Canon 1DX-II vs. 1DC - Which one would you buy?

[karoliina]

That is pretty sick. If you are correct, the person who designed the picture style system to apply the picture style after the conversion of raw image data, not prior the throwing away of the dynamic range, must have had a really bad day. Any sensible programmer would not have agreed to do that.

[DBounce]

21 hours ago, Ebrahim Saadawi said:

Canon explicitly states to me:

"The Canon EOS 1D-X Mark II is not a successor to the EOS 1D-C. The Canon EOS 1D-C is a part of our Canon Cinema Line of cameras, therefore it offers the the Cinema Standard BT.601 colour space integrated in a Logarithmic Luminance/chrominance (Canon-Log) shooting mode. Also, being part of the Canon EOS Cinema Line, it has no limit of the maximum continuous recording time that can be captured in one take. The Canon EOS 1D-C is still in production and will remain being a part of the Canon  EOS Line-up, with no current successor released from Canon, as of writing this.''

This is from very very high up Canon Professional Services chain, not a rep/web Email inquiry.

So let's not forget the 1D-C DOES have a few benefits over the 1DX-II, it's not a predecessor. They're very valid for comparing due to these differences.

To remind: 

1DC over 1DXII

-Lesser crop/wider FOV (16mp 4K crop vs 20mp, 1.28x vs 1.35x I think)
-Unlimited record time. No EU TAX limit (which does increase the camera price by 10% alone. So 600$ just for that feature. 
-Canon Log and BT.601 Colour Space
-Higher Dynamic Range 
-S35 HD Crop Mode, super super sharp and C-Log applicable. Matching C100/C300 image identically. And offering a mode for getting very high quality video in small files vs 4K only

1DXII over 1DC

-Dual Pixel AF with Touchscreen tracking
-4K up to 60p vs 25p. 
-1080p up to 120p vs 60p. With in-camera conforming. 
-About a stop better high ISO performance in 4K DCI 24p (confirmed) 

So, which would you pick out of these?

The internal 120p + 60p + DPAF is killing me when you put it in comparison with C-Log and S35 mode. 

We'll Canon have stated publicly that the 1DX MKII is a direct replacement for the 1DC. Goto 8:30 and have a listen to the Canon  rep answer this question. Rewind back to 6:00 and listen to how Canon envision this camera being used. There are many other videos and articles where Canon have stated exactly this point. Google around.

 

And fyi: Canon frequently continues production of old products after releasing the replacement model. Take for example the excellent 100-400mm mkii L lense. The mki is still in production and can be purchased new from any dealer:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/162616-USA/Canon_2577A002AA_100_400mm_f_4_5_5_6L_IS_USM.html

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1092632-REG/canon_9524b002_ef_100_400mm_f_4_5_5_6l_is.html

[Antonis]

Judging by his questionable choice of tattoos, I can image that Canon rep might have oversimplified things when talking about "direct replacements".
 

[DBounce]

11 minutes ago, Antonis said:

Judging by his questionable choice of tattoos, I can image that Canon rep might have oversimplified things when talking about "direct replacements".
 

Well while you continue to wait for a camera that will never materialize, I think I'll go shoot some videos with the 1DX Mkii 

[photographer-at-large]

What's the likelihood of CLog coming to 1DxII in a [paid] firmware update?

[Kino]

Ebrahim,

I agree with everything in your post, except for the part on HTP (Highlight Tone Priority).  In the comparisons I have seen, very little DR is gained in this mode relative to C-Log.

I encourage everyone to download Andree’s original 1.8 GB 1DC 4K file on Vimeo, since it is incredibly informative on the issue of C-Log vs. HTP:

Without C-Log, there is definitely a loss of a few stops of DR in the highlights and shadows. Yes, it's possible to bring down the exposure to compensate, but too much is lost in terms of shadow detail and color saturation. Look at how the green and yellow foliage loses its color in the -1 EV HTP footage of the sunset.

In the shots of the clock tower, Canon C-Log captures every detail of the sky as well as the shadows (the uploaded frame grabs are not doing it justice, but it is there in the original). Without C-Log, you have to choose which one to salvage. But that's not the end of the story. C-Log is capturing even more detail in midtones, highlights and shadows, no matter what you do with your neutral footage. It's actually quite amazing the difference it makes (and Andree’s is not the only footage I've seen that demonstrates such a stark contrast between neutral and Log).

 

 

[Guest Ebrahim Saadawi]

Of course HTP doesn't do anything like C-LOG. It just helps well in giving a bit more highlight DR. Apologies if it sounded I mean HTP is like C-LOG. 

[Rinad Amir]

Id pay extra few bux for C-Log firmware just like i did with V-Log not long ago

[Guest Ebrahim Saadawi]

18 hours ago, DBounce said:

Well while you continue to wait for a camera that will never materialize, I think I'll go shoot some videos with the 1DX Mkii 

No one is waiting for the 1DCII here. We're talking about the already shootable 1DC. 

the 1DX-II is not a successor to it. And even if Canon never released a 1DC Successor, it doesn't mean the 1DX II is, the 1Dc is simply a different product line within the company architecture and any replacement for it should it ever come must retain Canon C-Log, unlimited recording time and a C designation in the naming scheme. the 1DX-11 is a Fierce competitor nonetheless. Not being a 1DC successor doesn't take anything away from it being a great camera, better than 1DC for most users actually. 
 

[Kino]

24 minutes ago, Ebrahim Saadawi said:

Of course HTP doesn't do anything like C-LOG. It just helps well in giving a bit more highlight DR. Apologies if it sounded I mean HTP is like C-LOG. 

No worries. My point is simply that HTP doesn't really do anything you couldn't do with changing the exposure up or down. In all of these cases of HTP, picture profiles and Technicolor Cinestyle, you are not gaining any DR. You are just moving the scale around like a slide ruler through the 1DC exposure range. Only C-Log is able to access the high dynamic range of the sensor and actually expand the standard range by 3-4 stops in order to extract its full potential.

[DBounce]

6 minutes ago, Ebrahim Saadawi said:

No one is waiting for the 1DCII here. We're talking about the already shootable 1DC. 

the 1DX-II is not a successor to it. And even if Canon never released a 1DC Successor, it doesn't mean the 1DX II is, the 1Dc is simply a different product line within the company architecture and any replacement for it should it ever come must retain Canon C-Log, unlimited recording time and a C designation in the naming scheme. the 1DX-11 is a Fierce competitor nonetheless. Not being a 1DC successor doesn't take anything away from it being a great camera, better than 1DC for most users actually. 
 

I think it really comes down to if you like the image that you see. And really I like the images from both of these cameras. The 1DC is a great camera, but for me it was also compromised in many ways. While all cameras are compromised in some way, I personally find the 1DX Mkii has a more "acceptable" mix of compromises for my use. That said, either is more than up to the task of delivering pro results in a rugged and dependable package. These truly are the only two games in town if you need pro-level results from a hybrid body. 

[Kino]

2 hours ago, photographer-at-large said:

What's the likelihood of CLog coming to 1DxII in a [paid] firmware update?

On a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 as "Most Likely," I would say -5!

This is not a Cinema EOS camera or a camcorder like the XC10, so there is absolutely no chance. C-Log, Super 35mm mode, and the recording time limit (to avoid EU taxes) have been withheld from the 1DX II in order to protect the separate 1DC line and to keep the retail price competitive with Nikon's D5 ($6500). These are not the kinds of things you just add in firmware. The 1DC itself did have a few firmware upgrades (25P, Audio Line In, cinema lens support), but those were all features consistent with other Cinema EOS cameras and were minor in comparison.

Well, of course, there will be a "paid firmware upgrade" to the 1DX II, but it will come with a new body attached in the form of the 1DC II and it will retail for several thousand more. I would expect some kind of announcement on the 1DC II after the Rio Olympics, when the initial 1DX II sales begin to taper off.

What must sting really bad from last time is that early 1DX adopters were blindsided by the 1DC announcement just one month after the 1DX's release in 2012. I feel like Canon will prolong the 1DC II announcement just a little longer this time, if for no other reason than the 1DC model that is already sitting on the shelves.

[DBounce]

7 minutes ago, Kino said:

On a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 as "Most Likely," I would say -5!

These are not the kinds of things you just add in firmware.

Did Panasonic not add their log format to the GH4 as a firmware update? Clearly these are exactly the kind of features that can be added in firmware. Weather they will remains to be seen.

[Kino]

31 minutes ago, DBounce said:

Did Panasonic not add their log format to the GH4 as a firmware update? Clearly these are exactly the kind of features that can be added in firmware. Weather they will remains to be seen.

Panasonic adding V-log to the GH4 (or Sony adding a paid RAW upgrade to the FS5's SDI output) is a poor comparison. Panasonic in particular has nothing else to protect from the Micro 4/3 GH4, while Sony is offering a feature that they had already promised at launch and which is available on other FS cameras like the cheaper FS700.

C-Log is exclusive to Canon's Cinema EOS line and their XC10 camcorder, which doesn't compete against the cinema line. Based on that reason, you will never see it on the 1DX II and you will be waiting a lot longer than those who are waiting for the 1DC II.

Anyway, your 1DX II is already a great camera, especially for lighting conditions that don't require C-Log such as nighttime or overcast days. It also has many of the qualities of the 1DC's amazing image for a fraction of that camera's original price. I just feel that history is about to repeat itself on the 1DX and 1DC releases.

[independent]

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.

 

[Taranis]

7 hours ago, Ebrahim Saadawi said:

Result is, Canon LOG gives more DR. Cinestyle just gives a LOG image with no DR increase over Neutral/Faithful with -4 Contrast. So what's the point? It was made to make the Canon DSLR footage easily intercut with Film footage and high end cinema cameras. It also gives compatibility with LOG LUTs and so on. IT IS a LOG mode, it gives a logarithmic tone distribution but it's just 10-11 stops vs C-LOG that offers more by accessing earlier sensor data stream.

Is this true to Nikon cameras as well? I used Flaat 11 on my D5200 many times, but never really compared it's DR to tweaked Standard/Neutral. I can't check it now, but I wonder if there is any real advantage.

[BenEricson]

I'm a huge fan on the canon color space, but the noise always bugs me. I love how clean the FS700/7Q looks, but the image is ruined by the color it produces. I am really curious how much benefit a 1DXii is to a c100ii, (1080p delivery,) considering the lack of c-log. My only problem with the c100 is noise in the shadows, but the 1DXii can't even shoot flat enough to get viewable noise in shadows... 

[karoliina]

Are you sure this difference of C-log and picture style applies to 1DX2. I was just doing unscientific testing with flat profiles today: I used standard profile and then flat profiles, Marvel Cine and Techicolor Cinestyle. It happens that when I expose from zero to 255 in histogram (well becomes 16- because Cinestyle has fixed black point at 16 which is unfortunately also visible on histogram) and then I compared clipped areas. The standard just clips a lot more than the Cinestyle. There is a difference between images coming from the video engine and from the jpeg-engine. 1DX2 video is from the jpeg-engine. What applies to jpeg engine applies to 1DX2 video as well unlike on other Canon DSLRs except 1DC. If the jpeg engine has dynamic range of 10 stops no matter what, then what has been told above holds true. However, looking the clipped areas, the histogram and what I got in the exposure, my findings do not support what was told above. The Cinestyle looks and functions differently on my 1DX2 than on my 5D2, clearly. The 5D2 video image gets to the image worsening system, and it can be easily seen on the footage. Not sure about 1DX2 but viewing my frames I do not have supporting evidence that this would be the case with 1DX2, need to do further testing. Would be nice to have "hacked" Cinestyle that would allow getting rid of the 16 black floor because its reasoning is not valid for the high bit rate mjpeg codec. The h264 discards below 16, but the mjpeg is not that aggressive at all. Therefore it would make sense to use modded Cinestyle but sadly it is locked for further editing. At least I can expose Cinestyle from 16 to 255 vs in 5D it is impossible to use the whole range, the histogram leaves unused area to left and right.

I also tried to apply Cinestyle LUT to both C-log and Cinestyle images. Same LUT works to both it seems, the difference is way smaller than for example Canon vs Blackmagic flatness.

 

[jcs]

1 hour ago, BenEricson said:

I'm a huge fan on the canon color space, but the noise always bugs me. I love how clean the FS700/7Q looks, but the image is ruined by the color it produces. I am really curious how much benefit a 1DXii is to a c100ii, (1080p delivery,) considering the lack of c-log. My only problem with the c100 is noise in the shadows, but the 1DXii can't even shoot flat enough to get viewable noise in shadows... 

The 1DX II can shoot very flat with either Cinestyle or a custom PP as I created here: 

You can edit this profile I created to match Cinestyle, for example add slightly more boost to the shadows, lower saturation, perhaps remove my red and yellow saturation pulls, etc. Getting 0-255 with the gamma curve editor is tricky: both mine and Cinestyle start above 0, so the resulting curve doesn't go 'crazy' (a Bezier curve continuity thing). Mine also drops the max value to less than 255 (could be 16-235-ish).

1 hour ago, karoliina said:

Are you sure this difference of C-log and picture style applies to 1DX2. I was just doing unscientific testing with flat profiles today: I used standard profile and then flat profiles, Marvel Cine and Techicolor Cinestyle. It happens that when I expose from zero to 255 in histogram (well becomes 16- because Cinestyle has fixed black point at 16 which is unfortunately also visible on histogram) and then I compared clipped areas. The standard just clips a lot more than the Cinestyle. There is a difference between images coming from the video engine and from the jpeg-engine. 1DX2 video is from the jpeg-engine. [...]

I also tried to apply Cinestyle LUT to both C-log and Cinestyle images. Same LUT works to both it seems, the difference is way smaller than for example Canon vs Blackmagic flatness.

 

Definitely both my custom profile and Cinestyle raise shadows enough to see noise, and significantly pull highlights to reduce clipping. In my brief tests with CLog on the C300 II, highlights still clipped harshly. Only when using Canon Log 2 did highlight clipping reduce significantly. Super flat profiles work best with 10- or more bits. I see material ranging from TV/Netflix/AppleTV/AmazonPrime to movies where highlights are blown out- this happens even on the Alexa (though the transition tends to be nicer). The average viewer will never notice, and most film people focussed on story (and profit) could care less. "Our profits are down because the film's highlights weren't quite as smooth as <insert camera here>" is highly unlikely to ever be said in the real world.

Since the 1DX II is so clean in the shadows, as seen in Andree Markefor's video on this page, if we expose -1 EV (1 stop down), and use HTP and a custom flat profile, we can easily boost shadows +1EV in post without a major noise issue. Thus I don't see an issue with CLog not being available on the 1DX II vs. the 1DC. Note we shoot +1.7-2 EV on the A7S II to get the best results with SLog2. A minor issue is that -1 EV may be a little harder to see, however most people using the 1DX II will be using the amazing PDAF for focusing.

I would expect a 1DC II to have 10-bit and Canon Log 2, otherwise I don't see the value if the only difference is Clog (and still 8-bit). 1DC vs. 1DX II is a no brainer: 1DX II (since it can match CLog by using a custom flat profile + HTP + -1 EV exposure). That is if shooting 4K. 1080p is fairly crude by comparison (but fine for online delivery and perhaps 'B' shots).

 

[karoliina]

Here is histogram. Shot with 4K 25p and Marvel Cine pf2. See histogram: starts from zero and ends to 255. Also what I am seeing supports the histogram, I got captured from pitch black to clipping, as I intended to do for this test.

So my early gut feeling is that this is the (first?) Canon camera where picture styles behave differenty. Favorably differently.