EOS 1D C suggested price!!!

[Ranga]

There is no question in my mind that 4k acquisition isn't for those on a budget. But I cant imagine a professional photographer going for gig to click, ending up shooting a few video clips in 4k for vimeo or a news clip for that matter. Or a cinematographer wanting to take 12fps in the set of a film. They are both unlikely scenarios.

This is where the FS-700 scores as a video camera.

[Christian_Stella]

There is no question in my mind that 4k acquisition isn't for those on a budget. But I cant imagine a professional photographer going for gig to click, ending up shooting a few video clips in 4k for vimeo or a news clip for that matter. Or a cinematographer wanting to take 12fps in the set of a film. They are both unlikely.

They did use a 1D's still photo mode in 127 Hours for a few shots at like 8 frames per second to give a dreamy look.  So, you know... The 1D C will allow 30 million dollar productions to save a few grand!

All jokes aside... The 12fps at photo resolution could make for some interesting establishing shots or dream / drunk sequences in competent hands on a smaller production.  Not enough to be so ever present in the camera, but not entirely useless.

I purposefully used the 5D2's auto focus button in video mode on my movie shoot to get all the focus searching and drastic exposure changes in a drunken montage and it turned out incredible. While I'll probably never need to do that again, it made me king S___ that day and everyone watching the dailies thought I was doing something insanely difficult.

[Jimmy_D]

conserning the 4k video issue, i suggest you take a look at the following article. My opinion is that it is very informative! here's the link: http://magazine.creativecow.net/article/the-truth-about-2k-4k-the-future-of-pixels

[Jimmy_D]

One thing i don't understand is that Canon has released 2 cameras (identical in stills) instead of releasing one camera. i.e. an 1D X with 4k video for $8000 to $9000.
My logik would be to either produce an 1D X with no video but a dedicated stills camera and a 1D C with 4k video but average stills features, OR , one camera to do both 4k video and be top for stills(apparently the 1D C) at a price that make sense for videographers AND photographers.

[moreorless]

There is no question in my mind that 4k acquisition isn't for those on a budget. But I cant imagine a professional photographer going for gig to click, ending up shooting a few video clips in 4k for vimeo or a news clip for that matter. Or a cinematographer wanting to take 12fps in the set of a film. They are both unlikely scenarios.

This is where the FS-700 scores as a video camera.

I'd guess it depends how popular(either for viewing or editting) you believe 4K is likely to be.

At the moment the most likely dual users to me seem likely to be wildlife and sports pro's, those are areas that were at the forefront of the move to HD so I'd guess there also likely to be in the same situation if home 4K takes off.

[dswatson83]

I understand the argument that the 1D-C is for a professional market with little concern or price. But there are still several reasons this is WAY overpriced. There is already a crowded market of excellent cameras for those with deep pockets from RED, Sony, Panasonic, Canons C500, and others. Figure, Canon is merely updating an existing camera. They are not creating a new body geared for videographers, they are not adding professional audio, they are not adding nd filters, and they still lack many features pro video cameras contain. The $3000 Nikon D800 exports uncompressed HD, records 1080p video at 30fps, and the Sony A77 records 1080p @60fps as well. The only real improvements over any other DSLR is the ability to record 4k at 24fps. The fact is a DSLR sucks as a video camera by nature but due to the low price of the 5D mark II, we compromised and dealt with the missing features, lack of sharpness, crappy format, and awkward (for video) body style.

Not to mention Canon is not known for sharp video even at 1080p with the sensor only resolving around 800 lines of resolution. The test footage for the 1Dx and 5D mark iii does not seem to improve this much at all either, even with the new lower compression format. For $15000, buy a real video camera. For $4000, I would deal with the shortcomings of using a DSLR for good enough footage at a lower price. For those who have unlimited budgets, i'm not sure why they would pick this over the RED, Sony, or even the C500.

[rHellfire]

My idea is, that if the 1D-X and 1D-C are really the same concerning the hardware, why don't they sell the extra 4K-video stuff as an extra firmware update? You could produce ONE camera, that would be able to do both. But the basis cam is an 1D-X. If you want the 4K you just send the cam to Canon or something. Canon and the customer would safe lots of money, I suggest!
My first thought was, if it's the same hardware, then some people will be able to make the 1D-C firmware run on the 1D-X sometimes!

[Axilrod]

My idea is, that if the 1D-X and 1D-C are really the same concerning the hardware, why don't they sell the extra 4K-video stuff as an extra firmware update? You could produce ONE camera, that would be able to do both. But the basis cam is an 1D-X. If you want the 4K you just send the cam to Canon or something. Canon and the customer would safe lots of money, I suggest!
My first thought was, if it's the same hardware, then some people will be able to make the 1D-C firmware run on the 1D-X sometimes!

Considering the price difference I would think there would have to be some hardware differences, $7k is way too much if it's all in the firmware.  If this were the case it would probably lead to riots in front of Canon headquarters.

[ssrdd]

i would pay not more than 6000/-
if not i have black magic the mighty option.

[Mt Spokane Photography]

i would pay not more than 6000/-
if not i have black magic the mighty option.

A camcorder like the Black Magic is indeed more appropriate for consumers and prosumers.  A HDDSLR is only a tiny part of the cost of a professional cinema layout.

[sanj]

I understand the argument that the 1D-C is for a professional market with little concern or price. But there are still several reasons this is WAY overpriced. There is already a crowded market of excellent cameras for those with deep pockets from RED, Sony, Panasonic, Canons C500, and others. Figure, Canon is merely updating an existing camera. They are not creating a new body geared for videographers, they are not adding professional audio, they are not adding nd filters, and they still lack many features pro video cameras contain. The $3000 Nikon D800 exports uncompressed HD, records 1080p video at 30fps, and the Sony A77 records 1080p @60fps as well. The only real improvements over any other DSLR is the ability to record 4k at 24fps. The fact is a DSLR sucks as a video camera by nature but due to the low price of the 5D mark II, we compromised and dealt with the missing features, lack of sharpness, crappy format, and awkward (for video) body style.

Not to mention Canon is not known for sharp video even at 1080p with the sensor only resolving around 800 lines of resolution. The test footage for the 1Dx and 5D mark iii does not seem to improve this much at all either, even with the new lower compression format. For $15000, buy a real video camera. For $4000, I would deal with the shortcomings of using a DSLR for good enough footage at a lower price. For those who have unlimited budgets, i'm not sure why they would pick this over the RED, Sony, or even the C500.

AGREE!!

[Musouka]

My idea is, that if the 1D-X and 1D-C are really the same concerning the hardware, why don't they sell the extra 4K-video stuff as an extra firmware update? You could produce ONE camera, that would be able to do both. But the basis cam is an 1D-X. If you want the 4K you just send the cam to Canon or something. Canon and the customer would safe lots of money, I suggest!
My first thought was, if it's the same hardware, then some people will be able to make the 1D-C firmware run on the 1D-X sometimes!

Considering the price difference I would think there would have to be some hardware differences, $7k is way too much if it's all in the firmware.  If this were the case it would probably lead to riots in front of Canon headquarters.

There may or may not be hardware differences but there will certainly be manufacturing process differences. In the PC industry, a lower end Intel CPU ($300) might actually share the same die as a high-end one ($700+) but the best yields from the wafer are usually kept for the high-end CPU to provide better overclockability. In fact, when the i7 architecture first came out, the lowest CPU (the i7 920) was able to overclock really well to match its higher counterparts costing twice as much. The non-extreme series were also crippled with locked multipliers to protect the $1K extreme series. When the latter batches of the 920 arrived, Intel were using the worst yields they have for it so it didn't threaten the sales of the more expensive stuff (it didn't overclock as well). Intel further introduced a limitation on the non-extreme CPUs in the second generation of the architecture (Sandy Bridge) to limit overclocking to 10% only (the first batch of the 2.66GHz 920 was overclockable to 4Ghz+ on air). Heck, Intel even started selling $50 vouchers (a software tweak) to overclock the CPUs  of those who weren't willing to risk voiding the warranties.

The comparison is not direct here, but the point is that a high-end product would certainly needs more attention and human involvement in the manufacturing process as the error tolerance tends to be low. You can bet this will get the best-yield sensors and have the best parts. Is it necessary? Maybe... maybe not. When you go up the ladder, it is more the question of prestige and the perceived premium than the actual cost of things.

I certainly don't like this but that's the way businesses work. Brand loyalty is a silly thing. One should always search for the best value for their money wherever it's present.