Shield3

4k, 8k, bah.  I was watching a Blu-ray rip of the 1983 Scarface tonight allowing my UHD to upscale the *gasp* 720p footage and thought it looked AMAZING for 33 years ago.  I guess content is always king of course. 

4k, 8k, bah.  I was watching a Blu-ray rip of the 1983 Scarface tonight allowing my UHD to upscale the *gasp* 720p footage and thought it looked AMAZING for 33 years ago.  I guess content is always king of course. 

Yes, the Sony looks a lot better in that vid. But, something fishy is going on here or the user hasn't a clue what they're doing. I don't think the XC10 was set to its best picture style for that test. It looks like it could be the most contrasty one, which has much less DR than C-Log or WideDR. Also, there's something weird happening with compression that is destroying detail in the Canon but leaving the Sony untouched! There's an A/B comparison at about 53 seconds in. At 54 seconds the XC10 turns to total mush, but the Sony is fine. Don't trust this comparison.


Was this ISO500? Looks good!
Implying a firmware fix might be possible

IMHO, your Killary wasn't better. At least now her bloody hands are out of Libia, Irak, Siria, etc.
 
Mine is another useless post, nothing to do with the camera world (sorry)

Speaking of the Sigma 18-35, it's the only "designed for APS-C" lens I am keeping in my kit; it does not vignette at all on the 1dx II in 1.4x 4k.  It's a stunner of a lens!

If you're a professional making money from stills photography then 5D4 because it has pro features like better build, deeper buffer, faster fps and dual card slots. If not then the A7RII is a more well rounded camera and will give you a better experience shooting both stills and video. Don't worry about color science too much because it's only hard to get right when working with slog, the image is already mighty fine in the other profiles.

I just picked up an XC-10 on ebay used for $1200.  The guy was very nice and threw in two 256GB CFast 2.0 cards and two CFAST readers.  Pretty much the best deal I've scored on ebay for years.  My 1dx pukes yesterday but I have this little camera to keep me happy for a couple of weeks.  I called the guy after the sale and asked why he was so generous - he said he bought a C500 and just didn't need the cards and figured I could use them.  There is hope for civilization yet folks. 
Digging the XC-10 so far.  Downloading the Canon XF software was a waste though unless you want to read EXIF info.  Camera is plenty sharp when you grade the C-LOG footage and looks really Super 16'ish.  It is what it is - a good light deep DOF camera with IS, ND, 4k, no time limit and C-Log.  It is not a replacement for the larger sensor Cx00 cameras, but should match nicely in post.  Loving it!

I just picked up an XC-10 on ebay used for $1200.  The guy was very nice and threw in two 256GB CFast 2.0 cards and two CFAST readers.  Pretty much the best deal I've scored on ebay for years.  My 1dx pukes yesterday but I have this little camera to keep me happy for a couple of weeks.  I called the guy after the sale and asked why he was so generous - he said he bought a C500 and just didn't need the cards and figured I could use them.  There is hope for civilization yet folks. 
Digging the XC-10 so far.  Downloading the Canon XF software was a waste though unless you want to read EXIF info.  Camera is plenty sharp when you grade the C-LOG footage and looks really Super 16'ish.  It is what it is - a good light deep DOF camera with IS, ND, 4k, no time limit and C-Log.  It is not a replacement for the larger sensor Cx00 cameras, but should match nicely in post.  Loving it!

One more thing Jason (I sent you a PM) - keep in mind the value of time.  There are a TON of "armchair" videographers that will tell you how amazing a camera footage is based solely on specs or being the "latest and greatest". "OMG 10 bit just crushes 8 bit" or "camera A is so much better than camera B because it shoots 4k".  Most people do not need 4k right now - it's a pain to store and work with (and deliver).  Just because something is even 8 bit 4:2:0 doesn't make it crap - the a7s II shoots an amazing looking image.  There are a ton of people that fork out extra money for external recorders that I can barely see the difference with if at all.
At the end of the day ease of use, turnaround time, FOCUS ability, tracking are all very important.  Yes that XYZ camera looks great if you can just get the ND filter dialed in right, have a separate audio source, spend hours syncing these two in post, down scaling your footage and hours grading S-Log or something else in post, converting RAW, etc. God forbid the talent moves.  FOCUS always beats ultimate image quality for me.  Hell the "ancient" FS700 looked pretty damn good IMO in good light, especially the slow-mo.  Would I carry around that beast as well as the Odyssey 7Q+ just for the added IQ?  Not me.  Some would.  People like to critique low bitrates and 4:2:0 color space, yet ignore flip out screens and easy use.
I realize I'm rambling.  I still look at GH2 unhacked footage I shot back in 2012 and it looks fantastic.  The hack (IMO) was more hype than anything else.  Only hack I really saw a difference for was the 5d3 raw. 
There is no perfect camera.
Micro four thirds - harder to get shallow DOF, video AF lousy, poor low light due to the small sensor.
Sony - questionable repair services, tougher to grade colors, frustrating menus, too many bodies being released, poor battery life, fiddly controls, poor ergonomics
Nikon - poor video AF, lenses not optimized for video use, unaware of any cinema Nikon cameras.
Canon - boring, holds back features reserved for Cinema line, can't use EF-S lenses on full frame bodies, moire/aliasing/soft 1080p image on many models.
 

65k is NOTHING on a 1d series body.  Plenty of people knock Canon for being lackluster in the spec department; they're like the Toyota of the camera world.  Rock solid and proven reliable.  The 1dx/1dxII/1dc/1div etc are cameras that could be taken into the jungle, desert, war zone, etc.  Heavy and solid as a tank.  I had a 1dIV with 225k clicks and the shots looked like a brand new one.  Anything can fail though, but in the last 7 years of shooting Canon I have only had 1 SD slot failure in a 5d3 that Canon had back to me fixed for free in about 10 days.
My Sony a7r went in the shop twice and took a month each time to get back to me.  It and many other Sony bodies had overheating, compatibility issues with AF adapters (even Metabones) in which the camera would shut off.  Obviously you're not asking about Sony a7x series cameras, but my point is there's a world of difference between 65k on a 1d series and a non-pro body.
Basically it comes down to this:
You can pick up a used 1dx II for about 5-5.3k and it will give you a ton of stuff over the 1dc.  PDAF with face tracking is really the shit, and the 4k60 is so good that I find myself doing frame grabs and shooting 4k60 all the time.  Yes the codec is a pain in the ass, but it's 8 bit 4:2:2 and looks fantastic.
I personally would rather have a C100 Mark II over the 1dc for video - the 1080p60 and all the other features far outweigh the 4k24/25 (there is no 30/60 4k on the 1dc).  In fairness there is no 4k on the c100 either, but it is a 4k sensor downscaled in camera to amazing 1080p.  It's a workhorse and a delight to use.
My advice?  If you have shot with a full frame Canon with a grip you'll pretty much know what to expect with the 1dc.  Go rent a c100 Mark II and you will flat out love using it.  I tend to shoot Cinema/C-log and expose about 1 stop to the right; it grades lovely and easily in post.  The built in microphone is amazing too.  i set the button on the right handle to toggle AF on and off, and the "nipple" you can quickly adjust shutter, ISO, F/Stop, WB without even moving your eye from the EVF.
Lastly, the c100 IMO when exposed correctly (and shot in C-log) looks 99% as good as the 5d3 raw with about 10,000 times the reliability as assistance factor.  With the heavier compressed codec you do have to pay attention to exposure though, so there is less leeway for error.
I shoot my son's travel baseball games.  I'll set the c100 up in the outfield with a long lens on a tripod and just let it record (no 30 minute time limit either) - I can record for like 3-4 hours with a 128GB SD card and the larger battery.  Then I can shoot stills and get 1080p120 shots with the 1dx II and the footage matches up nicely.  Canon colors are great.
Either way you can't go wrong.  All of these will provide stunning results.  Absolute image quality goes to the C-Log 4k 1dc if you have a planned shot and time to set everything up.  Going to shoot an event or need to quickly work?  C100 and it's not even close.
 

Right, if I remember correctly the firmware updates for the 1Dx added the F8 AF, the flashing square showing the AF point in low light (terrible, much better in the 1D IV and 1Dx II) and the exposure compensation in M mode while using auto iso. Not sure what was added to the 1Dc....
Assuming that both 1Dc are in identical condition one with 10k actuations and one with 65k for 1k less I would not hesitate 1 second to buy the 65k... Shutter is rated for 400k as you mention and the shutter replacement it should be <500 usd.
But there are other factors affecting the price like the overall condition of the camera body like scratches on lcd, chips on the paint etc.. or even worst scratches on the sensor itself ....
 

It would kill the 80D and GH4 for stills. 
Check that, murder the 80D and GH4 for stills.
Scratch that, kidnap and torture, preform experiments and then make a 4K snuff film of the murder which it sends to the 80D and GH4s families.

Personally I’m not sure is worth the work to transcode because storage is getting cheaper and cheaper plus the advantage of MJPEG that you will be able to read it even in the future view that is a super simple codec.
On Windows PC most people use Avid codecs DNxHR and are basically equivalents of Prores. Here the spec: http://avid.force.com/pkb/articles/en_US/White_Paper/DNxHR-Codec-Bandwidth-Specifications
As you can see that the only one that will save you more space compared to MJPEG is DNxHR LB (low bandwidth) that at 4k DCI 8bit 4:2:2 @60p is 45 MB/s = 360 mbits (vs. 800 mbtis of MJPEG).  
There is no magic, if you want to keep the original quality you will end up with large files.
I output my master always in DNxHR HQ (SQ would probably be sufficient) and a second copy for web or consumer distribution in h.264 at 50 mbits.

If you do not need 4K, I agree you should get C100 Mark II.

I would buy the C100 MkII: it is a complete system with ND filter, audio inputs, good log codec etc... 

Hobby or for profit? If for profit and you need 4K, C300 II is a great option if you can borrow and pay off quickly. I use the C300 II and don't currently use 4K as we're shooting a lot of content and most consumers don't even have a way to view 4K material. So the C100 II is a great camera if you want to shoot right now, get things done quickly, along with tiny files and very high quality 1080p. RED cameras are a totally different experience and use case vs. a Canon Cx00 (number one, no PDAF).
I use the 1DX II only for short interviews and initially 4K60p (until I switched everything over to 1080p to speed up production). Since the 1DX II 1080p isn't very good, 4K24p must be used and downscaled to 1080p in post. This looks great however the files are huge. The C100 II is a much better choice for those on a budget looking for a good reliable all around performer. For long form 30min plus- C100 II all the way. You don't need 4K.

Autofocus with Tokina 11-16 2.8
Dutch Videographer I think talking about whether a focus puller is needed with Mark IV. Maybe somebody can give a short synopsis of what he's saying.
 

If video AF only works in P mode, its not amazing, its unusable - or more to the point, its horseshit.
I'm skeptical on a number of features, need to wait for real testers to get past the Sony hype. There's a video of the 12fps burst that clogs after a couple seconds just shooting jpeg's, which means the buffer/write speed really sucks. I loved watching the guy squirm in the Cinema5d video, he clearly didn't want to talk about the shitty video AF. Live view AF is supposed to be an advantage of the SLT, after all these years I find it amazing that Sony and its vast engineering resources hasn't been able to figure out how to make it fully functional. Some say its the BionzX can't keep up, its been around for a few years too, if that's the bottleneck it needs to be replaced ASAP.
This camera feels just as half-assed as the original a99, just a bunch of pieces from other cameras cobbled together. UHS-II isn't anything new since its been spec'd on other cameras for a couple years now. If this camera is supposed to be the A-mount flagship for the next four years, it should have it. The d500's write speeds will completely crush this with some pretty amazing write speeds. You would think Sony would introduce faster hardware with the flagship, but that's just not the case. Its not even out yet and its already slow/outdated.
People love to bash Canon here, but dual pixel works really well, and it works all the time. Canon also understands the benefit of a touchscreen to pull focus, something else Sony can't seem to figure out.
Outside of A-mount users that want a new sensor, this camera is shaping up to be as much of a dud as the original a99.

Cheers, man. Got burned at the stake for simply posting samples, I actually exchanged my camera because I thought I had a dud, it was so bad.
And this one doesn't AF in video unless you're in P mode, because most video pros shoot in P. 
And because the IBIS doesn't seem to involve a floating sensor, I'm curious if there's a crop with steady shot in video, like the a9.
Dumb, dumb, dumb. 

I was one of the very first who bought the original a99; still my most regretted camera choice ever and I've owned many.  Video quiality was "VHS-like" and the lens was stuck in video mode in AF @ F/3.5 or whatever the next fastest stop the lens would offer.  I got ran out of town on DPreview for mentioning this; I was happy Chris came in later on and provided actual samples that backed up my claims.  Anyway I'll guarantee you stick an F/1.4 lens on this it'll only AF @ F/3.5 in video mode.  For fun I put tape on the excellent Zeiss F/2 / 24 holding it wide open and the AF still worked just fine.   I would avoid this like the plague - still same crappy menus and colors, and the worst mount EVER.

Yes it does look like they have managed to fuck it up.

I think they are both great cameras, with their own unique looks. With MKiii you get ML Raw and it's simply gorgeous. With the 1Dc you get Canon LOG, equally gorgeous IMO, just different. Of those options, if you can afford it, I would go with the 1Dc... when paired with the right glass, the image is on a different level. There's just nothing else like it at that price point. But, in all honesty, if I had $4000 to spend, I would probably get a C100 mkii before either of them... DPAF, 60p, small file size, Canon LOG, XLR professional quality audio... a truly professional level video camera. You may be able to find a used C100 mkii and a used A7Sii if you're really interested in the Sony. 

I make my money managing IT folks; I am a hobbyist photographer / videographer.

This is the story of canon. They come out with cameras, people bash the specs. But they are GREAT to use in the REAL world... Just saying....

Here's one way to get the camera close to a realistic skin tone.