Jump to content

"Canon killed 1D C after just 9 months"


Andrew Reid
 Share

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

It's so poorly thought out, with such minimal effort, that the 1D C might have only been a project to fulfil a large Hollywood order or two, before being cancelled and a few more sales picked up in general circulation. Since they'd created this 1D X with a different badge anyway at the request of some high-level movie studios and DPs, I suppose Canon thought they may as well try their luck and put it into the usual pro-video distribution channels, and see how well it would sell...

Not well enough obviously... Because $15k. Then $12k. Then $8k. Then $5k. Then $3k on eBay!

That's how much the market hated this camera.

So rather than pick up the pieces and start again with a new camera aimed at video / stills users, they just threw in the towel entirely circa 2013...

Back then they didn't have the A7S or GH4 for competition let alone the latest Sony and Panasonic monsters.

It was so complacent.

So now they have just gone and stuck 4K on the 1D X Mark II with no LOG and no codec upgrade.

Still complacent.

But now they have major competition, yet the C200 codec debacle leads me to believe Canon remain WAY TOO complacent.

When high profits and number 1 spot are pretty much taken for granted, very bad things start to happen to large companies... Look at Kodak, look at Adobe (subscription model has made them so lazy, Premiere's reliability is virtually falling apart at the seems). Look at GoPro. You might even be right in suggesting Apple are experiencing canoneering-related problems as well although it isn't close to showing in their bottom line yet.

They changed one jack... That's about it on the hardware front.

They might even be exactly the same in firmware terms, with the switch for 4K simply disabled on the 1D X (would be the most cost effective way)

I don't believe the heat-sink story from Canon reps as the 1D C doesn't weigh enough extra over the 1D X for one to be included and there's no extra space anyway, also it would have to be mated directly to the chassis to dissipate the heat out of the sealed body. A big design alteration. Nope. All signs point to them being similar enough to make the firmware 2.0 port trivial... but since it was a mainly stills related update, they probably didn't see the point for the 1D C.

True. But Canon will soon find out the hard way that they're not the ONLY successors.

They did get out of the enthusiast video market, definitely. 5D2 & 5D3 stock video mode is a long distant memory and would have been even more distant if it wasn't for Magic Lantern!!

They have hurt their pro market from not having the B-cams and brand presence in enthusiast and prosumer DSLR video market.

There's also a bad perception building around the specs, being behind Sony.

There's also a lack of goodwill building towards Canon, from pissed off customers asking why they're not providing what they want.

You can tell with the 5D Mk IV. The reception was dreadful considering how long-awaited it was and how admired the predecessors were.

Yeah pretty much, in the 5D Mark II and III times you definitely didn't spot many Sony or Panasonic cameras. Now they are EVERYWHERE in documentary, tv, etc.

Not really. The early video efforts were aimed at people who shot video for a living, and the Cxxx series did that quite well. It did not address the consumer market needs, where a hybrid was favored, but the problem Canon had and still have is the hardware aspect of those cameras and the limitations of the technology available to them.

You don't know what is inside the 1D C or how it is implemented. Those cameras were pushing the envelope of capability at the time, and they would have had dedicated hardware logic inside to make that possible. For example, the hardware controlling the focusing system in the 1D C may have been rigged up more like the 5D cameras, with third focusing processor being rerouted to handle video focusing. Something like that would make the focusing parts of the firmware radically different between the 1D X and 1D C, a simple port between the two would not be feasible in that sort of situation, even though the hardware might superficially look similar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the imagery from Canon cameras. I dislike the protectionist business model. But nevertheless, Canon continues to reign as number one... So perhaps they know what they are doing. I want to like the C200, but it's comprises are tough to swallow, and I know it would be a love hate affair. We can only hope Panasonic comes to the rescue... :blush:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Members
55 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

Yes, it's a good job Canon's competition has also made some really bad mistakes, this seems to be the latest one.

They are not doing enough smart things to turn that market around.

Canon and Nikon will continue to rule the pro stills market because Sony and Panasonic simply haven't figured out a way to change the status quo yet.

Part of the problem is the lenses.

It's a tricky one. I can't figure it out myself... still working through the problem in my head before offering any good solutions after years of thinking about it... My current feedback to Sony would be... "Erm, yeah, good luck!"

I just don't understand the half arsed way they've gone about it.

Its not like they wouldn't have got a decent hearing either as the arse has dropped out of our market so much that we are skint enough to shill for anyone for a few quid and a long term loan of a body and lens ;)

Seriously though, even without the 400mm f2.8 (without which they are more or less dead), then at the very least they could've tried to get us to look at trialling using an A9 as our 70-200mm camera option alongside our existing Nikon or Canon 400mm to get us into the system. This is exactly what I've been doing with Fuji gear but to be honest Fuji are talking a good fight as well without really being that arsed. Worries me that if you can't get any support off them when you're effectively helping them by using it for real in these environments then what the hell will they be like when you need their help?

All of it just makes me think they're happy to promote the potential use of this stuff to aspiring sports photographers but aren't really prepared for when someone actually using it at the sharp end of pro work.

I have no idea why Sony would get involved if they weren't going to come in all guns blazing, especially this late in the game when budgets have collapsed.

The best thing they could do in all seriousness is give them on 60 day loans to photographers covering major events and at least gain some exposure (ho ho) from people using Sony at that level. Even if it doesn't result in A9 sales to aspiring sports photographers it might do for models further down or in the pipeline. It does Canon no harm having all of those white lenses being very visible at major events. 

It also gets a conversation going amongst photographers to create some curiosity in it and encourage others to try it.

Because, right now, I imagine the chances of a typical working pro sports photographer walking into a camera shop and buying an A9 is not very high.

At all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's been very interesting reading everyone's experience as professionals.  I'm certainly a data-point in Andrew's observation that Canon has no real plan for video on the DSLR.  I'm about as hard-cord a camera junkie you can find, yet I couldn't tell you the difference between the Canon 1DC and 1DX.  I also couldn't tell you if the 5DIV has better 1080p than the 5DIII.  I understand all the Sony and Panasonic cameras (I think). All that said, I love my C100 :)  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love the look the canon 1DC produces, I just could never put my money down on a camera of this price new or used without the ability to remove bad pixels when they arrive. Most other camera manufactures of PRO cameras at this level have the ability built in to their system to remove the bad pixels? It's a lovely image but what a flaw to not address from Canon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The A9 is probably ahead of its time, but I think it puts the writing on the wall for the DSLR in general.  Mirrorless has now caught up to DSLR AF and speed.  Sony needs to add to its lens system, probably improve its off camera flash system, and develop a pro support network, and they'll be serious trouble for continued dominance by EF and F mounts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators
15 hours ago, BTM_Pix said:

I have no idea why Sony would get involved if they weren't going to come in all guns blazing, especially this late in the game when budgets have collapsed.

The best thing they could do in all seriousness is give them on 60 day loans to photographers covering major events and at least gain some exposure (ho ho) from people using Sony at that level. Even if it doesn't result in A9 sales to aspiring sports photographers it might do for models further down or in the pipeline. It does Canon no harm having all of those white lenses being very visible at major events. 

It also gets a conversation going amongst photographers to create some curiosity in it and encourage others to try it.

Because, right now, I imagine the chances of a typical working pro sports photographer walking into a camera shop and buying an A9 is not very high.

At all.

At London Camera Exchange in Manchester they received one... ONE... A9 and it sat sealed in the box to sell, they didn't even get a demo unit to show to customers.

So they couldn't show the benefits even if they wanted to.

Maybe it is actually aimed at wedding photographers who read FStoppers and Petapixel instead.

17 hours ago, tugela said:

You don't know what is inside the 1D C or how it is implemented. Those cameras were pushing the envelope of capability at the time, and they would have had dedicated hardware logic inside to make that possible. For example, the hardware controlling the focusing system in the 1D C may have been rigged up more like the 5D cameras, with third focusing processor being rerouted to handle video focusing. Something like that would make the focusing parts of the firmware radically different between the 1D X and 1D C, a simple port between the two would not be feasible in that sort of situation, even though the hardware might superficially look similar.

You don't know either! The focussing processor does not handle focus differently on the 1D C to the 1D X. There's barely any live-view AF or video focussing to speak of on the 1D C. The AF through the OVF is as fast as the 1D X... identical.

So guess again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

Yes, it's a good job Canon's competition has also made some really bad mistakes, this seems to be the latest one.

They are not doing enough smart things to turn that market around.

Canon and Nikon will continue to rule the pro stills market because Sony and Panasonic simply haven't figured out a way to change the status quo yet.

Part of the problem is the lenses.

It's a tricky one. I can't figure it out myself... still working through the problem in my head before offering any good solutions after years of thinking about it... My current feedback to Sony would be... "Erm, yeah, good luck!"

Overcoming the lens issues would havee been less of an issue for Nikon if early on they'd offered a cinema camera (with a sub mount under F mount).

Just like how Sony made massive inroads against Canon with the FS7 vs C300. Because people in the cinema world don't care about auto focus and native lenses as much.

 

However it could be too late if Nikon tried to join in now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

At London Camera Exchange in Manchester they received one... ONE... A9 and it sat sealed in the box to sell, they didn't even get a demo unit to show to customers.

Anecdotal.

As a counterpoint I was in Chengdu China a couple months ago and Sony was demo-ing the A9 to a crowd of about 50 people, including three bodies with GM zooms. This was just before the A9 shipped. They went outside to shoot a model dancing around, everyone had the chance to shoot with the cameras and pull their respective images off the card.

After it was released I saw them at every Chinese Sony dealer.

Just went to Adorama and B&H in NYC this weekend, each had a couple A9's out for people to tinker with and they had bodies in stock.

11 hours ago, gcaus said:

I work in documentary TV and what I have seen in 5 years is exactly what you are talking about Andrew - a lower/mid budget set up would be C300 and 5Dmk3 and cinema cameras would be sony or arri to now FS7, A7S2 and then a cinema sony or arri.  Canon have LOST a huuuge market with doc makers, everyone is pretty much using FS7s because they are more versatile and shoot beautiful images, they like the A7S2s because they are small, can chuck their EF lenses on it with speedbooster and shoot in crazy low light.  

The C line is very popular with doc shooters. My sister worked for NBC's doc unit for almost 2 decades, she screened pitches from production houses all over the world on a daily basis, many were shot on Canon. Its a pretty common ENG camera as well. News crews have adopted them as cheaper replacements for betacams.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Competing against yourself is fine, as long as you have no competition in the marketplace - which seems to be the impression that Canon is under. Once the lens sales start drying up due to nice E-mount lenses becoming available (those Fujinon MK zooms look _amazing_, aside from the lack of metadata). And on the even lower end, the GH5 is really killing it, as long as you know how to shoot and color grade Vlog. Another generation of products at Panasonic and Sony will likely have solved the bulk of their respective shortcomings, leaving Canon to play catch-up from much farther back than they ever should have to. And Nikon's upcoming FF mirrorless could be pretty interesting, as well. Even Fuji seems to be committed to IBIS and video in their next round. Sony has their own PDAF patent, so even that Canon advantage may soon fall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love love love love love my 1DC and will never give it up. Im thankful that it tanked so that I could afford to buy one used for $3999 last year! I have put the camera through the ringer over this last year and it really is a tank and the images off of it are some of the best I have ever seen. ONLY thing that bothers me is that pesky MJPEG codec that I have to convert to ProRes everytime I use it..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

Personally, I think the mirrorless camera market is very large, and makes a larger turnover for the manufacturers than the pro DSLR market, but with smaller profit margins per unit, therefore they have to achieve enormous scale to make a profit. Perhaps the overall profit is larger from the pro divisions... But again, we are speculating until we know the truth.

I think you may be very close to the truth.  Kodak was the first company to file for a digital camera patent in the United States.  They did it before I was born.  It was some time in the 70s.

More recently in 2005 Kodak was the number one digital camera company in the US.  It is funny how many posts you see on the internet asking why Kodak didn't "innovate".  They did.  But consumer electronics is a cut throat business with thin margins.  I haven't gone back and pulled Kodak's financials from the 70s and 80s and inflation adjusted them but I suspect they were doing much better than the camera divisions of Canon, Nikon, and Sony... by a wide margin.  I just look at the compensation packages, perks, and benefits of the Kodak workers back in the seventies.  I will have to do a bunch of googling but I remember hearing stories about Kodak in the heyday that clearly indicated fat margins.

Back in the day Kodak owned the whole pie... and it was a big pie.  Now even if they were on their A game they would own part of a much smaller pie... I'm guessing.  Canon probably has a high margin business and sees no reason to slug it out with the likes of Panasonic.  Remember just a few years ago there was rampant speculation the camera division at Panasonic was going to be shuttered.  And I don't need to remind anyone about Samsung.  Canon may just be picking their spots and protecting their margin.

Quote

According to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp., a federal agency that protects pension benefits in private-sector defined benefit plans, Kodak’s pension plans are “reasonably well-funded” at 86 percent with $4.9 billion in assets to cover $5.6 billion in benefits.

http://www.workforce.com/2012/01/24/the-rise-and-fall-of-employer-sponsored-pension-plans/

Even after a bankruptcy Kodak's pension fund is described as "well-funded".  How many of us work at a company with a defined benefit pension let alone one that is "well-funded".  Back in the day Kodak made bank.  No two ways about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Trek of Joy said:

Anecdotal.

As a counterpoint I was in Chengdu China a couple months ago and Sony was demo-ing the A9 to a crowd of about 50 people, including three bodies with GM zooms. This was just before the A9 shipped. They went outside to shoot a model dancing around, everyone had the chance to shoot with the cameras and pull their respective images off the card.

After it was released I saw them at every Chinese Sony dealer.

Maybe Sony is trying harder in the Chinese market because it is a brand new market (relatively speaking) so it will be easy to break in and smash the status quo that is in other countries? 

 

3 hours ago, Trek of Joy said:

Just went to Adorama and B&H in NYC this weekend, each had a couple A9's out for people to tinker with and they had bodies in stock.

Well that is no surprise, they're two of the biggest retailers in the world!

1 hour ago, Damphousse said:

I think you may be very close to the truth.  Kodak was the first company to file for a digital camera patent in the United States.  They did it before I was born.  It was some time in the 70s.

More recently in 2005 Kodak was the number one digital camera company in the US.  It is funny how many posts you see on the internet asking why Kodak didn't "innovate".  They did.  But consumer electronics is a cut throat business with thin margins.  I haven't gone back and pulled Kodak's financials from the 70s and 80s and inflation adjusted them but I suspect they were doing much better than the camera divisions of Canon, Nikon, and Sony... by a wide margin.  I just look at the compensation packages, perks, and benefits of the Kodak workers back in the seventies.  I will have to do a bunch of googling but I remember hearing stories about Kodak in the heyday that clearly indicated fat margins.

Kodak innovated to a limited extent, but they didn't push it, they wanted to protect their cash cow: film. 

Just like Canon, who is innovating to a small extent, but mostly is trying to protect their products from themselves (vs protecting against competitors!).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good video in a canon DSLR is ancient history, Canon themselves takes very good care not to repeat the 5D mk2 "mistake" from the past. For us video makers there's nothing to see here, all that Canon wants from us is into buying the very expensive Cxx line cameras and if we want both very good photo and video capabilities we should look elsewhere!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Eno said:

Good video in a canon DSLR is ancient history, Canon themselves takes very good care not to repeat the 5D mk2 "mistake" from the past. For us video makers there's nothing to see here, all that Canon wants from us is into buying the very expensive Cxx line cameras and if we want both very good photo and video capabilities we should look elsewhere!

And Canon only made the 5Dmk2 "mistake" in the first place because they got "forced" into it by Nikon! 

Because Nikon released their D90 first. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, IronFilm said:

Maybe Sony is trying harder in the Chinese market because it is a brand new market (relatively speaking) so it will be easy to break in and smash the status quo that is in other countries? 

Maybe, but my point is its silly to point out any retailer that isn't stocking one particular camera body as evidence of anything beyond them not carrying it, its not relevant to any big picture discussion. There's literally no conclusion that can be drawn from a sample size of one out of many thousands of retailers, other than the fact one store isn't stocking the A9. Over the last few months I've seen them in China, Japan, Paris, Amsterdam, Cairo, Tel Aviv, Dubai, Rome, NYC and so on. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Eno said:

Good video in a canon DSLR is ancient history, Canon themselves takes very good care not to repeat the 5D mk2 "mistake" from the past. For us video makers there's nothing to see here, all that Canon wants from us is into buying the very expensive Cxx line cameras and if we want both very good photo and video capabilities we should look elsewhere!

The 1DX2 produced good video... The only thing wrong with it is that 1. There is no log profile 2. It should be 10 bit 422. 3. There should be a clean 4k 60p 10 bit or raw output. 1080p should look way better. Ok... So there are a few issues... But the stills are lovely:-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...