EOS 1D C suggested price!!!

[Jimmy_D]

Good morning everyone!! i would like to read your comments on the price of canon's EOS 1D C. Perhaps i'm missing something here, because i can't find anything that would worth a $9000 price increase over the price of the 1DX. Not to mention the fact that potential owners should spend several thousand $$$ for even one cine lens. All comments and views are welcome!!

 

[squarebox]

This has kinda been covered before. But cinema lens have a special focusing system that doesn't allow something called "breathing". That alone is very hard to engineer and why the lens are more expensive. I can't comment about the camera itself, but i think the pricing is also in line with the Red camera it is in direct competition with.

 

[dswatson83]

I think Canon missed the point on this one. The DSLR video popularity was not because we all really wanted DSLRs as video cameras. They SUCK for video. No ND filters, no xlr inputs, line skipping because of 18MP sensors, awkward body styles, manual zooms, horrible focusing options, no peaking, no articulating screens, bad audio control and preamps, crappy recording formats for editing and grading, and all kinds of other stuff. The reason we all got excited is we were able to get impressive video quality from a $500 t2i and even better quality from a $2500 5D mark II with only a $400 prime lens. No one wants a pro video DSLR for $15,000 with all of the same issues like lack of ND filters, high res sensors, no xlr inputs and horrible focusing options. I'll deal with those shortcomings in a cheap camera but for Gods sake, if you are going to make a pro video camera, make a freaking pro video camera with pro video camera features. I can't believe Canon would do this as a company who makes great video cameras. 8 years ago I had both their XL1 and GL1 video cameras and they rocked for less than $3000. If you can't improve video in your current DSLR cameras without vastly increasing the price, then do what Sony, RED, and Panasonic are doing and put that awesome full frame sensor into a real video camera. I guess that is what they were attempting to do with the C300 but that camera is way over priced as well.

Guess we won't be seeing much if any video improvement on a 7D mark II, 70D, or T4i if it takes a $15,000 camera to make improvements.

 

[marekjoz]

Good morning everyone!! i would like to read your comments on the price of canon's EOS 1D C. Perhaps i'm missing something here, because i can't find anything that would worth a $9000 price increase over the price of the 1DX. Not to mention the fact that potential owners should spend several thousand $$$ for even one cine lens. All comments and views are welcome!!

4k video?

 

[JR]

What ever the 1DC is, is it for sure not worth the extra $9,000. The problem is, i believe this pricing has nothing to do with what it is actually worth, but more about what they believe this market segment can pay for these features. That said, i still dont know why they would not include all this in the 1dx to begin with and have a killer camera all around...

 

[Christian_Stella]

I'm pretty surprised by how many people want RAW 4k video on a shoestring budget. Canon may be correct in pricing some people out of the market... I imagine a lot of cameras being returned once individuals realize that they can't possibly keep up with all that data.

I'd gladly sell my 5d3 and pay $8,000 for a 5d3 sized DSLR with true 1080p video detail similar to the C300. I'm not ready to turn my house into a data center to shoot the micro-budget movies I can shoot. I'm hoping Canon has something like this in line... you know, behind the other dozen cameras clogging the pipeline.

At least we know why the 1D X was delayed... they had to patch all the holes in the firmware that would allow Magic Lantern to hack it into becoming a half-price 1D C. ;D

EDIT: I'm not implying that the 1D C shoots RAW 4k... just that people want it!

 

[Loswr]

I think Canon missed the point on this one. ... The reason we all got excited is we were able to get impressive video quality from a $500 t2i and even better quality from a $2500 5D mark II with only a $400 prime lens. No one wants a pro video DSLR for $15,000 with all of the same issues like lack of ND filters, high res sensors, no xlr inputs and horrible focusing options. ...

With all due respect, I think you are missing the point. Lots of people want the 1D C to be cheaper. Lots of people want the 1D X to be cheaper. Lots of people want the 5DIII to be cheaper. Canon's goal is not to make 'lots of people' happy, it is to make a profit for their shareholders. 'You all' who got excited by impressive video quality from a $500 T2i are *not* Canon's target market for the 1D C. The producers of a TV show like House aren't even going to blink at the $150K price tag for ten 1D C bodies.

 

[JR]

I think Canon missed the point on this one. ... The reason we all got excited is we were able to get impressive video quality from a $500 t2i and even better quality from a $2500 5D mark II with only a $400 prime lens. No one wants a pro video DSLR for $15,000 with all of the same issues like lack of ND filters, high res sensors, no xlr inputs and horrible focusing options. ...

With all due respect, I think you are missing the point. Lots of people want the 1D C to be cheaper. Lots of people want the 1D X to be cheaper. Lots of people want the 5DIII to be cheaper. Canon's goal is not to make 'lots of people' happy, it is to make a profit for their shareholders. 'You all' who got excited by impressive video quality from a $500 T2i are *not* Canon's target market for the 1D C. The producers of a TV show like House aren't even going to blink at the $150K price tag for ten 1D C bodies.

Totally agree with you Neuro. Am just surprised if the pro market alone can make them sale that many camera. Afterall, there are not that many tv stations relatively speaking and they wont all switch to canon. I know this is for the pro segment, and i will assume canon did their homework, but was more wondering if they would have sold more units and made more profit had they priced this camera a bit lower such that non-pro crazy enthousiast might get one too! Well maybe there is not much of us around either right! Ok i answered my own questions!

 

[unfocused]

I admit I'm totally out of my knowledge area here...but...

As a consumer, it sure feels like the demand for content today is greater than it has ever been. Virtually every cable network is producing their own shows, growth in "indie" films, and the demand for internet video is limitless while the expectations for quality are becoming more demanding.

Major companies not only need broadcast commercials, but now they must all have internet commercials as well. Remember this isn't just a U.S. or western hemisphere phenomenon either...television and the internet are everywhere and that means the demand for video is everywhere as well. And, don't forget the impact of the tablet revolution, which we can only guess at now (how long before the novel you download to your iPad includes video?)

DSLR demand will grow slowly if at all over the next decade, but video will only get bigger and bigger. I think Canon probably knows exactly what they are doing. I just pray they keep making a few DSLRs for dinosaurs like me.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Good morning everyone!! i would like to read your comments on the price of canon's EOS 1D C. Perhaps i'm missing something here, because i can't find anything that would worth a $9000 price increase over the price of the 1DX. Not to mention the fact that potential owners should spend several thousand $$$ for even one cine lens. All comments and views are welcome!!

Its for movie makers and TV productions. The"C" scands for cinema, not consumer.

The camera is not intended for home videos or causual videos. If you need it, you will know.

 

[Policar]

I'm pretty surprised by how many people want RAW 4k video on a shoestring budget. Canon may be correct in pricing some people out of the market... I imagine a lot of cameras being returned once individuals realize that they can't possibly keep up with all that data.

I'd gladly sell my 5d3 and pay $8,000 for a 5d3 sized DSLR with true 1080p video detail similar to the C300. I'm not ready to turn my house into a data center to shoot the micro-budget movies I can shoot.

I wonder how many people who are clamoring for raw video have actually had to shoot and process it. It's possible, but it adds a lot of time to your workflow. Editing is extremely slow, vfx have to go later in the pipeline (after color), you have to worry about conforming and EDLs and all that good stuff, and color becomes a serious and involved step, not just a "throw magic bullet on it" type thing. The process sucks, which is why people hire out post houses. Do you get more quality from it? In theory... Is it worth it to you? How much time and money do you have... So yeah, I'd rather have a sharp 1080p dSLR than some crazy 4k raw contraption. Or even 1080p prores rather than 4k mjpeg.

That said, would you really pay an extra $5,000 for a little more sharpness? If you're shooting for broadcast or a camera for theatrical, you can probably afford a c300. The 5D III is fine for web. I mean, it really should be sharper and the lack of focus peaking, zebras, etc. is surprising, but it's not terrible.

These are two cameras for two different markets--digital cinema and videographer/dSLR op (ENG, weddings, no budget, anyone who's paid to take both stills in videos, etc.). The dSLR "revolution" was started by people in the latter camp, but all these new products (which look awesome, fwiw) are targeted toward the former. I wonder if the 5D III's shortcomings are a result of not wanting to confuse the two markets, or simply due to the fact that the 5D Mark III is a still camera first and Canon didn't think anyone would be too critical of the video if they fixed its most glaring flaw (aliasing) and slightly mitigated some other problems.

 

[JR]

I think Canon probably knows exactly what they are doing. I just pray they keep making a few DSLRs for dinosaurs like me.

+1 there!

 

[Loswr]

Its for movie makers and TV productions. The"C" scands for cinema, not consumer.

Remember the Canon Roadmap? The Cinema line is at the extreme top of the professional category, and unlike the dSLR lines, the Cinema line doesn't dip at all down into the Consumer range, it's entirely within the B2B (business-to-business) space.

 

[Axilrod]

It's hard to judge this thing until we see the image coming out of it, but from the available information at this point I feel like it's overpriced. 500mbit/second 4K has to look pretty damn impressive. It has a place in the cinema world for sure, but it's definitely not geared towards your indie filmmaker (although I'm sure they'll be eager to rent it.)

 

[Axilrod]

I think Canon missed the point on this one. The DSLR video popularity was not because we all really wanted DSLRs as video cameras. They SUCK for video. No ND filters, no xlr inputs, line skipping because of 18MP sensors, awkward body styles, manual zooms, horrible focusing options, no peaking, no articulating screens, bad audio control and preamps, crappy recording formats for editing and grading, and all kinds of other stuff.

If they had included all of that stuff there is no way they'd be able to sell any C300's. And yes, certain aspects of DSLR's suck for video, but this one is different and has clearly been optimized for it. How do you know that the new codec grades poorly? Have you played with any of the footage from this camera? I'm sure the 500mbit/sec MJPEG 4K looks amazing. And the thing is people have gotten used to all the limitations you have mentioned, they've spent thousands on gear for DSLRs to function like video cameras, so why does it matter? Hell even the FS100, FS700, and Scarlett don't have ideal ergonomics and you still need rigs and other gear so what's the big deal? Are you looking for an old school sling over your shoulder camera? Because I think those days are behind us (outside of the broadcast world anyways).

 

[Axilrod]

Good morning everyone!! i would like to read your comments on the price of canon's EOS 1D C. Perhaps i'm missing something here, because i can't find anything that would worth a $9000 price increase over the price of the 1DX. Not to mention the fact that potential owners should spend several thousand $$$ for even one cine lens. All comments and views are welcome!!

The cinema lenses are clearly for the cinema industry, not your average indie filmmaker. The cinema zooms released with the C300 cost 3x more than the C300 itself, that's just how cinema glass is. Even the biggest names in the industry don't own cinema glass, they rent it. Arri Master and Ultra primes are $20k+ per lens, and most traditional cinema zooms are $30k+, it's not like Canon is the oddball here. This stuff has clearly been made with the big shots in mind, big studios with big budgets.

 

[moreorless]

The fact its based on a 1DX does suggest to me that Canon may market it towards dual users, not sure who those would be though, TV wildlife shooters perhaps?

 

[sb]

1DC is priced exactly as it should be for its target market. If you can find a cheaper 4K video camera with comparable features & quality (out of the box), by all means go for it. Except you can't, and Canon knows that. What people are really complaining about is that there is no $3000 4K SLR with auto-awesome mode. Sorry folks, maybe in 5Dmk5

The only thing that I don't understand is why 1DC features couldn't be merged with C300 into a single camera. They both cost around the same and offer a different subset of features - seems like a terribly expensive way to go about product development, but what do I know.

 

[Loswr]

What people are really complaining about is that there is no $3000 4K SLR with auto-awesome mode.

+1

 

[ssrdd]

Canon is going to be doomed with their price points.
aren't u greedy enough canon!!!????