Kino

The 1D cameras are not mass produced and sold in the millions like iPhones or iPads. 1D cameras are marketed to photo and video professionals and "prosumers" with sales only in the thousands. One can and should have different expectations about consumer products that retail for $800 and professional products that retail for $8000 and come with a greater level of customer support. With so much competition in the $5000-10,000 4K video camera sector, Canon has really fallen behind and lost many customers to Sony, BMD, and even RED. But, of course, as I mentioned Canon doesn't care about what we want or expect. They are a massive electronics conglomerate with a bottom line to meet for every quarter and very conservative ideas about market segmentation and product development. It they thought that providing affordable 4K cameras with the necessary features was part of that they would have already brought such cameras to market and not a C300 II for $16K.

"21st century"? Actually these trends started decades ago. And no one is saying Apple doesn't do it, but Sony and Canon were around long before Apple. At least with the iPhone, the most expensive and latest model, the 6S Plus, has all the best features. Not so with Canon and Sony on the 1DX II and A7SII, respectively, so the comparison doesn't hold in this case. Apple doesn't make you buy two different versions of the same thing just to have the different features and iPhones don't cost $6,000-8,000. As for my suggestion to wait for the 1DC II as the perfect marriage of the two 1D lines, this was intended for a forum member who doesn't like either the 1DC or the 1DX II. Personally, I would be very happy to shoot with the 1DC just as it is today. In fact, I was disappointed when Canon announced a higher resolution for the new 1DX II sensor since it meant a reduction in the size of the photosites and an accompanying loss in signal-to-noise performance on the new generation. Perhaps this is why the test above showed more noise in the 1DX II image. While technologically more advanced in terms of video features (DPAF, 4K60p), the 1DX II is a downgrade from the 1DC in terms of DR, color gamut (in addition to greater DR, C-Log also provides a wider and richer color gamut for grading), and noise performance. It's a shame that Canon made these compromises with the 1DX II just to protect the Cinema EOS line.

Surely, Sony isn't "crazy enough" to sell old sensor technology (A7SII) at almost the same price as newer and much better sensor technology (A7RII)? But, yes, they are just that "crazy" because they have mastered the art of incremental product advancement. The A7RII has internal 4K, BSI, and IBIS, all of which was missing on the A7S. This newer model, the A7SII, has S-Log3, which the A7RII is lacking, thus providing a slight advantage to the newer camera in one particular area even though the A7RII offers a much higher resolution and is far more advanced in terms of sensor tech (sound familiar?). Canon has the exact same strategy here with the 1DC and 1DX lines, except that, unlike Sony, Canon charges a premium for everything (e.g., $16K for the C300 II vs. $10K for a Sony FS7/XDCA combo with the same features). They will alternate which camera gets the latest technological advancement so as to get you to buy the next one, while holding out some features to make the last one still relevant. So, yes, the Japanese electronic conglomerates are crazy cats who do whatever they can to get you to buy as many models of a product that are available because each one is lacking what the other provides or what the next version will provide.

The lower production cost on the 1DX II enables a much cheaper 1DC II priced closer to the 1DX II. That is the "game changer" for the 1DC line. They are sister cameras after all and everything the 1DC II would need from a hardware perspective is already in the 1DX II body, with its amazing heat management, processing power, and recording data rate. You do realize that your 1DX II is capable of recording at the same data rate (100 MB/s) as the RED Raven and Scarlet-W cameras. That is simply incredible for a DSLR. I cannot imagine Canon would give up the chance for a 1DC II with everything that can be done with the technical masterpiece that is the 1DX II platform. The only major differences between the cameras will be C-Log, Super 35mm mode, and Cinema EOS support. They could possibly add a higher bit depth but I doubt it for the reasons I stated above. The unlimited recording time also might not be possible because of the EU taxes and the need to keep the price as low as possible. As for my current camera, the BMPC-4K, I don't like it at all. The rig that is required to provide power is cumbersome and doesn't play nicely with my equipment, including the slider, the stabilizer, and everything else. The rear screen is also useless here in the California sun so you need to add monitoring as well. Moreover, the RAW CinemaDNG files are far too massive at 12 GB/minute and very difficult to grade and edit with on most computers. The 1DC would solve all my problems in terms of portability, ease of use for production and post-production, and weather sealing for dusty or wet environments.

I expect Canon to keep the 1DC model around and to release updates just like any other camera model that they currently have in production. Of course, Canon may want to discontinue the 1DC entirely and bring out a C200/C100 III with internal 4K so as to compete more effectively with the Sony FS7 in that $8,000 price range. That is certainly possible. The 1DC II is pure speculation at this point, but seems likely to me based on the several important factors: 1) intentionally withheld cinema features on the 1DX II 2) lower production/retail cost on the 1DX II ($6,000) vs. the original 1DC ($12,000) 3) product cycle extension: as the 1DX II sales dry up Canon will look to maximize yields on the 1DX II platform 4) incremental feature advancement: 1DX > 1DC > 1DX II > 1DC II As for 10 bit internal, that may require a fan, which is not really possible on these weather-sealed bodies. They would also have to add another codec or redesign MJPEG using the new JPEG 9 standard, which allows for up to 12 bit processing. That may be too much to ask from Canon. If we do see a 1DC II, it will likely be identical to the 1DX II to keep the costs down, but it will add those missing cinema features.

The 1DC did not sell well because it was way overpriced on release. If anything, the 1DX II demonstrates that Canon can deliver roughly the same tech (or even better) for half the price. Then again, there are key features missing from the camera. These two facts, reduced production/retail costs and withheld cinema features on the 1DX II, combine to make a 1DC II even more of a possibility. If Canon could sell the camera for the current 1DC price of $8,000, it would do much better than last time.

Yes, let's stick to facts as opposed to fanciful ideas on Canon firmware upgrades for adding C-Log to the 1DX II that have no chance or history of occurring and that belong to a different product line and division.

That was Roger Machin of Canon, South Africa, and it was an off-the-cuff remark. I would not take that too seriously as a much higher spokesman from Canon has confirmed that these are two separate "lines." The most telling aspect of this is that the 1DC retails for $2,000 USD more than the 1DX II and will continue in production, at least until it is replaced by the 1DC II. The number to call is actually 1 855-CINE-EOS.

Guesswork or not, one could have said the same thing about every Canon camera that currently has a mark II or III next to it. Standard procedure for Canon would entail a 1DC II to follow the 1DC and based on the 1DX II platform. It's not like we are picking camera models out of the sky. By withholding those key cinema features (C-Log, Super 35mm mode, unlimited record time [which raises the EU taxes]) from the 1DX II, they are even telling you that a more expensive and capable 1D video DSLR is on the way. It's pretty much telegraphed at this point. Of course, they cannot yet announce the 1DC II officially as this would hurt the 1DX II sales as well as the remaining 1DC retail stock.

The point is that Canon segments the photo and cinema/video divisions through clear price points. The 1DX II is priced relative to competing DSLRs (Nikon D5) and other Canon DSLRs (7D, 5D, etc.). The 1DX II is not priced relative to the Cinema EOS line, where features such as 4K internal, C-Log, Super 35mm mode, and unlimited record time have a particular price attached to them. While getting 4K internal, 4K60p, and DPAF is a great coup for a Canon DSLR such as the 1DX II, for Canon to add those missing features such as C-Log through a free/paid firmware upgrade and turn the 1DX II into a "new 1DC" is impossible at this point in the game, especially when they have future plans for the 1DC line. If you don't like the 1DX II as it is and don't want a 1DC either, just wait for the 1DC II. It will be the perfect marriage of the two.

Canon cannot possibly put C-Log into the 1DX II. There are many reasons for this, most of which have to do with segmentation and price point. The 1DX II is priced at $6,000 USD so as to compete effectively with the Nikon D5 at $6,500. That very fact means that it cannot have C-Log, as it would annihilate the C100 II as well as the 1DC and disrupt any plans for a 1DC II or even a C200/C100 III with 4K. Having intentionally withheld C-Log and Super 35mm mode from the 1DX II, the most logical thing for Canon is to release the 1DC II, which I would expect in the next year or two. That is far more likely than Canon adding a C-Log firmware upgrade for the 1DX II.

No chance. C-Log is exclusive to Cinema EOS cameras and Canon camcorders (XC10). You will never see it on the 1DX II. The paid "firmware" upgrade will come with its own body in the form of the 1DC II. I think this is predictable market segmentation by Canon. In terms of video, the 1DX II only serves as a platform for a dedicated and much more capable cinema DSLR.

We've already addressed this user-made graph on the forum. It was posted by a regular forum member at fredmiranda.com and is not from any review site or reliable source: http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1421137 It's also using the RAW files and not JPEG, which is more relevant to the MJPEG codec in the 1DX II and 1DC. The difference between neutral and C-Log on the 1DC is 3-4 stops. If, as this test shows, neutral is the same on both cameras, the 1DX II is shooting with a 3-4 stop penalty vs. the 1DC. I will leave it to other forum members to decide if this is significant or not based on their intended use. I think if you are shooting under artificial lighting (e.g., nighttime, studio filming) or overcast conditions, it's not as much of a problem since you don't need more than 9 stops of DR for these conditions. Another way to think about it is if 3 stops of DR, Super 35mm mode, and improved color grading are worth the extra $2,000 while sacrificing DPAF and beautiful 4K60p.

According to Mitch Gross of Convergent Design, FS700 RAW will provide the same quality as FS5 RAW as the RAW sensor data is exactly the same on the FS cameras. The sensor is also the same Sony Super 35mm used on the FS7, F5, and F55. The main difference is that the F5/F55 can record in 16 bit RAW, while the F55 has the global shutter that has already been mentioned above. Personally, if I had to choose among the FS cameras, I would still go with the FS7 for its internal XAVC 10 bit 4:2:2 S-log3 as it provides more dynamic range than 12 bit linear RAW from the same sensor. Of course, if you have the money, the F5 is a masterpiece and the only camera you will ever need in the 4K era. But used prices are never much lower than brand new. When you think about it, at $16K it's only $1K per bit!

I feel like RED went in the wrong direction after the Epic 5K sensor, which had larger photosites than Dragon (5.4 vs. 5.0 µm). While I love the color you get from the Dragon, and have put in an order myself for the Raven (which I'm likely to switch to Scarlet-W, as it is the sweet spot for price/performance in RED's lineup), there is no comparison between Dragon and Alexa when it comes to ISO performance at 800: Of course, the Alexa can be noisy as well (e.g., Lubezki's Birdman had excessive noise in the shadows as much of the film was shot in near darkness), and its resolution is not ideal for 4K release, but its lowlight performance is far superior to the Dragon, which gets very noisy above ISO 1600. The 6K resolution does minimize this noise pattern better than the same Dragon sensor at 4K, but it's still very noticeable on a lot of 6K lowlight footage that I have seen.

This is precisely what I have been saying. RAW definitely has an advantage in post, but a camera's color science is far more important than the fact that it shoots in RAW. This why so many 8-bit Canon cameras look so good when it comes to skin tones or true-to-life color capture. It's also why RED cameras have such an advantage over BMD, despite the fact that they both give you 12 bit RAW.

Ebrahim, Why stop at 14 bit? Surely, the Sony F5 is "better" with true 16 bit RAW. I'm sorry, but paper specs mean nothing to me, just as if you put the FS7's 10 Bit 4:2:2 S-log3 image next to the 12 bit RAW you get from the same sensor in the FS7 or FS700, you will see that the S-log3 image has far more dynamic range. Not all RAW is created equal and the implementation of RAW can vary dramatically from one camera to another. The 1DC 4K image in C-Log is for me the most amazing video image I have ever seen from a DSLR. Perhaps the Leica SL with its 10 bit 4K 4:2:2 external will give it a run for its money as it also has Log, but I've barely seen any footage from that camera at all. The 5D 2K RAW is fine for HD applications. However, I would never choose that above the 4K 1DC. For future proofing, at the very minimum you must shoot in 4K nowadays. My personal view is that my next camera should shoot in 5K (for effective downsampling to 4K, as a CMOS Bayer sensor should only be rated at 75% of its listed resolution) or that it should resolve an amazing level of detail in 4K such as with the 1DC and 1DX II.

I think it is ironic that these jokes about the Nazis and MF are actually true. The famous Arriflex 35 that became a standard film industry camera after WWII originated in Nazi Germany. It was the first 35mm motion picture camera to allow for reflex focusing. So, yes, when it comes to motion picture cameras, the Nazis perfected manual focusing. Still, I prefer the precise control of MF for hand-held documentaries, even if it makes me a bit of a camera "Nazi." Here is an example of the 1DC in a documentary setting that shows the value of manual focusing for stylistic effect:

All this discussion about handheld documentary shooting is really failing to identify the revolutionary nature of DPAF technology as implemented in the 1DX II. Certainly, achieving critical focus in split-second time and undertaking rack/follow focus will be much easier with DPAF than any manual method, even with a great monitor that has focus peaking. But the truly impressive capabilities of DPAF that would be very costly if not impossible to emulate through any other means include remote focus control and completely autonomous focusing. For me, the fact that DPAF can keep focus on a moving or stationary subject as I perform a tracking or stabilizer shot is priceless. Moreover, the touchscreen focus control is also accessible through a WiFi tablet application that has a range of over 300 feet. The Mo Ming BTS video in particular demonstrated this ability to control focus pulls remotely during live shooting (using the optional $600 WiFi unit):

I agree 100%. But ask yourself why Canon has deliberately made this a "miserable choice"? They could have made this an easy choice by adding one or two features to the 1DX II, but they didn't. It's part of their incremental product advancement and segmentation. It's similar to what Sony has done with the A7RII and A7SII by giving them different features and by designating one camera an all-round high-resolution "hybrid" and the other a low-light video/photo shooter. It's also why I firmly believe there will a 1DC II announcement later this year that puts an end to your "miserable choice." They are not going to drag this thing out for too long as the competition is really intense in this sector and so many have already left Canon for other brands. Now what would be really "f***ing amazing" would be the adoption of JPEG 9 in the camera's photo mode so as to allow for higher bit depth (the new JPEG spec can go up to 12 bit) in a new and redesigned MJPEG engine.

That's all kinds of horseshit. Based on what, youtube videos of flowers? A building? The issue has nothing to do with the 1DC per se. Focusing the 1DC is not very different from any film/video camera up to this point...until Canon's dual pixel cameras and the 1DX II. You're losing sight of what the 1DX II offers. No, it's not difficult to focus any lens if you have a good focus puller. Or if you have the budget for one. Or the space in a location for one. Have you seen the 1DC used as a documentary camera? Have you seen it used to capture live events? How about feature films? And of the latter, how many of them were shot with a single operator? Meanwhile, the 1DX II provides solutions to all of the above. That's an advantage in time, efficiency, money, and creative opportunity. I'm not saying the 1DC doesn't have a dynamic range advantage. If that's the criterion for your camera, then that's your personal preference. But saying the 1DC isn't hard to focus is socking the straw man. I'm not sure how my statement on the focusing the 1DC could be interpreted as a slight on the 1DX II. Some people mount an external monitor such as the SmallHD 502 on top of the 1DC and that makes focusing much easier while adding a whole bunch of monitoring tools that are missing from the 1D series. Moreover, a lot of documentary content has been shot on the 1DC with a single operator, some of which I have already reference in this thread (e.g., the National Geographic series Tales By Light). Narrative is another matter, as most of these productions have larger crews and assistant camera people. I do not underestimate the 1DX II one bit as you seem to underestimate the 1DC's extensive deployment in film and TV production. Its credit list is much longer than you might think and it is still the only DSLR to be EBU certified for Tier 1 HD broadcast in Europe. This means that 100% of broadcast content for any show can originate on the 1DC: http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/news/eos_1d_c_gains_ebu_approval.do DPAF looks pretty awesome to me. The 1DX II also has a higher resolution rear screen that makes it easier for manual focusing. These are all great shooting tools, as is the audio line in which wasn't added in the 1DC until a later firmware. The 1DX II's greatest feature that sets it apart is the 4K60P, which produces beautiful slow motion as in the example I linked to above. Despite all these advantages for the 1DX II, if I had a choice between these two cameras, I would definitely choose the 1DC as its image is more appealing to me by a significant margin.

I don't think you have to worry about another $12K 1DC. Canon has already learned its lesson on that one. I'm pretty sure 10 bit internal is impossible on these weather-sealed bodies with the current sensor and heat management technology. That's why a 1DC II would be much closer in price to the 1DX II because the only advantages would be a few cinema features such as C-Log and possibly Super 35mm mode. $8,000 would be the realistic price of the 1DC II, as Canon has already demonstrated the ability to bring the 1DC technology to the market for only $6,000 in the 1DX II. I also don't think they will ever put C-Log in the 1DX II as it would disrupt their entire Cinema EOS line. Moreover, the 1DX II price point and its place in Canon's market segmentation was determined by their primary competition: the Nikon's D5 at $6500. So they couldn't retail the 1DX II for a higher price in order to add the features they are going to include with the 1DC II. This way, by maintaining separate 1DX and 1DC lines, they retain segmentation while competing effectively with the Nikon D5.

The "cinematic" or "filmic" look is definitely too broad a concept, which is why I suggested considering the 1DC and 1DX II as two different kinds of film stock: one has softer roll-off, more DR, and a wider color gamut (owing to the advantages of grading with C-Log) and the other has abrupt roll-off, less DR, and a more limited but "vivid" color palette. Neither one is less "filmic" than the other since you can find many historical film stocks that mimic each one of these cameras. Of course, I prefer the first option, and I can't imagine that focusing is all that difficult on the 1DC considering the number of incredibly sharp images I have seen from that camera. And I don't think anyone who buys a 1D series camera for video wants a "proper video camera." That defeats the whole purpose. The form factor, weight, and ease of use alone provide so many advantages that make these cameras essential for some shooters. Besides, I prefer the 1DC's resolving power, 1.3x crop factor, colors, image depth, and highlight roll-off to pretty much everything I have seen from cameras like the Mini 4.6k, Sony FS7 and even the RED Raven that I have ordered (but may cancel or switch to Scarlet-W). And you can't even compare Canon's space-age manufacturing facilities to BMD's amateur and fourth-rate quality control.

Not in camera, as you would obviously lose stops in the highlights. A 6dB and 12dB gain were applied to the C300 II files in post to achieve those results: https://tech.ebu.ch/docs/tech/tech3335_s18.pdf Roberts is one of the greatest broadcast and video experts on planet earth and his camera tests are always highly informative. I'm sure he knows what he is doing, even though some of it seems like Voodoo to me.

Roberts's extensive test of the C300 II suggests that those stops are useful and can be recovered by boosting the gain. He also uses a different methodology to reveal the camera's true DR that a normal Xyla test would not reveal. It's all really impressive. I would certainly rank his test as far more comprehensive than Cinema5D's Xyla and IMATEST combo, so there will be no argument from me on that one. That guy is practically a genius. Maybe it is a 15-stop camera because of the C-Log2 implementation. That's exactly what his test demonstrates. Now imagine if we got C-Log2 and internal 10 bit recording on the 1DC II. I don't know if that's possible without a fan, something that is not going to happen on a weather-sealed body unfortunately. As for SNR conversion: 6dB = 1 stop.