getting extremely positive early reviews, with the total camera + the external recorder package + media running about $9,000.
 
Samuel H said:
Since the second generation of video DSLRs (5D3 and onwards) I tend to think the "organic vs digital" debate is more based on throwing catchphrases that confirm your original beliefs than anything else.
Click to expand...

I agree that it really doesn't mean much, but to me personally there are a few image qualities that I would connect to 'organic'. So, obviously, it's not a formal definition, but I think of images with the following qualities to be 'organic':

  • intra frame codec with no motion artefacts or blocking and consistent texture
  • well resolved image detail with no sharpening halos
  • (and perhaps no 'super whites')


It's almost as simple as that. For me it has nothing to do with DoF or sensor size or anything like that. I actually liked the images from my 5D mkIII back then from around 50mm and longer. But it just couldn't deliver the necessary resolving power at wider focal lengths (standard recording modes and codecs).

With the 1Dc and 4k I get an IMAGE that I'm very happy with. The detail is always there without being forced upon me—the difference between resolving power and sharpening. Moving images actually aren't that demanding. With shutter speeds around 1/50s, and a camera that potentially moves… well…

For me, the reasoning going to 4k and 8k has more to do with larger projections where you want to maintain the "detail per surface area" than the ability to bring out minute details in the image. The only way to do that anyway is to artificially sharpen and few things look worse than when you see leaves of trees 'pop' out of the image almost shimmering with halos.
 
@cookinghusband: If we leave it at "it's easier to get a bad image out of the Sonys than out of the Canons" then I can aggree with that :)

Apart from the fact that it's often just catchwords thrown around, I have another argument against the "organic" debate: the concept of what is a lovely image is also changing, fast. It used to be "film", now for me it's more "alexa" (sharper, less contrasty, and with less or even no grain) (I'm not saying the alexa is the only one that can give you that; macgregor once posted a film vs F35 comparison from a movie and it was very interesting, I'm not sure I'd be able to find it)

Of course, even if the target is moving, no codec artifacts, no oversharpening, and no nasty highlights will always be good.
 
Last edited:
@Samuel H: Absolutely agree with your view especially "the concept of what is lovely is also changing", it is changing all the time and from viewers to viewers.
I need to learn more words to describe an image instead of using 'catch words' to avoid confusion and misunderstanding.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top