Member of the Month

KilaTsunami
October, 2024

Online

Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post. Register to become a member today!

Canon EOS 1D-C

profile picture
Mkvackay
Posts: 1903 - Karma: 5,465
Just saw this on facebook, thought i'd post it up in here. Haven't really read much into it.

Enjoy



Apr 12 2012 11:47AM
0 0
profile picture
Mkvackay
Posts: 1903 - Karma: 5,465
this may be of interest to a lot of people --

Click for larger image
Apr 12 2012 11:55AM
0 0
profile picture
hawaiiansteeze
Posts: 3255 - Karma: 3,226
a step up from the 5d series but for 15k? the C500 was announced this morning also
Apr 12 2012 12:17PM
0 0
profile picture
IanAvery-Leaf
Posts: 9931 - Karma: 9,399
why is the 4k motion JPEG?
Apr 12 2012 12:25PM
0 0
profile picture
TaranItUp
Posts: 1313 - Karma: 802
This
Apr 12 2012 1:14PM
0 0
profile picture
TijmenDal
Posts: 4849 - Karma: 1,295
Because if it'd be RAW it would be a shitload more expensive?
Apr 12 2012 2:48PM
0 0
profile picture
eheath
Posts: 61602 - Karma: 123,029
$15k? lol canon. Another camera released at a ridiculously high price.
Apr 12 2012 3:24PM
0 0
profile picture
blatt
Posts: 5584 - Karma: 3,097
Apr 12 2012 3:40PM
0 0
profile picture
FatWhore
Posts: 2213 - Karma: 1,098
.
Apr 12 2012 5:04PM
0 0
profile picture
1337
Posts: 31054 - Karma: 29,231
blowin it, again.
Apr 12 2012 5:30PM
0 0
profile picture
Jeff_Lo
Posts: 5809 - Karma: 263
Canon has essentially made 3 cameras released in the past 6 months worthless and a waste of money already.  The 5D has been opened up and shown similarities to a C300, but is purposefully handicapped, the 1D-C not only wastes the 1DX and 5D but also the C300.  Then the C500 completely makes the C300 look like a waste of money. 

Not everything has to be 4K, but Canon can't do anything right unless its on accident. 
Apr 12 2012 6:14PM
0 0
profile picture
juicedrummer11
Posts: 1960 - Karma: 1,331
yeah this is pretty lame i think. i was all interested in what it could do at first then i saw the codec and decided ill be just as fine off shooting on my 60D
Apr 12 2012 9:25PM
0 0
profile picture
eheath
Posts: 61602 - Karma: 123,029
this statement makes no sense to me
Apr 12 2012 9:26PM
0 0
profile picture
juicedrummer11
Posts: 1960 - Karma: 1,331
ah that was typed bad and wrong..but basically, 15k for motion JPEG in 4K res. and then back to h.264 for hd and lower? that just seems like a complete flop
Apr 12 2012 9:45PM
0 0
profile picture
eheath
Posts: 61602 - Karma: 123,029
that is an LOL i thought it was 422 xdcam or whatever there c300/c500 is. Stupid canon.
Apr 12 2012 10:46PM
0 0
profile picture
juicedrummer11
Posts: 1960 - Karma: 1,331
yeah so basically the same codec as all their other models for 1080p. the only thing better than the 5d would be the 1080p/60fps. but thats not $12,000 worth it at all
Apr 12 2012 11:21PM
0 0
profile picture
1337
Posts: 31054 - Karma: 29,231
especially when you can get an fs700 for $8000, with 1080 240p...
Apr 12 2012 11:25PM
0 0
profile picture
WillStart
Posts: 3955 - Karma: 3,192
i remember the months following the purchase of my T2i when i would swear by canon. seems like those days have come to an end.
Apr 12 2012 11:32PM
0 0
profile picture
JDUB28
Posts: 372 - Karma: 18
new sony fs700 looks WAY better for a much cheaper price
Apr 12 2012 11:49PM
0 0
profile picture
juicedrummer11
Posts: 1960 - Karma: 1,331
yes this exactly. the fs700 looks like it blows all of canon's recent cinema camera's out of the water since it will be upgradable to 4K and a fraction of the price. im still a fan of canon with their slrs and prosumer camcorders, but their cinema stuff is quite behind the curve apparently.
Apr 13 2012 12:08AM
0 0
profile picture
Jeff_Lo
Posts: 5809 - Karma: 263
I think I'd be impressed with this camera if it was more than a couple grand under 10K.  If you think about it you don't have 3K or HDR, and can't change the lens mount.  15K for a body that doesn't shoot 4K raw.  After the cost of the body and accessories you'll probably spend nearly the same cost that you would on a RED Scarlet to have a respectable package.  The only bonus I see to this camera is the cost of media, and low light capabilities. 

The tones will still suck,  I really have a hard time seeing where this camera fits.  I mean with a battery you'll maybe get an hour with 4K recording.  Even if you have to get a recorder the fs700 looks much better.

Really confused by Canon on this one. 
Apr 13 2012 12:50AM
0 0
profile picture
Balto
Posts: 25985 - Karma: 4,404
you also get the entire 1dx system for stills, which is almost 7 grand
Apr 13 2012 1:34AM
0 0
profile picture
TijmenDal
Posts: 4849 - Karma: 1,295
This is overlooked in this thread.
Apr 13 2012 2:54PM
0 0
profile picture
Jeff_Lo
Posts: 5809 - Karma: 263
I don't think it is. 
Apr 13 2012 5:55PM
0 0
profile picture
juicedrummer11
Posts: 1960 - Karma: 1,331
even with the awesome stills that thing must take, the video is not worth 8 grand on that camera. with no options besides only 4K, 1080p and less, both in pretty shitty codecs, the fs700 blows this away for probably a very similar price
Apr 13 2012 6:45PM
0 0
profile picture
*Fujative*
Posts: 8554 - Karma: 183
Incorrect.

At 15k you/re dealing with strict professionals. Finding a professional photographer/cinematographer in one isn't common, it's either one or the other.
Apr 13 2012 7:10PM
0 0
profile picture
Balto
Posts: 25985 - Karma: 4,404
but finding a "media group" or company that handels both is more common
Apr 13 2012 9:08PM
0 0
profile picture
*Fujative*
Posts: 8554 - Karma: 183
Ah true, I didn't think about that angle.
Apr 13 2012 9:34PM
0 0
profile picture
[~_~]
Posts: 20239 - Karma: 1,273
Am I the only one who cringed at 8-bit 4K? In JPEG? For $15k?

I can't say I'm surprised. Canon has been known to focus on marketing attractive numbers or trendy specs without producing anything worthwhile. Glad I jumped ship.
Apr 14 2012 1:03PM
0 0
profile picture
juicedrummer11
Posts: 1960 - Karma: 1,331
oh we definitely all noticed how bad that was
Apr 14 2012 1:33PM
0 0
profile picture
dispatchQ_main
Posts: 2619 - Karma: 629
I wonder if it has clean hdmi out, all you guys could be freaking out for no reaon..
Apr 14 2012 7:22PM
0 0
profile picture
1337
Posts: 31054 - Karma: 29,231
hdmi still sucks even if it is "clean"

HD-SDI and 3G-SDI is 100000000000000x better. locking cables, better and higher data rates...
Apr 14 2012 7:29PM
0 0
profile picture
dispatchQ_main
Posts: 2619 - Karma: 629
Most people who will buy this camera will most likely already have something like this.

Apr 15 2012 12:52PM
0 0
profile picture
MACAQUE
Posts: 2811 - Karma: 696
This makes me glad I stuck with Nikon. Not because the cameras are "better" per-se, but because Canon just looks like a complete cluster fuck right now.

I think the bottom line is that this is an interesting step forward. Sure 4K in a DSLR is going to be expensive and somewhat pointless, but at least it's innovative. The first digital cameras sucked fat dick, were overpriced etc, but look at where digital is at now...
Apr 15 2012 3:41PM
0 0
profile picture
1337
Posts: 31054 - Karma: 29,231
converters aren't the same though and don't fix many of the issues of the signal. Someone with more expirence with HDMI can pipe in, but I believe it has a rather small bit depth
Apr 15 2012 5:36PM
0 0
profile picture
TijmenDal
Posts: 4849 - Karma: 1,295
Canon is getting way too much hate if you ask me...

The 1D C is going to be a very valuable camera for reporters and media people. Just because everyone here is only looking at what the 1D C means for them doesn't mean it's a bad cam. I know you're all gasming over specs and how awesome the new Sony cam is, but that's not what this thing is directed at. This is clearly not Canons 'answer' at the Sony or whatsoever.
Apr 15 2012 6:11PM
0 0
profile picture
Jeff_Lo
Posts: 5809 - Karma: 263
Canon won't have a "proper" response until after they release 5 more cameras.  I don't think this camera will be all that valuable to reports and media people.  It's not a bad cam but the price is bad for what it does, or lack there of.  Crappy codec mixed with 4K doesn't make it worth 15K. 

You can get a Red Scarlet for the same price and still get 3K and 30 fps at 4K and have it be RAW. 

I think this is clearly a answer to providing a B camera/crash cam for hollywood that provides 4K for cinema work.  Although i think it falls short in many ways.  It's a good try, but for that price... no thanks.
Apr 15 2012 10:59PM
0 0
profile picture
juicedrummer11
Posts: 1960 - Karma: 1,331
this, and the scarlet takes stills too...
Apr 15 2012 11:37PM
0 0
profile picture
erikK
Posts: 3245 - Karma: 2,328
i'm kinda confused as to why anyone would want a cinema camera with dslr ergonomics? wouldn't that just be a bitch to deal with?
Apr 15 2012 11:50PM
0 0
profile picture
juicedrummer11
Posts: 1960 - Karma: 1,331
i think that was kind of their idea with this, is to make it more portable and versatile, but you could always get a fancy rig going for it as well
Apr 15 2012 11:55PM
0 0
profile picture
TijmenDal
Posts: 4849 - Karma: 1,295
Like any journalist would need 120fps or something like that...
Apr 16 2012 3:42AM
0 0
profile picture
[~_~]
Posts: 20239 - Karma: 1,273
Like any journalist would pay $15k for a camera that produces the same plastic image as a 5dmk3 only four times the size...
Apr 16 2012 12:41PM
0 0
profile picture
BolderPro
Posts: 767 - Karma: 426
What would you say its gonna switch to then? there not really another choice at a starter level camera is there?
Apr 16 2012 5:56PM
0 0
profile picture
CrotchKiller
Posts: 9037 - Karma: 6,943
Will and this thread are far beyond a starter level camera.
Apr 16 2012 6:54PM
0 0
profile picture
BolderPro
Posts: 767 - Karma: 426
Im not saying that he is a beginner i am saying a t2i is an entry level dslr which is true. i am in no means trying to hate i am just wondering what other options there are at that level srry if i am mis understood
Apr 16 2012 7:24PM
0 0
profile picture
WillStart
Posts: 3955 - Karma: 3,192
no I understand what you are saying. I bought my T2i as sort of a B camera to go along with my HVX, but it quickly became my primary one. I didn't really plan to continue buying cams at that level (as I upgraded to an FS100 last summer), but it still bums me out to see that Canon is taking their line in a weird direction. A year ago I was half hoping that Canon would start a video camera line comparable to what Sony has done with the FS100 and FS700, but that didn't really happen.

As for other options, Nikon is doing much better in the DSLR video department, and the Panasonic GH2 is an amazing camera from what I've heard.
Apr 16 2012 7:45PM
0 0
profile picture
WillStart
Posts: 3955 - Karma: 3,192
i think more people would agree with you than you think.



on a side note, is anyone else getting that ad above this thread with the red T2i? looks fucking terrible
Apr 16 2012 7:55PM
0 0
profile picture
Mkvackay
Posts: 1903 - Karma: 5,465
Definitely not disagreeing, i think that would accommodate a lot more peoples needs then a 24 mp 4k camera can.

What i am coming at though is trying to look at it professionally (ie Dan Carr)

I have seen a lot of his work and it seems that he is doing very well photographically, but also getting into the video industry a little bit more. Seems that with his new 5d iii and possibly working with a RED here and there, that maybe some professional photographers are getting more into the video world that comes with their high end digital slr.

I don't think 4k is really the answer there, but I think high end video and high end photography can go well together with the right specs/price point

my .02
Apr 16 2012 8:00PM
0 0
profile picture
[~_~]
Posts: 20239 - Karma: 1,273
You're echoing the feelings of many frustrated DP's everywhere.

Basically, image quality is a multi-faceted and highly complex thing, and gestalt perception makes matters even more subjective and difficult to package neatly into catchy marketing terminology.

From a business standpoint, it's impossible to market something like smooth knees, or the idiosyncratic and intangible subtlety of film tones. It's much easier to create this delusion that "image quality can be wholly represented by a simple set of arbitrary numbers and specifications." What Canon is doing is no new trick: fool the consumers into respecting this arbitrary rating, then excel in that rating, thereby looking impressive in light of competitors. How do the competitors (Nikon, Sony, etc.) respond? They have no choice but to play along and join the megapixel race because when it comes down to it, consumers are lazy. They want things neatly packaged into a simple figure. They don't want to take the time to look at the bigger picture: the psychology of imagery, the subjectivity of art, and other properties that actually matter when it comes to image quality. "Oh, the Alexa only shoots 1080p despite having the most solid image of any digital camera ever made? Yeah, well it doesn't shoot 4k, which is essentially useless unless I'm indecisive enough to reframe in post or am projecting on a silver screen, at which point the difference is minimal at best."

Canon isn't stupid. They are a huge corporation that does its homework before investing in a product. They helped plant the seeds of numbers fappery and now they're harvesting the buds. If you ask me, we as the consumer are equally as guilty for being thickheaded enough to buy into such marketing BS as they are for proposing such an idea. When the goal is to make money, can you blame them?
Apr 16 2012 8:41PM
0 0
profile picture
zahava
Posts: 7791 - Karma: 12,039
Film is still just better, its in no way anywhere close to as practical, but if all you care about is IQ then medium/large format and even some 35mm will be your best bet. All those photoshop trick still can't replicate the tones of the real thing. Also I know Dan Carr used to do bilboard size murals with shots from his 1d2 and he had no problems and that was an 8 megapixel camera.
Apr 16 2012 10:29PM
0 0
profile picture
[~_~]
Posts: 20239 - Karma: 1,273
It can be argued that film is FAR more practical than digital for motion picture applications. Digital is cheaper initial investment and doesn't need to be developed, but it loses longevity and stability, and is more cumbersome in post (no matter the codec) than film. Also, film cameras are essentially bombproof, whereas even the RED and Alexa have issues with crashing.
Apr 16 2012 11:02PM
0 0
All times are Eastern (-5)