1DC: Canon 1DC woes

Omar N

Omar N

Active member
Hello community,

I know there are people who use this camera day in and day out and capture some beautiful images. If you are one of them, more power to you! For me however, I tested this camera out and was really taken back by how difficult it was to use. Below are my frustrations. Curious to see if I am the only one who had these issues, or if they are shared among all 1DC users.

I personally would rank this among the less useful video camera made by a high end manufacturer. I say video camera because make no mistake, Canon markets this as a video camera, and when it was first announced, it was sold for $16,000 in competition with the Red's and Sony's in that range. So I don't think the "this is a still camera" argument works here.

1). Absolutely no video features. No peaking. No zebra's. No focus assist. I think this speaks for its self. Can anyone from Canon provide an explanation why these were omitted? I personally don't buy the "Product segmentation" argument. This was sold for $16,000, and every other camera in that range and below had these features. Even some still cameras had these features.

2). Autofocus does not work when C-Log is used. Why? This was the biggest deal breaker for me. For those who spend $16,000 on a camera, it is only assumed that they will want to use C-Log to capture the most data in the scene as possible. Why then, did Canon choose to specifically disable the autofocus feature in C-log?? With no articulating screen, it can be hard to get focus. When using a DSLR, I usually have the camera autofocus on the subject in live view mode, reframe, then start rolling. This works with every profile on the 1DC, except it seems it was specifically disabled in C-Log. Is there any explanation for this other than, sorry, but Canon just trying to make our lives difficult?

3). No articulating screen. This again I think speaks for its self. Combined with no other video assist features mentioned in point #1, good luck getting anything in focus. Yes we can use external tools, but doesn't that completely defeat the purpose of purchasing this camera for its small profile?

4). No XLR inputs. This one is forgivable since I understand its necessary to eliminate this to keep the small form factor, so not much to say here other than it was a frustration.

5). Massive file sizes. This one has already been beaten to death elsewhere, so I won't dwell on it here. Just realize that if you plan to use this camera for anything other than short videos, be prepared to handle up to a terabyte of data or more each day (mileage may vary). Also be prepared to handle the file transfer times required to offload such data. If you are used to shooting on SD cards for hours a time, this cannot be understated. I am very disappointed that Canon did not include a much more robust codec like Sony did with XAVC-I for a $16,000 camera.

6). Loud shutter. I thought about keeping the camera for stills only since half of my work is still photography, but even with that it was a let down. The shutter noise is LOUD! This is a complete deal breaker for me, as even with the silent mode on my 5D3 I get the occasional look when I am photographing weddings or graduation ceremonies. With this camera, I would probably get kicked out. The 18MP count seems a bit small for a full frame sensor too. It's just that much less freedom you have to crop over the 5D3.

So my question is, am I the only one who had these issues? Am I being unfair in my criticism? Has anyone else found suitable workarounds for these? I know there are some long time 1DC users on this board, so please call me out if necessary.

I bought if for $2749 which I thought was a steal. After using it for two weeks, lets just say my mind was changed and the camera was sent back.
 
I think it was a different world back when the camera was created. It was probably being worked on a few years before it was released.

Today, it's easy to see all of the 1DC flaws because everyone tries to pack in so much into their cameras, but it was a nice piece of technology back then.

The segmentation, as you mentioned, may be one reason. Hardware limitations (no AF in C-Log). General ignorance or an oversight of customer expectations.

Same thing happens today. Cameras are missing little features or have strange quirks that just drive people nuts.
 
NorBro said:
I think it was a different world back when the camera was created. It was probably being worked on a few years before it was released.

Today, it's easy to see all of the 1DC flaws because everyone tries to pack in so much into their cameras, but it was a nice piece of technology back then.
Click to expand...
Exactly, it was incredible at the time it was released almost four years ago but technology has caught up.
 
If the Betacam was released for $80,000 at a time when HD was standard for half the price, then you should be upset.
 
1DC was the first 4K DSLR, released at a time that no other DSLRs offered 4K. I believe it was also the cheapest 4K camera available when it came out.
 
Thats true, I agree. Though I never complained about resolution. I complained about other very necessary and basic video features that almost all other video cameras of that era included, even among Canon's own line up, some of which were less than half the price (autofocus being the only exception).
 
Omar N said:
Thats true, I agree. Though I never complained about resolution. I complained about other very necessary and basic video features that almost all other video cameras of that era included, even among Canon's own line up, some of which were less than half the price (autofocus being the only exception).
Click to expand...
If you look at the other DSLRs of the time, they also lacked a lot of key video features. Sony wasn't really on the map at the time for mirrorless or DSLRs. Panasonic had the GH3 which like the 1DC lacks a lot of video features. Nikon's cameras are terrible for videos features.

For whatever reason, it took awhile for camera companies across the board to figure out how to put video features into DSLRs, while dedicated video cameras have had those features for many years. And even now the Sony RX10 has built-in NDs, but no other DSLRs I know of have that, and I'm not sure why. So I suspect there is still a lot of room for improvement with DSLRs in regards to video features.


NorBro said:
The JVC HMQ10 probably was the cheapest.
Click to expand...
Maybe I should add "interchangeable lens camera" to cover my base more.
 
Last edited:
It seems like the consumer/prosumer cams are getting the NDs for whatever reason...RX100 IV/V, XC10/15, FZ2500, maybe others.
 
Omar N said:
1). Absolutely no video features. No peaking. No zebra's. No focus assist. I think this speaks for its self. Can anyone from Canon provide an explanation why these were omitted? I personally don't buy the "Product segmentation" argument. This was sold for $16,000, and every other camera in that range and below had these features. Even some still cameras had these features.
Click to expand...

Maybe Canon could not get deep enough into the menu software, as this was a collaboration of Canon's still and video divisions. So they just added C-Log and 4K to keep costs down.

2). Autofocus does not work when C-Log is used. Why?
Click to expand...

Well, I suppose it is because the contrast autofocus cannot get a lock [in a reasonable time] with a contrast this low.

3). No articulating screen. This again I think speaks for its self. Combined with no other video assist features mentioned in point #1, good luck getting anything in focus. Yes we can use external tools, but doesn't that completely defeat the purpose of purchasing this camera for its small profile?
Click to expand...

With an articulated screen, this would not be a rugged camera.

5). Massive file sizes. This one has already been beaten to death elsewhere, so I won't dwell on it here. Just realize that if you plan to use this camera for anything other than short videos, be prepared to handle up to a terabyte of data or more each day (mileage may vary). Also be prepared to handle the file transfer times required to offload such data. If you are used to shooting on SD cards for hours a time, this cannot be understated. I am very disappointed that Canon did not include a much more robust codec like Sony did with XAVC-I for a $16,000 camera.
Click to expand...

The C-cameras using a better codec use the Digic DV chips. But as also a stills camera, the 1D C has to use the normal, non-DV Digic chip, which is great at taking stills, so videos of the 1D C are full JPEG's stitched together. High quality, but also massive file sizes. The 1D X Mark II and 5D Mark IV also use Motion-JPEG on their 4K videos.

As I have been testing this on my system: Could you play the clips fluently? If yes, what hardware and player did you use?

The 1D C was, for a long time, my dream camera. But the hard to manage footage and missing autofocus with C-Log disappoints me.
 
Thanks for the reply's guys, I appreciate the remarks from other people.

I am still not convinced that Canon can use the fact that this was a DSLR as a valid reason not to include these features. It was marketed as a video camera first and everything else second, so I think we have valid grounds to expect video camera-esque features. Had this been the 1DX that included 4K and C-log, then I would have significantly less grounds to complain. That said, this either seems like a massive oversight on Canon's part, or perhaps they didn't have the care or wherewithal to deliver these features at the time.

Pascal_Parvex, I was not able to get smooth playback of any of the 4K files native, so I had to transcode everything to Pro-res. The images look wonderful, but the amount of effort needed to get those images was much more than with other camera systems. The autofocus being disabled in C-log due to contrast is a good point, I hadn't thought of that, though Canon did offer a view assist feature which increased the contrast in live view mode, so it really should have worked with that in my opinion. Glad to learn I am not the only one who finds that limitation disappointing!
 
When the 1Dc came out, I don't remember anything else that could record internal 4K at that small footprint! After years of ownership and usage, I still love this camera and feel it is very easy to use for MOS B-Roll. We just used if for a cool TV commercial that I look forward to sharing. I use external false color monitors with this camera... It's not for everyone, I get it!

Best Regards,

Chris
 
The small foot print is not so small anymore once you add external monitors and such ;) Thats great you are able to get images you love with it. Would love to see the TV commercial if you can share it!
 
I see the OP's point if you compare this to cameras of today like the A7s/r; but at the same time, this camera is exactly as "hard to use" as a 5d is, and I don't think of that as difficult at all. I'd more describe it as "basic".

I do think Canon should give us the same video features as the other cameras in the cinema line considering it's price is still up here with the C300. I have peaking on my eos m3...

But the footage is as good as any non-Red under $10k IMO.
 
I agree the image on the 1DC looks really good. I just wish the camera was more useable. Even for its time, Canon made cameras like the C100 with all the video features we needed. They just choose to not include them in the 1DC. The big deal breaker for me is the lack of autofocus in C-log. The 5D3 never had this problem so I think that's one reason it seems easier to use, at least for me. It is also a stills camera first and was over $10k cheaper than the 1dc, so I am not as apt to complain about it. I guess with the 1DC marketed as a true video camera in a small form factor, I just expected basic video tools typically harnessed by filmmakers for acquisition. It seems with the 1DC there was non of that. No doubt it had great resolution and good images, especially for the time.
 
Last edited:
I am surprised by this thread.

Canon 1DC was marketed as the first 4K DSLR. No other company had managed to do that at that time. It was announced in April 2012 and available in 2013 at 12,000 USD. It was the first DSLR to meet the EBU requirements for HD Tier 1.

When 1DC was released, autofocus technlogy was at its infancy. At that time all of us used our hands to focus.

You are right about DSLR screens not great for focus. I don't know why Canon doesn't give us an articulating screen like the 80D in the 1 series cameras. So mostly people use an additional viewfinder/monitor.

I had considered the 1DC for one specific project where I was to stay in a forest for a month and decided that downloading the files would be difficult especially to external hard disks as I had limited power. However for other places that is not a limitation. The large files are good. You shouldn't be comparing with smaller DSLR files with 1DC as the quality is not comparable.

There are many people who like the loud shutter speed. I know of many photographers who love to needlessly fire away the 1 series cameras to supposedly showoff their manhood. Yes you have those kinds of people. A case is Formula 1 going back to louder cars from 2017 as they thought spectators are not liking the cars with lower noise.

Rather than finding flaws with a 5 year old camera one should realise how good the technology was 5 years ago that you are still using it today.

The 1DC has its strengths and it was expected that people will use it for its strengths. Unfortunately, we human beings always harp on weaknesses rather than focusing on our strengths. At the risk of sounding preachy, sharing this fight between eagle vs fox and see how the fox is using its strength.

 
Again, I am not downplaying its strengths. I agree it is a massively powerful tool if one is able to use it correctly. The problem is that using the camera's strengths is difficult because it lacks every single one of the tools necessary to use the camera to it's fullest potential. Tools that, lets remember, were readily available at the time, even in Canon's own line up. The live view autofocus was not in it's infancy. In fact, the 1DC had it! It was just disabled specifically in C-log mode, again, for reasons I cannot explain...

I like your analogy with the car. I guess you are right, there are those that do prefer the loud noise to show their manhood, ha! For the rest of us, I found it remarkably distracting.

I try not to focus on good or bad. Instead, I look at the whole picture. With the 1DC, I found it too difficult to use given the reasons mentioned in the original post. The purpose of this thread was simply to probe other 1DC users to see if I am the only one with those woes, or if others have similar experiences, and if so, what workarounds they found.

BTW, I've been loosely following your work for a while Sabyasachi, and I've always been impressed with the wildlife work you do. Keep it up!
 
Thanks Omar! Happy that you like my work.

If you had got the 1DC at $2749 then it was a phenomenal price. Now the price is $4999.

The autofocus in live view is pretty slow. I am never satisfied with that, so personally I preferred to manually focus rather than wait for the camera to focus. I vaguely remember that the 1DC couldn't do the live view af in clog mode because clog is not just a straightforward way like the Av, Tv, manual modes etc or the picture profiles. The processors in 2013 were not ready for that. I may be wrong, but I remember hearing that in a conversation.

You can also use the zacuto or anyother viewfinder or even a cheap monitor for displaying zebra/false colour etc and use the 1DC.

Even the centre point DPAF version 1.0 would have been great in the 1DC. I had even enquired with Canon if that is possible in the C500. I would have then picked up the C500 or 1DC over the 1DXII. I had sold my 1DMark IV at close to 2500 usd. If I would have got the 1DC at $2749, then I would have bought it in a second.

I have shot documentaries with 1DMark IV with LCDVF at the back. It is a much inferior camera than the 1DC. Initially I had preferred the 1DC but then bought the C300. At that time I could only afford one camera. However in India, many filmmakers preferred the 1DC over the original C300. I had even got a call from a National award winning director for his film, but by that time I had disposed my 1DC. Even today people are shooting with 1DC.

With the producers increasingly slicing the budgets, I think buying cameras like 1DC, C500 etc after new models are launched makes sense so that one can offer multiple cameras in productions at a cost effective budget.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top