independent

Thanks for the comparison, well done. This confirms what people have been saying, but aside from the 1DC's S35 1080p mode, I'm a little surprised at how close the images are. Probably not that noticeable once graded and viewed in motion. I'm actually liking that neutral profile on the 1DX II!

That's exactly the problem, which you're contributing to. Some jobs are incredibly hard - if not impossible - if you underestimate the difficulty of focusing unrehearsed movement. Speaking of newcomers, it would be a disservice to any novices to claim that you can "pull focus on the run" with "just practice." Because you can read minds and anticipate whichever way your subject will go? Amazing. So all this time, filmmakers have been using tape measures, focus marks, blocking, assistant cameramen, specific monitors for confirming focus.... When all they needed was practice? Trust me, you're being the dick here, because here in New York City we'd tell you straight up you're full of shit. Even the best dedicated focus pullers in the industry miss some shots for live events and documentary work because it's spontaneous movement, you can be shooting at a wide spot under practical lighting, etc. And they're amazing at a tough job, and they earn their keep. It's a lot more respectful to recognize that these cameras are all tools, many of which have their limitations, but to know them and make informed decisions.

Eh, it's one thing to be condescending, it's another to be ignorant and condescending. That just spreads misinformation. There are reasons to choose the 1DC over the 1DX, but the pretense that the 1DC is super easy to focus for video and if you can't, something is wrong with you? Just horseshit.

Then you should know how hard it is. With a big sensor and a still lens? Do you have any idea how difficult it is to keep unrehearsed movements in focus, while framing the shot and moving the camera? No offense, but you're full of shit. It's easy as being a "Cameraman"? Yeah, if you're shooting on a documentary camera - but not something like the 1DC, which is what we're talking about. Ever hear of a "focus puller?" There's a reason why there's a specialized job for this task. A focus puller has one of the most important jobs on any film shoot - it's one of the hardest skills. And anybody who actually has experience on a film shoot would know this obvious fact. Either you're talking out of your ass or you're the best focus puller in the world. Or, in your words, just a "cameraman." If you've never heard of a focus puller, it's time to start keeping your mouth shut and start learning.

Get real? Have you seriously tried manually focusing a non-interview documentary, live event, or narrative as a single operator? Good luck. Any 1D-whatever canon camera would pretty much be single operator, at least in NYC. Everybody else would use proper video cameras w/ AC to pull focus... any real low budget or single operator would realize the value of usable video autofocus. Get real, exactly.

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.

The lack of C-log on the 1dx ii is a pretty clear indication that they are committed to protecting the c-line of cameras.

The 1DX II is a "better buy" if you're talking about financial investment. It's a top of the line stills camera too, it'll hold it's value better. When and if the 1DC II comes out, that's not going to help the 1DC as an investment. Anyways, the 1DX II It has a cutting-edge, unparalleled video autofocus. It's a FAR more functional camera. The 1DC is now a more specialized camera, and unless you need the form factor and weather sealing, the blackmagic ursa mini 4.6K is a better video camera anyways, for the price range. 1DC v 1DX II is kind of a contrived comparison...there are other options out there. But if you're going to limit this to a two-horse race, I think the 1DX II is a better buy, especially since the 1DC retails for $2K more (in the USA) YMMV - of course if you can get one that fell off the back of a truck, that changes things. And as mentioned before, dynamic range isn't everything. If your shots aren't in focus, or you're racking in and out of focus, or you need to spend time blocking and setting up focus marks, rigging up your 1DC with a follow focus, while framing, while moving, etc. I mean, it's not even close...the 1DX II is far better if you're a one-man band or a skeleton crew. If you have a full crew, the 1DC would be better, but then again, you probably would be better off using a proper video camera. As far as preferring image quality, the 1DC does seem to look more organic (softer) with better highlight roll off. Is it more cinematic? Depends. If it's an independent film, yes. But look at the blockbusters or mainstreams films. Very contrasty. Vivid colors. There are also many shots that I see in beautifully shot films and shows that have blown out highlights. Some intentional, some you know it was probably a limitation, a trade-off (expose for the talent). The cinematic look is broader than you think. Anyways, we're also talking out-of-the-box looks. if you handle the image acquisition right, ETTR, adjust settings as aforementioned in the thread, give it a "filmic" grade, it seems you can get pretty close to the look you want. As yourself this: Can you tweak the 1DX II so it'll give you a look you'll be satisfied with? Can you tweak the 1DC so it'll get all your shots in focus?

If there is a 1DC with dual pixel, or the 1DX II gets C-Log, then that would really kill the c100 line and eat into the c300's as well. But maybe they'd be willing to do that based on the market. The Dual Pixel autofocus is Canon's primary selling point for their cinema cameras, however. Other makers have caught up with image quality, sensitivity, and ergonomics, at a lower price point.

Sure, but if we're not talking features but absolute image quality at the price range, then ursa 4.6k is better than the 1dc. Re: magenta issue - as far as I know its not a consistent issue, but blackmagic seems to have a good policy of firmware updates and/or fixing under warranty. But the 4.6k image, dynamic range, filmic, raw with prores? Nothing else competes at that price. I'm just surprised at how the AF of the 1dxii isn't considered more of a factor in terms of image quality. If your shot isn't in focus, it's a poor image, regardless of any 1dc mojo. So much of filmmaking is just getting the shot.

If that marginal difference in image quality were more important than features, than why not go ursa mini 4.6k raw, which has even better image, color, and codec.

Any examples?

I appreciate the test. But it is somewhat exhibiting the lowest common denominator. They would all seem close if that's what you're aiming to do. What would be neat is another test of the three cameras showing their strengths in challenging conditions. High contrast scene testing max dynamic range, low-light testing noise, a moving subject to test autofocus, etc. But, appreciate the test nonetheless.

How do the continuous AF compare between the two?

I'd be surprised if the successor to the 5DIII has both dual pixel af and 4K.

Really interesting lowlight video. I think we do need a bit more information about the video side, rather than the stills. We'll get it in the next few months. But the combination of features, the lowlight, weather-sealing, reliability, the 4K, and dual pixel autofocus make this offering pretty attractive, even if other cameras are superior is some categories. As far as feature set/pricing, I think the Sony a6300 at $1K, the Sony A7RII at $3K, The Canon 1DX II at $6K, and the Canon C300 II at $15K are probably the most flexible, all-around video cameras at those price points. The mirrorless/DSLR cameras will require more investment to equip them for a real video shoot, e.g., monitoring, audio, rigging, etc. The 1DC is great, but I think its more limited...at this point, I think the lack of slow-motion might limit some creative/commercial use, and the lack of continuous autofocus costs you flexibility (documentary work, tight shots, fast turnaround). In other words, the 1DC is a small camera with a high quality 4K video. But the BM ursa mini 4.6K will likely give you a superior image at a similar price point (or perhaps even cheaper, after the monitor, audio, and rigging the 1DC will probably require). So if you want to shoot a movie the old fashioned way, and maximize image quality by investing in a higher production, then that 4.6K ursa will probably do really well on controlled tests. Even after exhaustive tests, if the 1DC at ~$4K betters the 1DX at ~$6K in terms of absolute image quality overall, I'd still probably prefer the latter for the better features, because flexibility and usability is generally worth more than absolute image, within reason, in my experience. I'd rather just get the shot.

Shots fired! But I would say in the independent filmmaking scene, a Director or DP should know his gear or equipment, both for aesthetics as well as technical reasons. Not unusual to see a Director op, let alone a DP. What you lack in funds, you make up in knowledge.

Too risky for long form interviews and events, but for most other things why not roll out with two of these? You can just hand off the entire camera to your DIT or assistant to offload the footage, swap the battery, and let it cool while you use the other body. It's good to have a backup body anyways. You also have the option for 2 cam setups, or have one camera with a wide lens, another with a long. Or one on a gimbal, the other on sticks. Less setup. I guess a half hour limit doesn't seem like a huge problem because I remember when I had my RED w/ handle and it would last only like 20 minutes anyways (battery and media).

shoot through pantyhose

Zeiss Otus 28mm

Never used a 1DC, but I have read that some users avoid c-log because of banding issues, presumably due to the 8-bit codec, similar to the 8-bit Sony's that share the problem. Either way, there should be some reasonably flat picture profiles that would yield good results.

I would like to see this hooked up to a Leica SL, which can actually output 4k 10-bit.

4K 10-bit Prores - This is what the blackmagic ursa mini 4.6K is about. It's the only one that does that in the price range. It lacks the lowlight and autofocus, but those are specific features (some would say niche) for other cameras. It has a few bugs, but so does every new camera that pushes boundaries. Some of you are looking for a perfect solution for features, performances, and price, and it doesn't exist. You demand it like some God-given right. "Why can't X, why can't Y" - because these are companies that operate in a market, as do we, in various segments, and these products also must obey the laws of physics. The Sony A6300 is a prime example of that. It's both brilliant and terrible, an incredible value and useless. But somebody is probably going to use it to make a movie, that will also probably be terrible but not because of its visuals.

Here is a good example of how to use this camera. Limit camera movement. Don't shoot handheld while running. No whip pans. It looks good. Also, regarding color science, skin tones etc... most of the videos have been graded with a desaturated and cool look. But this one looks fine, with just some adjustments in camera and post. The color and skin tones look pretty accurate to me.

This looks like the best image you can get under 10K without buying into Red's ecosystem. This, coming from a former Red owner and operator - and I sold that once I saw how the very first blackmagic camera handled low-light noise. The Rolling Shutter, oh so what. Hey look, I'd rather have a company that tries to do something really amazing and fall short, rather than a company that intentionally cripples cameras to sell you the next model 6 months later, or are trying to protect their tiered market strategies. There is no false advertising or bait and switch. Because you technically didn't buy anything. It was a pre-order. And BM was upfront about the issue and now they're releasing the camera. They're actually pretty damn responsive without the attitude (RED). Yeah there was a delay - like other small companies in any industry. That's what happens when a company is driven by innovation and don't have billion dollar resources. A world without RED and Blackmagic would be immensely damaging to the independent film community. They've changed the market for the better. The crazy sense of entitlement, construing this as some unethical business practice is hilarious. "I will never again buy a blackmagic product" - Ok, enjoy your hacked 5D or franken dslr, or whatever you shoot with. Because blackmagic doesn't owe you anything. If you sat in front of your computer hitting refresh for the past six months, you have every right to be angry. But not at blackmagic. You sad, sad little man. I hope everybody cancels their pre-orders, so please! Keep complaining.