=P well technically if you don't give BMD your money for this one then canon still won. As they have your dollar. Only sayin!
In the spirit of Barry, money where your mouth is. XD
Why the downer on the 1D C?
- Thread starter Graemsay
- Start date
=P well technically if you don't give BMD your money for this one then canon still won. As they have your dollar. Only sayin!
In the spirit of Barry, money where your mouth is. XD
squig
Veteran
Hehe. I'm not much of a patriot, but I will approach them before the film goes into production and see if they want to loan me one. I've been lurking on bmcuser and thinking about the noktons and noktors. I've got a few months to decide on cameras, gotta raise 50k first! My dollar will go to the best tool for the job within the budget.
One big downer on the 1DC is that it only has 11.7 stops of dynamic range (that's off the sensor so 4k jpeg might be a bit less). Canon have really dropped the ball with the DR on their new sensors, Sony and Nikon are putting out 14 stops on their DSLRs.
Last edited:
Greyfus Wolf
Active member
G
Guest
Guest
In a weird twist, according to DXO mark tests, the Canons do not drop in DR as quickly in higher ISO's. So, if you are shooting in iso 800-6400, the DR difference is not as big. But yes, the most important ISO range, the clean range is rather lack luster in specs.
squig
Veteran
I like the bit about Canon threatening legal action for hacking the firmware. How about a class action for price gouging?
Yeah the MKIII DR is pretty good at high ISOs which is where I tend to shoot a lot.
In video mode? Can you show sources?
squig
Veteran
No stills mode. I knew I should have clarified that but I figured by now it was obvious to everyone.
Samuel has managed to squeeze 12 stops out of the D800 http://www.similaar.com/foto/flaat-picture-controls/index.html
Last edited:
G
Guest
Guest
Maybe if Sony and Canon traded notes on sensors, they could have higher DR throughout the range. At least, Nikon and Sony have high enough DR initially to still be in a similar spot at higher ISO's, so Canon's better consistency is a moot point.
And if those rumors are right, it is very similar to the way CPU industry tiers their chips. Though, Canon could be a little more mod friendly (hehe). They could make a lot more money making less models, and therefore selling more high end cameras for less, but they can make lot more by releasing the tech in stages. Hard to say what is better in the long run. Seeing as startups have not completely changed the paradigm, it seems there is some necessity to it all. BUt I assume, it is mainly because startups don't have the production chain to release large quantities of product without growing pains (i.e. BMCC. And even BM is not a true startup, they have been a company for a while. Red is a selective high end brand selling in smaller more expensive batches, and even they have had their production growing pains, could you imagine a startup trying to sell to the masses? Nightmare).
Greyfus Wolf
Active member
Here's another thing, if Canon is able to make the 1D-C do 4K 8-bit 4:2:2 at 500Mbits/sec, then why have they not worked on the 1080p and let it do 4:2:2 in MJPEG or XF as well ?
It's very obvious that they could but just didn't bothered to and also to protect their higher end cameras (e.g. C300 and such)
Meh oh well, this could have really been the ultimate hybrid stills and video camera, but it's still crippled.
Anyway, I hope the successor of this camera (if there is) will get an articulating screen like the GH2/GH3 and XLR audio if possible.
It's very obvious that they could but just didn't bothered to and also to protect their higher end cameras (e.g. C300 and such)
Meh oh well, this could have really been the ultimate hybrid stills and video camera, but it's still crippled.
Anyway, I hope the successor of this camera (if there is) will get an articulating screen like the GH2/GH3 and XLR audio if possible.
Just buy the Sony A99? The image quality is not as good but it does have an articulating screen and an XLR audio add-on for purchase.
G
Guest
Guest
AN A99 with S-log? mmmmmmmm. Now that's a nice compromise.
I disagree with you. People would still complain. The C100 would've been an unbelievable camera three years ago. Now it's just meh. Appearances. And besides, I already jumped on the 5dmkIII resolution be damned. An extra stop of dr would not change anything. I use highlight tone priority mode for those certain situations where it's required. Works better on the markIII than previous generation DSLR's.
G
Guest
Guest
The 5dmk3 seems like a good compromise. Especially for ff35. The a99 and D800 have their strengths, but the 5d has a nice average of features.
Idk, I think the fs100 with better ergonomics is not much different than the idea of a $4500 C100. It is not much different than the idea of a 5dmk3 with better resolution. Sure, people would still complain about things, but that is my main complaint: if people will complain and gear lust even if all the boxes are checked, then why tier image quality in video so aggressively? This is not done in the stills world to this degree.
Meanwhile amazing projects are being shot on GH2/3 with about 9 stops of dynamic range.........
G
Guest
Guest
One is $1300, and the other is $13,000. Hmmmmm.....
(sorry, I know that is not your point, but just justifying squig's point)
Greyfus Wolf
Active member
That would be epic xD
and A99 with S-Log that records in a 10-bit or 12-bit codec (maybe their XAVC codec) in 1080p or higher
That would really be the perfect camera lol.
Except for medium format still cameras. Hugely expensive.
G
Guest
Guest
Hmmmm, the D800 has better specs, other than sensor size, to the majority of medium format cameras. Even the D7000 sensor beats many of them out in dynamic range.
And if you notice, the technology that goes into cell phone sensors is more high tech than what is going into medium format sensors. Small pixels producing incredible sensitivity and dynamic range comparatively.
IF the R&D dollars that went into cell phone cameras went into medium format cameras, we would have better medium format cameras. It is only due to physical limitations that cell phone cameras are crappy.
Now if medium format cameras used the same everything as a cellphone, but the only difference was cellphones had really compressed 8bit jpegs and medium format gave you high quality jpegs and USB3 output, but the cost difference was $10k, I think people would complain.
The difference between medium format and a dslr, is there are drastic physical differences. You can't use your DX lens on a Hasselblad 645, so the market for making expensive large sensor cameras is very very small.
Another example, I would not expect a camera like the RED back in 2006 to cost the same as a dslr. There were physical differences in the DATA through put that was neccesary to RED users, which were, and still are a small market segment.
I am sure that price tiering is three parts market and one part gouging. On the one hand, the majority of users are not discerning enough to force camera companies to go through the expensive of slightly more expensive parts, and that in turn leads to smaller markets for high end video cameras.
But all I am saying, is that if consumers were as critical about video quality as they are about the still image, than we would have better quality video. Especially with the current state of technology. All high quality video is aimed at pros. Even the black magic is targeted at video pros.
Once consumers, not pros, get critical about their video quality, that will be the "great" Revelution. The dslr video revolution was not a revolution. It was a small segment of the video pros and cinema students that got excited. Meanwhile, without video dslrs those same people would've been happy to continue buying HVX200 or HPX500 with letus 35mm adapters for video, and a dslr for stills. So, what ever increase in sales they made, they also lost.
The consumer has to be the one to demand better video quality, otherwise, you will never get that video quality at that price. (Okay time will eventually catch up, but you get my point).
Cameras with 8k RAW, and 3G-sdi, standard timecode options, 30 stops DR, should ALWAYS be expensive$$$. Not many people need that. But clear 1080p(maybe moving into 4k now) on s35sensor without macro blocking or aliasing? hdmi out and clean 3200iso and dynamic range starting at or around 13stops is and should be pretty reasonable for consumers to expect. The things is... they don't... they don't expect it. So, despite knowing what is possible within a price range, we won't get it, because there is no market demand for it. There is certainly a market for it, just no demand. And markets are driven by demand.
So, that is why there is a downer on the 1d-c. It is a great camera, a great tool. But not exciting in it's price bracket. On the one hand you have good images... on the other you have 8bit posterization. On the one hand you have s35... on the other it cost $12,000. On the one hand you have 4k, but on the other it is 8bit motion jpeg with larger file sizes than 16bit Red Raw. On the one hand it is a bit cheaper than other cinema centric cameras, but on the other no pro outs, no 25p, limited time-code options. The 1d-c is a bit of everything, all the while it is nothing. I think it will do well, and the OP was a bit strong in saying there is a 'downer' surrounding it. I think it is just general lack of excitement because of all the compromises within the price bracket.
Personally, I like it. I like the APS-H sensor size, maybe even better than ff35 and s35(still on the fence with favorite sensor format). But honestly, without the lease to own option, I wouldn't even consider it.
Last edited:
squig
Veteran
The other major downer with Canon sensors is the fixed pattern noise. I ran some tests comparing my MKIII to the Sony NEX 5n and the Sony doesn't have the fixed pattern noise in underexposed areas. The Sony is really noisy but it's more random like grain. Now I know people will say why would you be mad enough to underexpose a digital sensor? Well say for instance you want an actor backlit and their face dark, you get fixed pattern noise on their face. Or say you want to light the actor but keep the background really dark, same problem. I'm gearing up to shoot a very dark feature so I'm seriously thinking about jumping ship from Canon over to Sony or Panasonic. Canon cameras produce nice images but there other options with less compromises that require less massaging to get nice images.