Canon EOS-1D C Available?

[distant.star]

If you have received an EOS-1D C, I’d love to see an unboxing.

Unboxing???

For that money, they should hand deliver it in a mahogany cabinet!

 

[Axilrod]

My opinion on this camera. The price will eventually be well south of $15k. It is a B,C or D camera that can be trashed in motion pictures. Your basic crash cam. There will be some that will actually use it to shoot some sort of budget features but essentially it is a disposable, relatively inexpensive camera that will put out high quality 4k images. If it survives an incident in a violent situation, great. Load it up and shoot again. If it's destroyed, write it off on the taxes. No value for stills as it was designed specificly as a secondary motion picture capture camera. All one has to do is look at how the motion picture industry has used the 5D2 and 7D and to me it only seems logical for Canon to produce a camera with a higher image quality to supliment primary cameras. Essentially a better 5d2/7D. That's my take.

Someone posted that it's 9,999 in Australia," and our dollar is worth only a bit more so it may debut at a little more than $10k. I bet that's why it isn't available for preorder yet because b&h isn't sure on the price.

 

[Axilrod]

My opinion on this camera. The price will eventually be well south of $15k. It is a B,C or D camera that can be trashed in motion pictures. Your basic crash cam. There will be some that will actually use it to shoot some sort of budget features but essentially it is a disposable, relatively inexpensive camera that will put out high quality 4k images. If it survives an incident in a violent situation, great. Load it up and shoot again. If it's destroyed, write it off on the taxes. No value for stills as it was designed specificly as a secondary motion picture capture camera. All one has to do is look at how the motion picture industry has used the 5D2 and 7D and to me it only seems logical for Canon to produce a camera with a higher image quality to supliment primary cameras. Essentially a better 5d2/7D. That's my take.

No value for stills? It has all the same still features the 1dx has....

 

[paulrossjones]

i dont quite understand this camera.

its great that it has 4k. but the real strength i would have thought is to have 4k as a full frame camera- this is what would make it unique, and the best at something.
but it crops to super 35 when shooting 4k. it also shoot 24frames only at 4k, which is ok for cinema, but not much good for TVC's.

but, hardly anyone really needs 4k, so i guess thats not a big deal. (ive asked many very good DPs, and they say 2k is more than enough res for all their work).

It does however shoot 1080p with full frame up to 60p which is great, but does so at a very reduced 4.2.0! why??? so you are paying for a 15k camera that shoots 4.2.0 for any usable stuff...

then the final very unprofessional aspect of this camera is the mini hdmi out- it doesn't have hdsdi out. this is the most unreliable/ unprofessional aspect of all hdslrs. its the biggest pain when ever i shoot.

so, why will people buy this camera with these specs? i can see the c500 selling like hot cakes, but this 1dc with all its limitations and weird dslr form factor seems odd. i think people that really need 4k will spend the extra for the c500- which really does have a great feature list.

i would have been keen on a 1dc being a photographer that shoots a little video, but the 4.2.0 1080p makes it pointless compared with a 5dmk3 or a idx.

paul

 

[jpk]

Value for stills? Don't understand this camera? Why when the 5d3 and 1DX are roughly the same MP's and do a great job with stills, and with video up to a point. The difference is the 4k image quality which seems to have become the professional threshold for high end video cinematography. Why have that feature on a DSLR if it wasn't targeted specificly at the motion picture industry. Why produce it in a DSLR body? Obviously the size of the 1DC means it can be mounted in places where larger and bulkier camera bodies cannot fit or need to be hidden or as a crash cam. Act of Valor was shot for the most part with 5 and 7D's. That leads me to believe this camera was specificly aimed at the pro movie making industry.

I'm sure you can use it as a still camera but why spend what may eventually be a $10k body vs an $8k body just to shoot stills and have a feature/s you won't need or use.

 

[rustes]

Yesterday, 8/24/2012 , In my campus in Miami, there was a crew filming a TV ad for a congresswoman. I walked over to see what they were filming with...

Canon 1D C...

The camera had a property tag on it .... budgetvideo from www.budgetvideo.com

A local rental company here.

 

[paulrossjones]

Value for stills? Don't understand this camera? Why when the 5d3 and 1DX are roughly the same MP's and do a great job with stills, and with video up to a point. The difference is the 4k image quality which seems to have become the professional threshold for high end video cinematography. Why have that feature on a DSLR if it wasn't targeted specificly at the motion picture industry. Why produce it in a DSLR body? Obviously the size of the 1DC means it can be mounted in places where larger and bulkier camera bodies cannot fit or need to be hidden or as a crash cam. Act of Valor was shot for the most part with 5 and 7D's. That leads me to believe this camera was specificly aimed at the pro movie making industry.

I'm sure you can use it as a still camera but why spend what may eventually be a $10k body vs an $8k body just to shoot stills and have a feature/s you won't need or use.

why would someone shoot a 4k movie with a camera with hdmi and the weird shape that the 1dc is? I shoot a fair bit of video with my 5dmk3, and its size is an advantage. but the 1dc is as large and as heavy as c300/c500 and the form factor is wrong for a motion camera.
Act of valor is a competent bit of film making, but you cant tell me there isn't a bit of canon sponsorship and PR going on there.
for most movies, the cheapest bit of the whole project is the camera. the slight price advantage of the 1dc wouldnt really be a big motivation to use it imo.

but i feel if they had added a decent quality 1080p or 2k video at full frame, then they would have made a great camera for people like me- who want a stills camera that doesn't excellent quality video. however, the 1dc will output 4.2.2 into a external recorder I believe. maybe that will be its redeeming feature.

paul

 

[Axilrod]

. That leads me to believe this camera was specificly aimed at the pro movie making industry.

Everything under the cinema eos line is aimed at the cinema industry, $15k-$25k bodies and $40k+ lenses are nowhere close to the prosumer realm.

 

[jpk]

Value for stills? Don't understand this camera? Why when the 5d3 and 1DX are roughly the same MP's and do a great job with stills, and with video up to a point. The difference is the 4k image quality which seems to have become the professional threshold for high end video cinematography. Why have that feature on a DSLR if it wasn't targeted specificly at the motion picture industry. Why produce it in a DSLR body? Obviously the size of the 1DC means it can be mounted in places where larger and bulkier camera bodies cannot fit or need to be hidden or as a crash cam. Act of Valor was shot for the most part with 5 and 7D's. That leads me to believe this camera was specificly aimed at the pro movie making industry.

I'm sure you can use it as a still camera but why spend what may eventually be a $10k body vs an $8k body
just to shoot stills and have a feature/s you won't need or use.

why would someone shoot a 4k movie with a camera with hdmi and the weird shape that the 1dc is? I shoot a fair bit of video with my 5dmk3, and its size is an advantage. but the 1dc is as large and as heavy as c300/c500 and the form factor is wrong for a motion camera.
Act of valor is a competent bit of film making, but you cant tell me there isn't a bit of canon sponsorship and PR going on there.
for most movies, the cheapest bit of the whole project is the camera. the slight price advantage of the 1dc wouldnt really be a big motivation to use it imo.

but i feel if they had added a decent quality 1080p or 2k video at full frame, then they would have made a great camera for people like me- who want a stills camera that doesn't excellent quality video. however, the 1dc will output 4.2.2 into a external recorder I believe. maybe that will be its redeeming feature.

paul

Answer a simple question and you may understand why. Why would someone shoot any video production with a 5D2 or 7D DSLR with all the very good high end video cameras that are available? Now add to that the 1D-C. I think you will find your answer.

 

[peederj]

If this is 3-5x the price of the BMCC, why wouldn't they use the BMCC as a crash cam instead? What you _might_ lose in resolution...we won't know until someone shoots resolution charts with both...you regain in the BMCC's far superior RAW encoding onto commodity SSDs (which are faster and cheaper per GB than high-capacity CF cards).

The 1DC is not full-frame video btw...I think it crops to APS-H for video. Still, a bigger sensor, with better low-light, but the video output more or less sucks from it comparitively. I would rather have a C300 for the money and I think the C300 should cost more like $7,000. The C300 has good rolling shutter performance in its favor over all of these.

The reason I think 100 will be bought is because it's expensive and says Canon and there are 100 conspicuously consumptive collectors in the world who will just buy it for that and only that reason. I don't think anyone costing out a cinematic production is going to put these on the rental list...the rental houses may not even buy them. Canon may have to lend these to rental houses and productions or even pay productions to use them so they can showcase it as a demo. This may have been a cool idea when they thought of it two years ago but Canon has been overtaken by events and competitors that are in game shape.

 

[jpk]

In one sense I agree with you. I think Canon was trying to ride the wave of cinematographers that were using the 5D2 and the 7D by getting an improved version of the DSLR cameras they were using to market. A lot of changes can happen in two to three years as a product goes from the concept stage to retail shelves. Maybe the whole DSLR cinematography thing will fizzle out, maybe it will take off better than before if they now have a dedicated purpose built body to use.

As for the BMCC, I think they need to do a revamp of the ergos on it before it is a viable production camera. The touch screen to me is a problem. Seems like a novel thing but in real world use it seems to me to have issues. In bright sunlight having to access camera functions via the screen if you need to have some sort of viewfinder ocular just to see the screen for focus, etc. could be problematic.

Who knows, stranger things have happened. It will be interesting to see how it all shakes out. From my perspective, why did Canon even release the C300. Why not go straight to a 4k body since that is where the movement is going. I'd be pissed if I spent all that money on a C300 then have Canon release a 4k body for a few grand more.

 

[peederj]

I heard the C500 will be more than double the price of the C300 ($35K?), for essentially the same camera, just uncrippled 4K. There are rumors the C300 has 4K or at least much higher res "somewhere in there" you just can't get at it. It would be a major coup if a hacker were to break into it.

The BMCC has a sunshade that clips over the touchscreen. The touchscreen is new, but it's the wave of the future clearly, even our beloved Canon is doing it on the T4i and M. The BMCC did everything "Apple" right down to the unreplaceable internal battery and milled aluminum chassis. Apple doesn't seem to have done so poorly with their embrace of touchscreens.

The BMCC isn't in "the club." The other camera manu's have become too comfortable in their trot. When you compare the bundled software...compare Davinci Resolve with...uhm..."Digital Photo Professional" (Resolve used to cost $250,000)...and everything else, Canon is being left in the dust. The 5D2 gave Canon a new franchise in large-sensor video. They fumbled.

 

[AG]

The 5D2 gave Canon a new franchise in large-sensor video. They fumbled.

You pretty much nailed it with that part of the comment

 

[Axilrod]

Someone said it's available in Australia for $9,999 AUD, which is a little over $10k US. It may do a little bit better at that price. That would make sense as to why it's not available for preorder at B&H yet, they're not sure on the price.

 

[unadog]

Hopefully their retort will be a 5D-C that records 1080 raw for $4000. But that'd piss off so many purchasers of the original 5D3, that I doubt it will happen.

No, it is coming I am pretty sure.

It won't have RAW, but it will have Canon Log Gamma, like the C300/C500/1DC. basically a "little brother" to the 1DC.

I am 99% convinced that Canon has not released a video-centric camera yet this year. The 5D3 is definitely a stills camera with improved video. The T4i is our same entry level.

I am just worried that Canon will put out the High MP camera instead of the 3D-C, 5D-C, 7D-C because of Nikon's D800.


Just to correct a few things:

1) The 1DC can shoot 1080 HD full frame, or 4K at Super 35 crop - a very standard cine size.

2) The 1DC will have uncompressed HDMI out. Internal codec to cards for proxy editing, external capture for final edit. So will the C500.

3) Some things require hardware bandwith/processor power/memory, and cost a certain amount to start. Some things like HDMI, codecs, etc. are firmware related. Those will show up in the 7D-C.

4) The BMCC is a niche camera. It is great for long form video, cinema, etc. Not so good for Run & Gun, ERG, broadcast, sports, that requires a fast turnaround.

5) The BMCC is a video only camera. I bought my 5D3 for stills. High ISO quality in low light, excellent autofocus. The fact that it shoots the best/tied for best video on a DSLR (along with the D800) is great!

So the question is not: BMCC or 5D#. It is $3,000 for 5DC. Then, can I afford/justify another dedicated, niche video camera? And also need a cancorder like the X1-AH, FS100, etc. too?

6) Canon announced last November that the C300, C500, 1DC would be 4K front end enabled, with better than 8 bit back end coming later. That is what they have done.

7) there are a lot of people using the C300 to make high end documentaries, movies, weddings, etc. right now. They are very happy with the camera.

If you have never spent more than $5,000 for a camera, you might not understand teh economics of the $15K to 25K tools. People buying those are probably in a position where they pay for themselves in 3-6 months. Or, they rent them for a job, and the c ost is a pure "pass through" expense to the client, or amortized against thje 3 week, $50K income from the job, etc.


When I bought my Canon 1DsII for $8,000 in 2004, I used to to completely replace medium format (6x7) film, taht cost me 1 dollar per frame. I shot 40,000 images per year on that for 2 years, then sold the camera for $5,000.

Fro 1998-2004, I spent a minimum of $5,000 a year on film and developing only (no prints, etc.) that I was nopt reimbursed for by clients (for personal projects, etc.) I also bought 2, $3,000+ medium format scanners during thjose 6 years. Computer costs were equal, because I scanned, edited, and printed film from 1998 on. Digital files were 1/10 the size of film scans, requiring a **less** powerful computer.

So my net cost for the 1DsII was $1,500 per year, versus $5,000+$1,000 = $6,000 a year for film & scanner. Basically, it paid for iteslf in 3 months each year - the rest of the year it was "free" to use, saving me $4,500 a year. Plus I rented it out at $300 per day.

We are basically at the same place in video now, as we were in 2004 with the 1DsII. Today you can buy the Canon T4i for $800, with basically the same still image quality and decent auto focus, as the $8,000 camera from 8 years ago.

The same thing will happen with video, this year and next. In teh mean time, things will change every 3-4 months as new cameras are announced, though they may take 6+ months to get to market.

To compare systems, you have to look at the whole "ecosystem" & workflow. A niche camera does not replace an all-around camera. A landscape camera does not replace a sports camera. Log codec will give you 75% of what you get in RAW at much lower bit rates. How good is the auto focus on the BMCC? Etc.

Canon either needs to have high profit margins (C300, C500), or sell 2,000,000+ copies (T4i, 5D3, 7D2, etc.) to justify devoting scarce internal resources to a project.

That is why the niche playes can beat Canon, et al to the market by 6-12 months. They can make an "adequate" profit at a volume of 1,000 to 10,000 units. For Canon, a $5 million profit would only offset a rounding error from their currency arbitrage.

Cheers!

 

[Axilrod]

I heard the C500 will be more than double the price of the C300 ($35K?), for essentially the same camera, just uncrippled 4K. There are rumors the C300 has 4K or at least much higher res "somewhere in there" you just can't get at it. It would be a major coup if a hacker were to break into it.

From what I gather the C300's 1080p output is still sampled from 3840×2160, so it technically has 4K resolution it's final output is just 1080p.

 

[ksieb]

heres a link for preorder in australia at 9,999$
http://www.techrific.com.au/canon-eos-1d-c-digital-slr-camera-body-only-1dc-free-gift-12mth-local-warranty-p-2956.html

 

[stevenrrmanir]

LOL - more proof that whoever is in charge of running Canon is SLEEPING on their job, are OUT OF TOUCH with reality,and are plain IGNORANT of the market out there...

...they will run out of money like Sony is, and run their company out of business...

Sony has less than 5 years to get its finances right, or they will file for bankruptcy...

Canon has been slowly moving toward the same direction the last 2 years...

it amazes me how retarded Canon is most of the time...