Why the downer on the 1D C?

nothing said:
That's the most laughable statement I've seen this year. You must have you missed all Jannards rants and hyperbole - it happens almost every night from what I've seen.
Click to expand...

True. But he keeps it on RU. He doesn't put up a banner for everyone to see. It's your choice to go over to RU to see that.

And every night? I don't think there has been a new thread in Recon since they released build 4 which was over a week ago...and that was Jarred.
 
richg101 said:
It makes me laugh when fools put the scarlet and epic in the same sentence as the 1dx or 1dc when talking about still photography. Fact is. the 1dc will provide good enough video for 95% of jobs. but are industry standard for sports, wildlife, paparazzi, wedding, product, and all other professional stills photography. Lets see some muppet undertaking a proper product photography or sports photography shoot with an scarlet or epic. - it wont happen! 4k still grabs from a scarlet wont touch 18mp raw stills from any canon full frame professional camera. the scarlet wont even match a 1dmk2 for stills!
Click to expand...

Couldn't you say the same thing in reverse? The epic is good enough for 95% of still shoots
and is industry standard for a 'motion picture shoot' while a 1dx or 1dc wouldn't work
on a 'proper narrative film shoot'?

It kind of seems to me to depend on if you want high end stills with good
'moving' pictures or high end 'moving pictures' with good stills.
 
Photographers would have to haul around lots of heavy batteries and media to 'film' photo shoots with an Epic. What with the noise and black-shading and everything else I just don't see the Epic as being a practical photo solution in the field. In a studio, yeah sure. However the Canon would also still need a bag full of memory cards.

Still, pretty sweet way to get production stills for your film with both of those 4K cameras.
 
alaskacameradude said:
Couldn't you say the same thing in reverse? The epic is good enough for 95% of still shoots
and is industry standard for a 'motion picture shoot' while a 1dx or 1dc wouldn't work
on a 'proper narrative film shoot'?

It kind of seems to me to depend on if you want high end stills with good
'moving' pictures or high end 'moving pictures' with good stills.
Click to expand...

no. because the red epic or scarlet would be hopeless in any still photography environment other than in a studio. lets see a wildlife photograoher who needs phase AF, an 800mm lens and a dust and water proof camera while photographing a diving peregrine falcon. lets see someone in reportage photography lugging around a scarlet outside the houses of parliment.. it wont happen.
 
richg101 said:
no. because the red epic or scarlet would be hopeless in any still photography environment other than in a studio. lets see a wildlife photograoher who needs phase AF, an 800mm lens and a dust and water proof camera while photographing a diving peregrine falcon. lets see someone in reportage photography lugging around a scarlet outside the houses of parliment.. it wont happen.
Click to expand...

As a matter of fact, I have seen a Scarlet used in one of your examples as 'reporterage',
getting both stills and video for a 'pool' of news organizations. I have seen it used on weddings
for both stills and video. I understand that it isn't as good as a dedicated still camera but
the DSLRs suffer compared to a real motion camera as well.
 
alaskacameradude said:
Couldn't you say the same thing in reverse? The epic is good enough for 95% of still shoots
and is industry standard for a 'motion picture shoot' while a 1dx or 1dc wouldn't work
on a 'proper narrative film shoot'?
Click to expand...

I don't know if a six million dollar feature qualifies as a "proper narrative shoot" but I'd like to shoot it with a 1DC. Same goes for a $30,000 feature I have in pre-production, and a TV pilot I'm working on.
 
squig said:
I don't know if a six million dollar feature qualifies as a "proper narrative shoot" but I'd like to shoot it with a 1DC. Same goes for a $30,000 feature I have in pre-production, and a TV pilot I'm working on.
Click to expand...
Hey, I don't do big budget narrative film, it was just a question. Because I see
95% of big budget narrative is shot on a 'motion pictures cam' and NOT a
DSLR and I'm thinking there must be a reason.
 
alaskacameradude said:
Hey, I don't do big budget narrative film, it was just a question. Because I see
95% of big budget narrative is shot on a 'motion pictures cam' and NOT a
DSLR and I'm thinking there must be a reason.
Click to expand...

because it is only now that the 1dc is available. you realise it doesnt line skip or pixel bin during 4k capture? its not scaling the sensor capture. no other dslr does this they all scale the footage leading to degradation. and no other camera in any close price bracket can shoot aps-h size frames at 4k.

I'm not saying the 1dc will take over red for movies. but is still usable from what I have seen. nothing from red can be used properly for still photography.
 
What would be nice is if Canon made a camera like this in a DSLR form factor but instead of the Standard EF mount and mirror, use their EF-M mount (from the EOS M) and make it mirrorless and record decent 4K or 1080p video, then we would have a winner.

If Canon are listening I hope they will do this !
the reason for EOS-M mount of course is so that you can mount adapter and lenses like PL, Leica M and etc. :)
 
But the DSLR form factor is the worst part, why would you keep that? It's roughly the same size and weight as the Sony F5, so it doesn't boast any advantages in respect to handling.

Also, DSLRs are used in big-budget films, as stunt or POV cams where you can hide discrepancies with fast cuts, and have peice of mind that you may potentially lose a $3000 camera instead of a 5-figure camera. If I remember right, Avengers used five 5D2's and a pair of 7D's mixed in with the main Alexa footage; they used them because they could be stuffed into debris and other tight quarters or where damage was a concern.
 
Last edited:
Kolor-Pikker said:
But the DSLR form factor is the worst part, why would you keep that? It's roughly the same size and weight as the Sony F5, so it doesn't boast any advantages in respect to handling.

Also, DSLRs are used in big-budget films, as stunt or POV cams where you can hide discrepancies with fast cuts, and have peice of mind that you may potentially lose a $3000 camera instead of a 5-figure camera. If I remember right, Avengers used five 5D2's and a pair of 7D's mixed in with the main Alexa footage; they used them because they could be stuffed into debris and other tight quarters or where damage was a concern.
Click to expand...

The 1DC is nowhere near the same size or weight, not even roughly. Unless you count a difference of over 1lbs, and 577in^3, to be rough.

The form factor of the 1DC is perfect for documentary style work, which is essentially what it is aimed at, with its ruggedness.
 
The Sony F5 and DSLRs differ quite a bit in weight, the F5 is more like 2 KG while the 5D MK2 is 810 grams body only, the only DSLRs that come close to the Sony F5 in weight is the Canon 1D series camera; like the 1D-C which is about 1.3ish KG.

I guess I just really liked the concept of having a camera that is small and records video quality that is comparable to higher end cameras...
 
I like the camera, particularly the low light bar scenes, but between 24 fps, shallow dof, long lenses, fast action, slow shutter speeds and cmos wobble it's a waste of pixels.
 
The best thing that the 1D C has over other film cameras is that you have an optical view finder, albeit for stills. As a wildlife filmmaker when I am waiting near the den of a desert fox or desert wolf, I can track it through the optical viewfinder without switching on the camera. And when it is required I can immediately start filming. In my C300, to track the subject I have switch on the camera ie. the battery gets drained even if I am not filming. The other thing is I can accurately auto focus in still photography mode and then immediately start filming. With 800mm focal length, it is not always very easy to locate the animal within a second and film.

IF you are filming in 1080p, then you can select two differen PoV with the same lens as you can either choose to use the entire full frame sensor or an s35 equivalent which will give you a telephoto effect.

People won't realise the benefits of this camera, however, they will warm up to it once this camera gets into the hands of sufficient number of people.
 
Tonaci Tran said:
I guess you haven't seen this? http://www.red.com/shot-on-red/photography
Click to expand...

+1

Red for all it isn't has been the most consistently ground breaking. Canon, for all it has done, reverted back to the old ways 3years later... Keeping the status quo.

I like what Canon has produced, and I think they are valuable tools, just dislike some of the tiering and pricing. As many others, I had hoped since 2000 for a good s35 camera. First we went through HD growing pains, and now that we have HD, we have good cameras limited either by, a codec, a curve (color profile or lack thereof), flawed form factor, or less resolution than true 1080p. Sony and Canon have come close, but skillfully avoid giving the perfect medium. If you disagree with me, how many of us would by an FS100 if the form factor were better? How many of us would splurge on a C100 if the price were lower, or the codec more robust? How many of us would jump on a 5dmk3 if the resolution was there, or if it had an extra stop of DR?

Well, I am glad to see 4k and higher resolutions. Can't wait till that becomes more of a reality. I hated it that we had to go through so many image quality and resolution growing pains, when I always disliked 1080p anyways.

Glad RED is transforming what the pro standard is, and hopefully the consumer end will get something that is good enough finally. So many memories, I would have liked to capture with higher fidelity images, but product tiering has prevented that. (Sorry, I can't justify 13k for a camera that begins to give quality).

With RED at 6k and 18stops, and maybe even 24bit, maybe the pros can pay for that, and us lowly folk can get 16bit 4k at 13 stops DR for $3k or less. That'd be nice. Haha. That'd be nice. We still don't have even 10 12.5 DR true 1080p. 10 years of HD, and we still don't have that in reach of a consumer budget.

Makes one miss film at times. I suppose there are not enough true innovations for camera companies to give more value. And I am glad we have better cameras than the old DVX's and betacams (though film was still prolific enough back then, that we had a choice to use that when needed. Try finding a place that develops negatives readily now.) My urgency and complaints with camera manufacturers has only intensified with the death of film, as we are more and more forced to use video exclusively.
 
You've gotta wonder about the Japanese when a bunch of bloody Australians can beat them at their own game. I'm very much looking forward to the BMCC MKII.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top