The Canon EOS-1D C is Different Than the EOS-1D X on the Inside

[Canon Rumors]

Tweet

The EOS-1D C isn’t just firmware
There have been reports around the web that the upcoming Canon EOS-1D C is the exact same camera internally as the EOS-1D X (other than the PC sync port) and Canon is just charging people $7000 for different firmware.

I have spent considerable time trying to find someone at Canon to clarify the reports as well as someone to open their EOS-1D C (no one would do that for me!). The information I have received backs up what Canon said at the development announcement of the EOS-1D C, it does in fact have a different hardware configuration inside. While the DIGIC V processors, image sensor and AF module are all identical to the EOS-1D C, there is in fact “reworked circuitry and design to dissipate heat for the 4K recording”.

So is the reworking of the internals worth the additional $7K? If it’s required for the 4K resolution, and the 4K performance is top notch, then I don’t see why it’s not. This camera is targeted to professionals and priced accordingly. Volume sales of this camera will be far lower than the EOS-1D X, which probably makes the cost of production higher.

There are a few people I know that will open the EOS-1D C when they get their hands on it, I know I will be. That’s going to be the only way to 100% prove the internals are indeed different. I do wish Canon would clarify this point and put it to rest, which they may do when the camera is officially announced.

cr

[neuroanatomist]

Ok, say there's no difference inside at all, other than the one port we know about.  That means Canon is charging a 91% premium for code that offers critical features for a certain group of users.  Why are people up in arms about this?  Adobe is charging a premium for Photoshop CS6 vs. Elememts, for the same thing, code that offers critical features for a certain group of users. But, Adobe is charging a 459% for their code. 

[peederj]

Let's discuss the heat theory.

First of all, the 1DX already shoots video at the same frame rates of the 1DC. The 1DX also does full resolution stills at roughly half the speed of that video. And as Canon's flagship stills camera it's unlikely they crippled the 1DX still image any with Nikon breathing down their back.

If Canon is doing additional things to cool the sensor for 4K video, to reduce noise and improve low-light performance, why wouldn't they do that also for the 1DX? I doubt it is sensor cooling.

The 1DX video does not line skip but instead reads the entire sensor at runs the result through a downsampling algorithm. Unlike the 5D3 it does not do pixel binning or any other shortcut. So the 1DX, sensor-wise is going to be the same in its operating heat as the 1DC.

The 1DC otoh doesn't downsample the sensor readout but instead crops it for 4K resolution. This is the computationally easiest operation resolution-wise, as easy as line-skipping was on the 5D2. Just discard information out of the frame.

It's conceivable that Canon improved rolling shutter performance for the 1DC over the 1DX by increasing readout speed. They haven't mentioned this, but if so, it will be very easy to test (mount both cameras on the same fluid head, pan back and forth and compare the distortion angles of vertical lines). Canon has the tech in-house as the rolling shutter performance of the C300 is excellent.

If that is not the case, then the only other matter is whether the DIGIC chips and CF cards will get significantly hotter processing 4K at 30fps than they do processing 18MP RAW+JPEG at 15fps (forgive and correct me if I don't have these specs memorized right). It's conceivable but I don't think it's so very likely.

They haven't added a fan to the body, they may have tweaked the heat sink approach a bit on the processor chips, but I have doubts that they could do much to improve a fundamentally passive design without visible modifications (such as metal fins or something).

So I call BS to the heat theory. Where is this additional heat coming from, and more importantly, where's it going?

It's just firmware dude. They may put something in there to make you think otherwise but there are so few of these being made at that price that I doubt it will be much.

[Chris_prophotographic]

What if the 1DX is a slightly crippled version of the 1DC like TRANSISTOR CHANNELS LASER CUT like old AMD processors were?

[dolina]

Craig thanks for taking the effort for trying to verify this. But I agree with you the 1D C is not a clone of the X with a red dot.

[EYEONE]

I'm sure this has been said before but...


I'm not sure I see the issue either way. Sure sure, maybe Canon could have technically built the 1Dc for the same(ish) price as the 1Dx. But it doesn't really matter. I'll be labelled an "evil capitalist" but the market has determined what 4K is worth. Canon could leave money on the table and sell it cheap but they don't have to because they are Canon. A lesser known company might be forces to sell it at a lower price.

*shrug* Or maybe it's just so far outside my budget that I don't care.

[DonS]

There are three things to consider. 

1. There must be higher engineering costs to develop the C model.  It is different so there is different R&D.
2. There will be a smaller market for this (an assumption) so economies of scale are limited keeping costs higher
3. A higher cost promotes a higher perceived value.  People expect it to cost more. 

[Bob Howland]

I'm sure this has been said before but...


I'm not sure I see the issue either way. Sure sure, maybe Canon could have technically built the 1Dc for the same(ish) price as the 1Dx. But it doesn't really matter. I'll be labelled an "evil capitalist" but the market has determined what 4K is worth. Canon could leave money on the table and sell it cheap but they don't have to because they are Canon. A lesser known company might be forces to sell it at a lower price.

*shrug* Or maybe it's just so far outside my budget that I don't care.

Or Canon might sell it cheap and sell more units amortizing the R&D (also called Non-Recurring Expenses or NRE) over a larger number of units and making a higher profit.

Or a competitor, such as Blackmagic, might introduce something as good but at a lower price and produced with less NRE and lower recurring production costs, and reduce the numbers sold of the Canon product so much that Canon can't fully amortize the NRE at their selected price, causing Canon to take a loss on the whole venture.

[unfocused]

Ok, say there's no difference inside at all, other than the one port we know about.  That means Canon is charging a 91% premium for code that offers critical features for a certain group of users.  Why are people up in arms about this?  Adobe is charging a premium for Photoshop CS6 vs. Elememts, for the same thing, code that offers critical features for a certain group of users. But, Adobe is charging a 459% for their code. 

Or you can buy a competitor's product (Corel Paint Shop Pro, for example) but no one does that.

Neuro's point is spot on. Who cares if the difference is in the hardware or the software? It's all in the "perceived" value and we have been programmed to perceive that physical differences in products are worth more than programming differences.

Ironic that this is a topic on a photography forum. Who should charge more? A chimpanzee using a 5DIII or a professional photographer with 30 years of experience using a 5DIII. The only difference is the programming.

[neuroanatomist]

A chimpanzee using a 5DIII or a professional photographer with 30 years of experience using a 5DIII. The only difference is the programming.

That and a few million years of evolution.  Fortunately for us, Canon and Adobe write code much faster than nature.

[DavidRiesenberg]

Though at times it seems only marginally so.

[Chris_prophotographic]

Knowing on how regular computer companies build hardware and then cripple it with firmware or die laser cuts id guess the 1DX is not that much different from a 1DC

I.E.   NVIDIA video cards QUADRO and FX series very similar cards with different firmware or enabled pipelines, it was more SIMILAR in the older generations of ATI FIRE GL  was a 9700 pro but that was ages ago still, why build 2 incredibly different Models when you can just flick a few "switches" for much cheaper