World's First EOS-1D C Motion Image Shoot

[RGomezPhotos]

"This is the future".  Sure.  But with the 1DC?  I don't think so.

Motion blur is a big problem.  Since this shoots at 24fps, you're basically talking 1/24 shutter speed.  Right?  Well even relatively slow studio shooting is done at 1/160.  Right?  To guarantee you don't get any motion blur.  The technological leap to go from 1/24 - 1/160 is quite huge.  I mean, you can probably drop that down to 1/60 but your subjects will have to be moving pretty slow or very still.  Maybe for studio work.

And let's talk about lighting.   

There's another reason why we have 1/8000 shutter.  Right?  For those bright outdoors...  And you can get a picture by using one or two flashes...  To re-create in video, you'd have to use much more and/or possibly different tools.  More expensive tools.  To get a certain brightness from a still is relatively cheap and easy compared to video.

At this point, I think the 1DC MAY lessen the chance of missing a particular pic, but it doesn't guarantee it.  Also a possible 2 - 4 fold increase in price not just for the camera, but all supporting gear.  Do you want to go through 256GB of footage to find even 50 great stills?  Okay, there will be software that will search through your footage for frames that show minimal blur.  If you must shoot in 4K for stills with minimal blur, you really need at least a Cinema C500 video cam.  That's a $25k investment.  I was talking to a Canon Cinema Rep a few weeks ago and he was really pushing the Cinema video cam for high volume imaging.  Like catalog work.

While 4k is the future, how often is it used?  I have a Producer/Director friend whose shot several short films on his rigged Canon 60D and it looked FABULOUS!  I was blown away how great it looked.  You can get totally professional results on much less expensive gear.  Again, it's all about the operator.  Not the gear.

I think the 1DC is still two more generations from being what Canon is trying to sell it as.  If you want to shoot great stills and 4k video, the 1DC is definitely on the table.  But to get great stills from the video, it needs some work.  You're getting the 1DX and much of the Cinema C100.  I would say that it's future-proofed since it shoots 4k.  But the camera would need to be upgradeable via firmware to shoot RAW AND a shutter speed increase.  Doubts that's going to happen with a software upgrade.  The 1DC is $12k.  That's almost the price of the 1DX and a C100 separately.  WHEN the C100 get's upgraded, you only need to spend the money to replace that cam versus a 1DC Mark II.  The upgrade cost is half the price with a dedicated video cam.

The 1DX is a perfectly fine camera that will be more than enough to give excellent stills performance for at least 5 years.  But if you want to shoot 4k video, more versatility, less compromises and a less expensive long-term investment, get a dedicated video cam.

[dolina]

You will need to spend the same amount of the 1D C for your editing rig.

Rather get a BRZ instead. 

[danski0224]

B+H photo says the sensor is  24 x 36mm (full frame)

From the linked article in the first post:

Aspect ratio + Crop factor:
What was one of the biggest differences shooting with the camera was the new aspect ratio and crop factor. The 1DC records 4K video using the APS-H format (which is an effective crop factor of 1.3) We’ve been shooting on full frame sensors for a long time so it does take some getting used to the new crop factor when selecting which lens to go to. I absolutely fell in love with the 2:1 aspect ratio (slightly narrower than 16:9) which does (to me anyway) increase the “cinematic” look of the footage. We shouldn’t ignore several other key features such as Clean HDMI output (in HD), 18.1megapixel RAW still capability with the option of up to 12/14 frames per second depending on your shooting mode. All this is housed in an extremely rugged and compact chassis with the ability to run the camera using plug-in external power.

[Lee Jay]

"This is the future".  Sure.  But with the 1DC?  I don't think so.

Motion blur is a big problem.  Since this shoots at 24fps, you're basically talking 1/24 shutter speed.  Right?

No.  You can choose the shutter speed you want, but many would choose 1/48th for video taken at 24fps.  The so-called "180 degree" shutter is common for shooting motion.

[AlicoatePhotography]

It is a full frame sensor.  It shoots video as an APS-H crop, or even an APS-C though. 

[Axilrod]

It is a full frame sensor.  It shoots video as an APS-H crop, or even an APS-C though.

Actually it shoots 4K in APS-H mode, everything else is full frame just like the 1DX.  A 1DX that shoots 4K with a 1.3x crop pretty much sums it up.

[lucuias]

Interesting,I often finds out I miss the very best shot due to few mili second of delay.Very useful for actual wedding day.

[gjones5252]

"This is the future".  Sure.  But with the 1DC?  I don't think so.

Motion blur is a big problem.  Since this shoots at 24fps, you're basically talking 1/24 shutter speed.  Right?  Well even relatively slow studio shooting is done at 1/160.  Right?  To guarantee you don't get any motion blur.  The technological leap to go from 1/24 - 1/160 is quite huge.  I mean, you can probably drop that down to 1/60 but your subjects will have to be moving pretty slow or very still.  Maybe for studio work.

Yes it shoots at 24 frames per second  but the speed at which each of those frames is taken at is what is important. There is a big difference between shoot 1/50 and 1/1000 both at 24fps. The 1/50 will have the motion blur you speak of and will create a smoother looking video but a 1/1000 you would see cleaner sharper still frames captured from the video. Although you have lost a lot of light from that and so as far as being useful for wedding photography? Not unless its a noon sunny day. Every wedding I've done is indoors and darker than preferred. So I would still rather time my 20+mp shoot with lower shutter speed and ISO then blindly hope a frame would be caught.

[Axilrod]

First, I think it is legitimate to capture stills from a video stream.  Of course, if you want to do it right, shoot in raw, and that means use a RED camera, not the "c".  They mentioned this in the video and hoped for the next generation, when RED is already doing it.

Yeah I was pretty blown away when I saw this still from the Epic:

[HurtinMinorKey]

I still can't believe Canon is stuck around 13 stops of DR on their flagship camera.

[sanj]

Okay, I'm going to call BS, for the most part.

First, I think it is legitimate to capture stills from a video stream.  Of course, if you want to do it right, shoot in raw, and that means use a RED camera, not the "c".  They mentioned this in the video and hoped for the next generation, when RED is already doing it.

Second, and they mentioned this as well, stills settings are nearly always very different than video settings for the same scene.  One might want 1/500th for stills (for reducing motion blur in the final frame) and 1/48th for video (for preserving motion blur to make the video look smooth).  This means it's nearly never possible to shoot video and stills at the same time with the intention of using both as final output.  You are going to have to pick one or the other in advance most of the time.  Again, though they mentioned this, they glossed over it.

Third, if you need flash for your images, video mode is not much help.  Flash is often an incredibly valuable tool for controlling scene contrast, and we stills shooters often don't really realize just how powerful our little on-camera flashes are.  If you want to replace a 580, you might need a 20kW video light, which comes on a truck.  So this stuff is really only for conditions where natural light is acceptable without modification.  Of course, there are many times like that, but not all by a long shot.

Fourth, capturing 24 frames per second and then picking your frame often does the exact opposite of what is mentioned in the video - it misses the key moment rather than allowing you to find it in the video stream.  Not always, but sometimes.  In many cases, I can time my shutter release to within about 2ms for doing things like capturing a batter hitting a ball, a pitcher releasing a ball, etc.  For 2ms accuracy, you need 500fps, not 24fps.  Even if I'm only accurate to 5ms (I can nail that most of the time) you'd still need 200fps.  So, in many cases, "spray and pray", even at ordinary video speeds - or even at RED's maximum of 120fps - is not sufficient to capture the moment unless your "spray" is at very, very high frame rates that neither the "c" nor any of the RED cameras can manage.

I want to reiterate that there are times when this approach can be useful, but it's no panacea as they try desperately to imply in the video.

Very well said.

[distant.star]

.
Exactly right. This is the future, and it's not that far away. This is why I've said before the 1Dx is the last conventional stills DSLR Canon will ever make. The 1Dx is good enough that it will bridge into this form of photography/videography that will become common in that high end professional market.

Reading this and watching the video makes me feel extremely primitive in how I make pictures. What I strive for in head-hunting street photography is that real moment, that "micro-expression" that is so recognizably REAL! For me, that's what makes a good picture. Even shooting honest 10 FPS stills it can be missed -- if you were fast enough to achieve AF to begin with.

I'm going to predict the next summer Olympic games will see many image producers using these kinds of tools. A company like Reuters will jump at the chance to have video to go along with the stills they can provide clients -- and all of it coming from one camera.

Maybe 10 years from now people will look back at the tools we covet today and think it was the stone age.

What is not important here is what this camera can or cannot do.  What is important is the shift in direction and marketing that this camera brings.  It is true that a camera that can take continuous footage at a decent resolution will change a lot of the photo industry.  Canon sees this, and that is where they are heading.  If I were younger and had a desire to move into a cutting edge industry, I would probably mortgage the house and buy two of these things with a heck of a lot of memory cards.  I would start marketing myself in a way that differentiated myself from my competition, and as technology catches up, I would employ that too.  With an existing client base and experience at this craft, you would be at the forefront ready to handle raw video 5K, or whatever is next.  Who knows, the future hardware could shoot 5K at 24FPS and then when you press the stills button you get a temporary bump to 60 FPS with multi-exposure blur to still have smooth video and still be able to use a high shutter speed for great stills.  Its possible.  Some company will figure this out, and things will change.

Exciting stuff.  Too bad I am old, tired, and in a different industry.

[Drizzt321]

Okay, I'm going to call BS, for the most part.

First, I think it is legitimate to capture stills from a video stream.  Of course, if you want to do it right, shoot in raw, and that means use a RED camera, not the "c".  They mentioned this in the video and hoped for the next generation, when RED is already doing it.

Second, and they mentioned this as well, stills settings are nearly always very different than video settings for the same scene.  One might want 1/500th for stills (for reducing motion blur in the final frame) and 1/48th for video (for preserving motion blur to make the video look smooth).  This means it's nearly never possible to shoot video and stills at the same time with the intention of using both as final output.  You are going to have to pick one or the other in advance most of the time.  Again, though they mentioned this, they glossed over it.

Third, if you need flash for your images, video mode is not much help.  Flash is often an incredibly valuable tool for controlling scene contrast, and we stills shooters often don't really realize just how powerful our little on-camera flashes are.  If you want to replace a 580, you might need a 20kW video light, which comes on a truck.  So this stuff is really only for conditions where natural light is acceptable without modification.  Of course, there are many times like that, but not all by a long shot.

Fourth, capturing 24 frames per second and then picking your frame often does the exact opposite of what is mentioned in the video - it misses the key moment rather than allowing you to find it in the video stream.  Not always, but sometimes.  In many cases, I can time my shutter release to within about 2ms for doing things like capturing a batter hitting a ball, a pitcher releasing a ball, etc.  For 2ms accuracy, you need 500fps, not 24fps.  Even if I'm only accurate to 5ms (I can nail that most of the time) you'd still need 200fps.  So, in many cases, "spray and pray", even at ordinary video speeds - or even at RED's maximum of 120fps - is not sufficient to capture the moment unless your "spray" is at very, very high frame rates that neither the "c" nor any of the RED cameras can manage.

I want to reiterate that there are times when this approach can be useful, but it's no panacea as they try desperately to imply in the video.

Very well said.

I don't see where in order to "do it right" you must shoot in raw. However you capture a great image, that's how you capture it. Film negatives, slide film, 4x6, 110 film, FF digital RAW, JPG. It doesn't matter. It's the shot you get, not what medium/media you capture it on. Now, would I vastly prefer RAW of some kind to JPG? You betcha! Although for RAW video, the storage requirements balloon a LOT more. One thing to keep in mind.

As has been mentioned, just because you are capturing at 24/25fps, doesn't mean your shutter is at 1/48 or 1/50. For smooth video you generally would want it closer to that, but as is mentioned in the video, 1/100 and 1/200 can still make reasonable video, and still be good for most stills. Not all of course, I fully submit, but many situations will still be able to be captured perfectly well at those shutter speeds.

The bit about lighting is on point, although you aren't always able to use them. But, as per the article/video, the 1DC has good, usable quality even at extremely high ISO levels. Alleviates some of the lighting needs, but certainly not in every case. For a studio, it might just be back to the good old days* of "hot" lights (* I'm not so old that I ever shot with them).

I'll submit that 24/25fps does take some of the control of exactly when the capture starts, but even so for many (not all) needs it should be more than sufficient. The 1DX can only capture at 12 fps, which is fully half of what the 1DC captures in 4K for video. I agree, when you hit "go" it likely takes a bit more of time to actually start recording than the 1DX may take to begin snapping frames, but if you can anticipate the shutter lack of hitting the shutter button, then you can adapt and anticipate the lag between capture starts which will let you get your shutter pretty close to when you need it, and crank the shutter speed up (decreasing video smoothness, but sharpening the image for stills) while still giving you double the available frames to choose from.

Last, I completely agree that as it exists at this moment with the 1DC, it's not useful everywhere, and I don't think the video really tries to imply that. Instead, it shows a different way to start thinking about capturing individual images. But that, in the opinion of those particular photographer/cinematographers, is good enough for many use-cases now, and floors them as to the quality they can get and that they already are working with mixed-media and this will only increase the opportunities that they have.

[trygved]

I feel like what they are talking about is a mirrorless camera that can crank out 24+ frames per second.
When you get to a certain frame rate without a buffer holding you back, it's easier to call it a video camera.
The lines are definitely blurred between the two styles of image capturing.
Seeing as Canon has the tech to do this, I would almost prefer a camera that is pushed to its buffer that can get many more than 24 frames per second, but for a significantly shorter period of time.

Hell, I'd imagine we won't need to make this tradeoff for too much longer anyhow.