PaperBag

Just writing to thank Andrew for the review. I've been an XC10 owner for some time, and mainly use it as a C camera in corporate interviews with two C100s, and it does complement them very well. Occasionally use the 4K when we have to shoot a panel of three people -- just so you can crop in for singles and two shots. The lightness and compactness of the camera are definitely plusses. Main cons for this sort of mundane usage: no waveform (no exposure guide except the basic exposure needle); the colour doesn't quite match C100, even when used with same picture profile; frankly, I think the white balancing sucks, and I'm not sure why -- just doesn't seem as accurate as the C100s or Canon DSLRs. Apparently, the XC15 fixes some of these problems, by the way. For run and gun, I've found the XC10 a frustrating camera, because it's not designed to be a durable beast, because you can't pull quick zooms manually, and because (I thought) you have to menu dive to access things like ISO and shutter. Interesting to read Andrew's take on how he thinks the camera ought to be used -- some great tips. Still, for weddings and any sorts of shooting equally as unpredictable, give me a 5D2 or 5D3 over both XC10 and C100 anytime, with all the physical controls, and with their durability and reliability under different weather conditions and temperatures.

Some weirdly sexist and sexual metaphors! Or is that just me?

​I don't, but many do. Some call themselves "filmmakers" as well. It's mainly a marketing thing. The history of it is something like this: wedding shooters have for ages been trying to make their work more "cinematic" -- with 24p, 35mm lens adapters, grading, jibs, dollies, multiple angles, etc. (The last is an interesting technique. Rodriguez more or less did the same thing in El Mariachi -- large number of camera setups to give the illusion of multiple cameras and therefore "higher production value".) When DSLRs came in around 2008, 2009, that was huge. And other developments as well, like GoPros, drones, lower prices of things like remote heads for jibs or motion control. So, now people started using steadicams, sliders, very shallow depth of field, timelapse, slow motion, better lenses, etc, and the goal really did become to make something as film-like as you could under crazy event conditions. Audio setups became more elaborate as well. Some (but not much) lighting technique was introduced. Even editing -- with much more time put into it, and the emergence of a polished 15 minute video of the day, including "time-shifting" and other techniques, over the traditional 2-hour documentary. The work was definitely more "cinematic" than it used to be, and, in fact, you couldn't really do both the traditional "documentary" style as well as the newer style at the same time. The gear was different -- instead of one HVX200 or Ex1, say, you were looking at a $50,000 investment in multiple cameras, lenses, multiple audio recorders, etc. The simple act of using the Rodriguez technique of running around to change angles meant you ended up with hundreds of 5-10 second clips instead of longer continuously watchable takes. But, as a matter of marketing, how to convey this to clients, and how to distinguish yourselves from the guys doing still doing single-camera shoulder-mounted shoots, shining lights in everyone's faces? There's no easy word for "person who makes videos that look cinematic" -- "cinematic-ographers" doesn't work. So, the term "cinematographers" gained a lot of currency, though of course real filmmakers are invariable shocked to hear this. One more quick thought -- mtheory, not sure if you've seen any wedding videos made in the last few years, but, if you haven't, do check out one or two 3-minute highlight videos -- Joe Simon, Ray Roman, Rob Adams, Bob Nicholas, etc, or even their short films. If you haven't seen any of these, I think you might be surprised. I mean, ultimately, the word doesn't matter, but I don't think there's any denying that there's a lot of artistry in the work, and that obtaining these sorts of results under event conditions is very challenging.

i'm a wedding photographer/videographer! Simon's "entry level" comment has a lot of truth in it. All you need to do to start weddings is borrow your friend's handicam. Or borrow a DSLR and call yourself a "cinematographer". But I think it's worth noting -- at the high end, ie guys who are charging $20k+ a wedding, they're often still using 5DMk3s, though they might own C100s, C300s and Red cameras. In terms of DSLR vs proper video camera, well, there's a number of advantages DSLRs give you -- low-light, discreet, full frame and shallow depth, requires easier gear (lower end steadicams, lighter tripods) and gives you the ability to buy nine of them if you have to for multicam coverage on a ceremony (though, usually, people won't use more than 3-5). In terms of which DSLR, Canon vs the rest, well some companies actually do use one or more 1DC cameras... For the rest of us, a7s is probably the best DSLR, but one huge advantage of a Mk3 is that the ML hack lets you record past 30 minutes, which is a surprisingly big deal. Otherwise, if you have a lot of cameras to mind, you find yourself running around pressing record over and over, instead of shooting.

Doug, just buy the course, then come back here and thank us afterwards. $100 is not a lot of money for the amount of knowledge you'll get, and knowledge is a lot more valuable than kit. As for weddings as a get rich quick scheme, or a way to indulge your creativity whilst being overpaid for it, let us know how that works out. I'm pretty cynical, but don't let me or any other internet random dissuade you.

For anyone interested, it seems to be available for AU$8700 brand new (something like 4700 pounds), and I've seen it sold used for as low as $6000 (about 3200 pounds). Not many on ebay over the last year. Two went for around $7000. One sat at $8000 and didn't sell.

I think Andrew always lusted after a 1DC! The 25 reasons the a7s trumps a 1dc had an undertone of trying to persuade himself why he didn't need one. (By the way, if you count his bolded headings, does Andrew in fact list 26 reasons rather than 25? I guess the number is debatable anyway: "they both have a crop mode" probably doesn't count as an advantage of the a7s; maybe "high price" is essentially the same reason as "potential for depreciation"; and maybe "inefficient codec" is very close to "SSD is cheaper".) The question that fascinates me: everything else aside (cost, ergonomics, video functions), which camera produces the better image? Is it even possible to say, or is the matter too subjective and project-dependent? If you go through Andrew's list, I think the image-quality advantages he gives to a7s+Shogun are: low light; full frame; dynamic range; better internal 1080; ability to use Leica M; more flexibility with S-Log 2. And one factor he doesn't mention is higher frames rates at 720. In contrast, what are the image-quality advantages of a 1dc? Is it anything more than "Canon colours are better than Sony colours", which is surely a subjective thing? I find old Andrew persuasive on the image quality front, at least on paper -- I'd be very keen to see any comparisons and tests! I think the main things that have changed with the "versus" question is: (1) cost factors; and (2) weighing against all the ergonomic and video functionality advantages of the a7s is "A 1dc doesn't need an external box", and maybe new Andrew would be inclined to give that factor higher weight than the Andrew that wrote the list.

I've really enjoyed Andrew's article and these comments. There's pretty much no commentary I can find online comparing the a7s and the 1dc, and used 1dc cameras are showing up on eBay for $9000 now. I'm a long-time Canon user with a stack of Canon lenses, so the question has been on my mind. If it goes for $8000, I might well give in. Seems to me that colour science is subjective (though I tend to agree with jcs). Internal recording is certainly a 1dc advantage (but many DSLR shooters have been putting up with frankenrigs for years -- what's one more box on an a7s?). Rolling shutter for most normal applications isn't that big a deal. So the advantage of the 1dc comes down to: you're getting a 1dx that can also shoot 4K, which is basically what people have been saying for a while. I think there was a review on DSLR News Shooter that said something like, "If you already have a C300 and a 1DX, there's no reason to get a 1DC. If you don't, then maybe you could justify this camera in place of both of them." So, all the photo advantages are what might make it attractive over an a7s -- not only playing well with Canon lenses, including with CA and vignette correction, but more megapixels, fast continuous shutter, weather proofing, etc. If you're not a hybrid shooter, my personal opinion is that there's no compelling advantage of the 1DC. Even assuming the two cameras were identical in price, or that you were Roger Deakin and could use any camera you wanted for your next project, the a7s might on paper be the all-round better choice.