Austinchimp
Member
Given Canon's recent strategy on market segmentation I would be very surprised to see them release a single camera that blows away most of their other stills and cinema cameras at this price. Seems very radical for them.
1DC: Canon 1Dx mkII to shoot 4k video, 5D mkIV not so much. Also: C100 4k witin 18 months?
- Thread starter AndreeOnline
- Start date
What's the maximum internal bit rate on C 300 MKII, 410? Which means that 1D X MKII will have 305 (the same as XC10) and no dual (or any) 3G SDI out. It'll obviously have HDMI (preferably 10-bit) out but 305 internal should suffice.
From the marketing point of view, if one splits the difference in features between C300 MKII and XC10, 1D X MKII lands pretty much smack in the middle.
From the marketing point of view, if one splits the difference in features between C300 MKII and XC10, 1D X MKII lands pretty much smack in the middle.
G
Guest
Guest
Sigh.
Most interesting info for me is what they'll do with FW inside. Will they completely rewrite it or make it a lot more secure so Magic Lantern will no longer work on it? Or they'll will silently allow it? Even if it won't have 4K by specs I can tell you for sure that with Magic Lantern it will be possible. Not even talking about raw etc. With ML installed it will be a KILLER cam, that's for sure.
Eric Coughlin
Veteran
Because one guy went to a trade show, had a random chat with a random Canon employee, who made a random passing comment of his own volition about Canon suing anyone who hacks their camera, followed by the entire video world concluding "Canon prevented ML from hacking the 1DC." It's funny how that one little comment spread like wildfire. At least that's the story I always heard.
In reality it was probably because the Magic Lantern people didn't have enough money (since they always gave away their hacks for free) to risk damaging a $12,000 camera which they probably never owned in the first place, and if they did have it, they probably just decided it wasn't worth their time considering it's not a highly popular camera like the 5D.
NorBro
Major Contributor
ML themselves commented on the situation:
https://www.facebook.com/magiclantern.firmware/posts/548820278462077
https://www.facebook.com/magiclantern.firmware/posts/548820278462077
Eric Coughlin
Veteran
Right. Close to what I said...
Eric Coughlin said:
I just found it humorous that there was this big hullabaloo about something a Canon employee said in passing at a trade show, when it was never an official statement from Canon that was ever verified or repeated by any other source, at least to my knowledge.
There's very little legal precedent for Canon to sue a mod. Modification efforts have been taking place in automotive (turbo additions, body kits, etc) and audio (caps, resistors, wiring, power supplies, clocks) worlds for ages. About 30 years ago, there was even a famed Philips CD player mod, who turned it from a ~$500 into a $1,500 player. And Philips was so stoked about that, it sold a bunch of units to that company for almost a decade. What Canon can do - and it should do in an instant - is to void all the warranty on the product.
5D MKII Raw hack success was basically a fluke. There were enough units out there to appeal to a lot of owners; the model price itself was fairly affordable; the upgrade into Raw was substantial; the competition was nonexistent; and, more importantly, the hack worked. None of these conditions really exists for 1D C nor will likely exist for 1D XMKII.
PS. In the auto industry, several mod companies (AMG for Mercedes Benz, Polestar for Volvo) have been so successful, they were acquired by the OEM's.
5D MKII Raw hack success was basically a fluke. There were enough units out there to appeal to a lot of owners; the model price itself was fairly affordable; the upgrade into Raw was substantial; the competition was nonexistent; and, more importantly, the hack worked. None of these conditions really exists for 1D C nor will likely exist for 1D XMKII.
PS. In the auto industry, several mod companies (AMG for Mercedes Benz, Polestar for Volvo) have been so successful, they were acquired by the OEM's.
NorBro
Major Contributor
Side note...I think people wanted ML to hack the 1DX to shoot 4K. Same body/same tech as the 1DC?
At the time, there was a $5K-$6K price difference.
In the case of the hack for the lower end cameras, some of my friends including myself actually ended up buying a brand new Canon body (again) after ML was stable enough and lots of footage was out there. I think the hack definitely helped sell some more cameras?
But in the 1DX/1DC situation, wouldn't that have hurt Canon if the 1DX was hacked to shoot 4K?
At the time, there was a $5K-$6K price difference.
In the case of the hack for the lower end cameras, some of my friends including myself actually ended up buying a brand new Canon body (again) after ML was stable enough and lots of footage was out there. I think the hack definitely helped sell some more cameras?
But in the 1DX/1DC situation, wouldn't that have hurt Canon if the 1DX was hacked to shoot 4K?
indiawilds
Veteran
Despite having a 5D III, I was never excited to get into RAW via ML due to the painstaking process. However I know of many people who tried it. Now with higher bit rates of the C300 II, I am not going to shoot raw unless the client specifically asks for and provides the budget.
In 2012, I could only afford either one 1DC or a C300 and I quickly moved from 1DC to C300. Now I need a 1DX II/1DC II and a C300 II. Both will coexist and will get equal love due to the varied work that I am doing these days. I am convinced by Canon's technology and the low level of hype. Mostly we get what Canon promises, so I am fine with it. Will wait for the official announcements.
In 2012, I could only afford either one 1DC or a C300 and I quickly moved from 1DC to C300. Now I need a 1DX II/1DC II and a C300 II. Both will coexist and will get equal love due to the varied work that I am doing these days. I am convinced by Canon's technology and the low level of hype. Mostly we get what Canon promises, so I am fine with it. Will wait for the official announcements.
AndreeOnline
Veteran
I don't think it's totally unreasonable to say "Canon prevented ML to hack the 1Dc". In my mind Canon stopped anyone from hacking it, but most will agree that the only real "threat" was Magic Lantern.
I don't base this off of forum rumours, but rather the fact that Canon never released the 1Dc firmware and updating it requires you to drop the camera off at a service center.
After I updated my firmware the first time, I wrote a post about it here on this forum. It detailed the process and the loops the technician had to jump through to get it done (online with authentication and so on). My post then wasn't to encourage hacking it, but rather to shed light on the process. Nevertheless, Canon contacted my via email and asked me to remove the post—which I did.
This all proves that Canon was very sensitive to the issue. I have little doubt, that had the firmware been released you could have loaded it on a 1Dx. Possibly with a small hack. And it wasn't just 4k, but equally important Canon Log.
I think it's fair to say that Canon was actively trying to avoid the hack.
I would think the addition of Log to 1D C would be doable. I assume the insides were slightly different even if based on the same architecture. Maybe not $6,000 different but different nonetheless.
As to ML, Canon should be sending those guys on Hawaiian vacations for all that they had done for 5D MKIII.
PS. Canon does have some sort of a special event first week in February and I don't think it's Luke's and Laura's wedding (OK, it's an old, old reference ... you had to be there)
As to ML, Canon should be sending those guys on Hawaiian vacations for all that they had done for 5D MKIII.
PS. Canon does have some sort of a special event first week in February and I don't think it's Luke's and Laura's wedding (OK, it's an old, old reference ... you had to be there)
cookinghusband
Well-known member
At time of release(more than 3 years ago) the hdmi port to output 4K was not readily available, to achieve that there will be a need for paid hardware upgrade now.
Even ML cannot do much more to the 1DC because of hardware limitation, may be a few extra tools like zebra or histogram or focus peak?
Due to the cost of 1DC at that time I have not seen anyone dismantle one to reverse engineer it yet, not even the 1DX?
Last edited:
Andrius Simutis
Veteran
Although I don't think Canon has done so, a lot of companies now rely on the DMCA to prevent customers from modifying or even just fixing the software. The gist of the argument is that the software is digitally protected so any attempt at circumventing it is a violation of the DMCA. Car mods haven't seen much of this since most of them are mechanical, or in the case of the software it's more often a replacement chip instead of a hack/mod.
It's raised a big debate about the ownership and rights of consumers, but so far it seems to be part of the modern legal landscape for a lot of manufacturers.
Like I said, as far as I know Canon hasn't gone that route, but I suppose they could if it hurt sales of 1DC instead of helping sales of 5DIII. I've heard Canon employees who absolutely love what Magic Lantern have done while others at Canon hate ML. I wouldn't read too much into either opinion.
ReelWorksMedia
Well-known member
I'm not a pessimistic person in any way....I am also a Canon user and love the Cinema Eos line. Personally...I don't think there is any chance on this great planet that Canon will give us 4k 60P in the 1DXII. You know how I know this....because deep in the heart of hearts at the Canon factory....behind closed doors...they still LOVE to just piss us off.... but only a little bit....just enough that we'll all keep coming back anyway.
If Canon was at a raging college party at the turn of the millennium....they would be the only one there stone cold sober taking keys at the door asking everyone not to touch their mom's favorite rhododendrons. RED would probably be Stifler...I imagine. ...and BMD would be The Shermanator and actually show up a week later because they got the date wrong.
Last edited: