1DC: Upgrade Advice - 1DC vs. C300

To clarify....

In their current forms and specs, the Cx00 cameras are better video cameras than dslr's. That is a fact.

(The 1DC gets the better video image, but in use and functionality, the Cx00 cameras win out)
 
Last edited:
James0b57 said:
yeah, the 5d feels bleh to me. controls feel a little odd. nothing memorable. I like the 60D and 1DC better.
Click to expand...

I have to admit the 1DC was never on my radar screen. I saw Phillip Bloom's review on it and while the images were stunning, it seemed too expensive, and back then I had never heard of 4K so I didn't care much. So, forgive me I'm shooten from the hip here.

All I can say is after having used an AX-A1 for the past 8 years then getting a 5D3 last year, as great a step up that was for me it was a bit of a learning curve, and just feel like I'm familiar with it....... along comes the C100. It takes me back to the days of the ease of the A1, but with a knock out image, and all the advantages of DSLR's. I guess I'm still on my honey moon with the C100....... most of you guys are probably having affairs with others by now, I sound probably sound like a teenager in love.

I would consider selling my 5D3 and getting a C100 mk II if it weren't for the photography benefits. Question: I only upload my photos to the web I never shoot in raw. How do you feel the photos from the C100 stand up against the 5D3?
 
The c100 is most definitely not a stills camera. It can take them, but they're just the same quality as its video. You may as well just be pulling stills from video clips. Most of the time if I were taking pictures for some reason, I'd as soon just pull my phone out of my pocket and use that than bother with my c100. (I realize that may sound like the quality of a c100 and a smartphone are the same, they're not really, but point being if I'm in a situation where a c100 would be acceptable for stills, a phone is probably equally acceptable and much less of a hassle to use)

But I also keep a 7D around, so realistically I'd just use that. If you're interested in stills, keep ahold of your 5 mkIII.
 
Michael Thames said:
Question: I only upload my photos to the web I never shoot in raw. How do you feel the photos from the C100 stand up against the 5D3?
Click to expand...
If you only need "screenshot" like images, than sure, the C100 produces sharp images that work well for the web.

But if you actually like still images, than a resounding "Keep the 5Dmk3!!!". With 4K TV in the wild, why would anyone want to shoot HD photos?

dslr+mattebox = almost as good as a C100

C100 can never be a 5Dmk3. ever.


But I personally would rather have a c100 for work, as I do not make money with photos.
 
Last edited:
James0b57 said:
dslr+mattebox = almost as good as a C100
Click to expand...

.. Say what..?..?


I wouldn't rely on the C100 for stills, even if only for web. A dedicated stills camera will still give you way better results. I shoot food videos on the C100, but for the thumbnails for the video, (even just for YouTube) I use stills that I shoot on a T3i (actually just sold that though, so will be using the A7s for stills for it in the future).
 
As James have mentioned the 1DC is a very unique piece of equipment, it is among the best picture color and quality for video especial at higher ISO. It is more durable stealthy than a C100/300/500.
The only advantage I can see on the C100 or C100II over the 1DC is the DPAF, ND filter and the price tag. If C300 is offering 4K internal recording at the current price. It may be worth buying.

Even after using the 1DC for nearly 2 years now I still cannot find another single camera which can replace it at the moment. Some will say GH4 or the BM4k are good, they are both daylight cameras, anything above ISO1600 will be quite useless. Some will say the A7s is a monster at high ISO, but is minimal range of lens and external only 4K recording made have put me off a bit, sure I will go buy one when I need that ISO.

Actually in this case the A7S with an external monitor/recorder and a crazy looking rig may make you look more professional for wedding jobs or MV. Also with a meta bones adaptor you can still use all your EF lens.
Further more with s-log it will not be too difficult to match the color of the 5D3 with the Sony.



However, I would probably at a Panasonic HC-X1000 which should cost less or similar to a 5D3.
 
I think pulling frames from a high definition camera like the C100 for web use is not that bad of an idea if you want to deliver both. The frames look exactly like the 60D/5D images when set to small Jpeg (1920x1280) which is a setting I use a lot for family/web/TV work, where 1920x1080 fills an entire 50" TV screen natively and looks great. It's difinitely enough to provide very professional looking photographs for anything but large printing. You can throw it on a website, on a blog, on a cover/thumbnail/paper/inside 1080p videos/small A4 size books, etc. I will show you a few stills I made from the C100 when I get home, one of them printed rather largely and looks absolutely fine.

Anyway this whole concept is not useful if you have the will to carry an extra stills camera (even a T3i will provode higher resolution images with less compression) but I didn't carry and extra body, and didn't have the t3i simultaneously capturing the special moment that I got from the C100! It's a very cool concept I would like to take advantage of. The 1Dc of course takes this concept to a whole new level where the grabs can be used professionally for printing billboard sized images, just wish it had the C100 price and the ergonomic/usability features. When Canon makes this camera it will take over the world (that's probably the c300 mkII, 4K with C300 usability, but of course 20K-ish. Anyway I am still waiting for the 1Dc to drop in price to the new 1Dx mark in the used market, just little bit physchologically paying 9-10K for a DSLR is not something I am comfortable with. Resale value is holding like a b*** though! (which is another reason why Canon camera cost less than practically any other camera out there, you can buy the 1DC, use it for 2-3 years and sell it for 7K, so you basically bought it for 3K in the end where it's all well and done. I remeber when buyers were going for the FS100 (and 700) for it's much cheaper price than the C300, they bought them for 7K and now selling them for 2K, while the C300 users bought it for 16k and now selling it for 12-13, therefore eventually , they have both paid the exact same price for owning them, perhaps even less with the C300, which also got more work/money for it's reputation so that adds to the price reduction even more.
 
James0b57 said:
notice I didn't say "Cx00"?
Click to expand...

I know. Dslr + mattebox is almost the same as a C100...? Almost is a pretty far stretch there. Even just having a mattebox is another piece of gear to bring and setup, making it drastically different to shoot with, never mind image quality, DR, etc etc. Anyway, off-topic as it is.

Decision will boil down to your style/type of shooting. In my case, I do no stills at all, so I went with a C100 over the 1DC to get those features it offers (and budget of course). Definitely won't be the right decision for everyone.
 
Ebrahim Saadawi said:
I think pulling frames from a high definition camera like the C100 for web use is not that bad of an idea if you want to deliver both. The frames look exactly like the 60D/5D images when set to small Jpeg (1920x1280) which is a setting I use a lot for family/web/TV work, where 1920x1080 fills an entire 50" TV screen natively and looks great. It's difinitely enough to provide very professional looking photographs for anything but large printing. You can throw it on a website, on a blog, on a cover/thumbnail/paper/inside 1080p videos/small A4 size books, etc. I will show you a few stills I made from the C100 when I get home, one of them printed rather largely and looks absolutely fine.

Anyway this whole concept is not useful if you have the will to carry an extra stills camera (even a T3i will provode higher resolution images with less compression) but I didn't carry and extra body, and didn't have the t3i simultaneously capturing the special moment that I got from the C100! It's a very cool concept I would like to take advantage of. The 1Dc of course takes this concept to a whole new level where the grabs can be used professionally for printing billboard sized images, just wish it had the C100 price and the ergonomic/usability features. When Canon makes this camera it will take over the world (that's probably the c300 mkII, 4K with C300 usability, but of course 20K-ish. Anyway I am still waiting for the 1Dc to drop in price to the new 1Dx mark in the used market, just little bit physchologically paying 9-10K for a DSLR is not something I am comfortable with. Resale value is holding like a b*** though! (which is another reason why Canon camera cost less than practically any other camera out there, you can buy the 1DC, use it for 2-3 years and sell it for 7K, so you basically bought it for 3K in the end where it's all well and done. I remeber when buyers were going for the FS100 (and 700) for it's much cheaper price than the C300, they bought them for 7K and now selling them for 2K, while the C300 users bought it for 16k and now selling it for 12-13, therefore eventually , they have both paid the exact same price for owning them, perhaps even less with the C300, which also got more work/money for it's reputation so that adds to the price reduction even more.
Click to expand...

I think your problem now is for 1DC to drop price. However I believe this camera is rare, I guess they sold less iDC than the C500. I still have not come across another person face to face using a 1DC.
I wonder if any person here own one with a serial number that is 1xxxx+ (the last 5 digits, I usually see 0xxxx or 00xxx). Honestly is not really that worth buying now(no real price drop after 2 years), unless you have very specific need for its form factor or durability. I guess every 1DC owner have a special reason to have bought it. Not easy to give it up.

In my case, I will immediately buy the mark II or pay for upgrade if it gives me DPAF without any second thought. Certainly 6K video, 4k @ 60fps, ISO performance like A7S will be very welcome too. The extra money I need for a new type of expensive memory card may be the only reason to delay my purchase decision.

Just for information the reason I need the 1DC is because I use it at locations where I cannot bring anything that look like a video camera.
Also I travel to location that the size, weight, or durability( weather protection), I believe you cannot climb a chain-link fence carrying the C300 and film video. Even the FS7 will not fit my usage.
Also I use it for blind shooting a lot, (not looking at any view finder) and remote shooting ( with remote monitor and control) a lot. In the worst situation I have to switch back to the 12fps photo option, which I can shoot jpg continuously till the battery runs out or the memory card is full. One battery on this can take 20000+ jpg photos.
And I go film alone by myself on foot too.
 
chappelldigital said:
I know. Dslr + mattebox is almost the same as a C100...? Almost is a pretty far stretch there. Even just having a mattebox is another piece of gear to bring and setup, making it drastically different to shoot with, never mind image quality, DR, etc etc. Anyway, off-topic as it is.

Decision will boil down to your style/type of shooting. In my case, I do no stills at all, so I went with a C100 over the 1DC to get those features it offers (and budget of course). Definitely won't be the right decision for everyone.
Click to expand...

what I don't understand is, how is it the MATTE BOX that makes it almost like a c100? It's not like the c100 comes with a matte box either... they are both equally matte box-less.
 
chappelldigital said:
I know. Dslr + mattebox is almost the same as a C100...? Almost is a pretty far stretch there. Even just having a mattebox is another piece of gear to bring and setup, making it drastically different to shoot with, never mind image quality, DR, etc etc. Anyway, off-topic as it is.

Decision will boil down to your style/type of shooting. In my case, I do no stills at all, so I went with a C100 over the 1DC to get those features it offers (and budget of course). Definitely won't be the right decision for everyone.
Click to expand...
Today, I would scoop for something from Sony.

But back then ( 18months ago), I went with 1DC for image, despite the fact that I also do not care about stills functions. It is a noticeable step up, and terribly expensive.

For video, a C100 is substantially better than a 5dmk3, and if you factor in the savings in extra gear, and less stress shooting, it is not all that much different in price.

The main point I was trying make was that if you like stills, you can make a 5dmk3 work. You can even get it to shoot raw 1080 internal! And I have had a few small matte box setups that are fast and easy to work with.

But back to your point, if someone is entirely focused on video, the C100 wins hands down. I said in a previous post, and I make no bones about it.




The whole medium format body talk about the c100 is a weird excuse. It is a fs100 with a handle. The box body is a waste. Why not have an ergonomic body, like the 1DC, and then have an additional attachable functioning grip to go to that? I know it doesn't exist, I am just saying it would make far more sense to not waste space with a box body. Make it more functional.
 
Last edited:
Ebrahim Saadawi said:
Anyway this whole concept is not useful if you have the will to carry an extra stills camera (even a T3i will provode higher resolution images with less compression)
Click to expand...
That is the best idea yet. A good stills camera is cheap and easy to carry along, especially if you are packing a Cx00.
 
sonofaresiii said:
what I don't understand is, how is it the MATTE BOX that makes it almost like a c100? It's not like the c100 comes with a matte box either... they are both equally matte box-less.
Click to expand...
O lawd. This is probably the most misunderstood thing I have ever written.

It really depends on the use, and what you already own, and how you shoot. There are trade-offs and benefits to both. so yeah, almost as good as, but not as good as. The whole Canon DSLR line is not exactly primed for video without ML, so in general they are not something I'd recommend any videographer to buy, but if you already own one... sometimes it is worth it to just get a cheap accessory rather than spend $5k on something new. It is my opinion. But I never said "almost like" they are designed for different jobs.

Let me know when a C100 can shoot vista vision HD... raw. It all comes down to budget and production environment on what is good. Happy shooting.
 
But... Buying a random accessory that the c100 doesn't have either doesn't make it any closer in quality to a c100.

We get that you're not saying that the Canon dslr's are as good as the c100, but you seem to be saying buying an accessory that neither has somehow makes them closer in quality. If you said something like buy some ND filters or a rig, at least then I'd understand your argument because those are benefits the c100 has that a dslr doesn't.

I'm just trying to understand what you're saying.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top