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

[Kino]

1 hour ago, hmcindie said:

RED Dragon though has a set ISO. C300 ii will increase analog gain so it will keep onto the DR better when you start going up in ISO.

Like DR, ISO performance is also a function of signal-to-noise, but they are separate things. A great low-light camera such as the A7S is not necessarily going to give you the greatest DR. The C300 II is a fantastic low-light camera (one of the best of the cinema cameras), but not necessarily the one with the greatest DR.

There is no doubt that Alan Roberts is a star and helps to set EBU standards. I have the highest respect for him. You will note, however, that this was a test of the C300 II only and not a comparison:

"Unlike other testers he does not do direct comparisons with other cameras. Each test stands on its own and comes with a set of recommendations for how users can set up the camera for good results. He tries 'to think like a normal user would think: What am I going to use this camera for? And how am I going to use it?'"

You will also note the way in which he obtained these results: "Adding 6dB and 12dB gain confirmed that the dynamic range is indeed about 15 stops."

That's fine and is something I mentioned above when talking about lifting the gain to obtain more DR. But you could do that with almost every camera and get more out of it, depending on your subjective standards of acceptable noise (yes, there is always interpretation involved in determining DR). I'm just not sure if it really changes the relative performance of the C300 II against the Dragon and Alexa, since those cameras all have different noise patterns and color performance when underexposed.

It is also interesting that Roberts recommends shooting the C300 II in the HD 12 bit 4:4:4 mode for maximum performance.

[Policar]

2 hours ago, Kino said:

Cinema5D uses IMATEST software to determine the "usable" DR from Xyla results, but you don't need that to see what the usable DR is in those C300 II results. You can see it for yourself on those Xyla charts where several bars in the range are useless because they are clipped or have too much noise to be counted as "usable" stops. It's really easy to see and does not make one "the dumbest person." Canon's response to the Cinema5D's assessment of 12 stops was not in the form of a Xyla where you can see noise patterns and clipping effects, but a waveform that they claim demonstrates 15 stops:

Unfortunately for Canon, this waveform actually confirms that the C300II does not have 15 stops usable as the last 3 stops are completely useless. The problem here is that the last few "stops" you are looking at are differentiated by voltage differences that do not rise above the noise floor:

https://***URL not allowed***/canon-measured-15-stops-dynamic-range-c300-mark-ii/

Moreover, Canon lists the C300 II's signal-to-noise at 67dB, which translates into 11 stops! That's about as damning as you can get. RED Dragon by contrast is listed at 80dB (which equals 13 stops not 16.5 as RED claims). That's a vast difference.

Who are they useless to? They're there. Why are they useless? I don't understand. They're noisy... I guess. But there's no such metric as "useful" vs "not useful." And in this case, so long as I was okay with a bit of noise noise or I did some NR or I exposed normally and left the shadow sin the shadows, those last three stops would be useful. 

I'm not even posting for your benefit anymore, it's fine for you to use this wrong system because you're using it internally consistently, I'm just posting because there's this myth that's running rampant than those figures are worth a damn. Obviously run your own tests before buying, but before that listen to math and to reason. 

As for the SNR conversion, I couldn't speak to that, but if you're using the same "math" you've used throughout this thread, I wouldn't care to try.

[Kino]

1 hour ago, Policar said:

Who are they useless to? They're there. Why are they useless? I don't understand. They're noisy... I guess. But there's no such metric as "useful" vs "not useful." And in this case, so long as I was okay with a bit of noise noise or I did some NR or I exposed normally and left the shadow sin the shadows, those last three stops would be useful.

As for the SNR conversion, I couldn't speak to that, but if you're using the same "math" you've used throughout this thread, I wouldn't care to try.

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.

[DBounce]

32 minutes ago, Kino said:

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.

Yes, and now imagine the  $12k price tag. Honestly, the cost/value equation will get out of wack pretty quick should such a camera ever come to be... which Canon said it would not.. the original 1DC did not sell well. In any case,  I'd be much happier should Canon just release C-Log as an update on the 1DX MkII. 

At a $12k price point there are better options. That's why many here didn't jump on the original 1DC.

[Nikkor]

1 hour ago, Kino said:

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.

Boosting the gain in camera? That's called ISO and it makes you loose the top F stops.

[Kino]

21 minutes ago, Nikkor said:

Boosting the gain in camera? That's called ISO and it makes you loose the top F stops.

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.

[Kino]

17 hours ago, independent said:

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?

 

 

 

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.

[BenEricson]

All those people saying the auto focus is "the only selling point." Looks pretty huge to me.

https://vimeo.com/167576629

 

I don't mind blown highlights when it looks this good. Basically straight out of the camera. Wow... I agree it needs to be treated like a high contrast reversal film stock. 

 

[Kino]

2 hours ago, DBounce said:

Yes, and now imagine the  $12k price tag. Honestly, the cost/value equation will get out of wack pretty quick should such a camera ever come to be... which Canon said it would not.. the original 1DC did not sell well. In any case,  I'd be much happier should Canon just release C-Log as an update on the 1DX MkII. 

At a $12k price point there are better options. That's why many here didn't jump on the original 1DC.

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.

[independent]

2 hours ago, Kino said:

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.

 

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.

[BenEricson]

16 minutes ago, independent said:

That's all kinds of horseshit. Based on what, youtube videos of flowers? A building? 

So true. This is 95 percent C-Log footage on vimeo.

[Kino]

1 hour ago, independent said:

1 hour ago, independent said:

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.

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.

[Mattias Burling]

3 hours ago, independent said:

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. 

If you can't focus a camera by yourself its time to start practicing. 

[TheRenaissanceMan]

Honestly...DPAF is nice, for sure, but you guys act like MF is some supremely impossible herculean task restricted to the largest crews with the biggest budgets. Get real. 

[independent]

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.

[Mattias Burling]

5 minutes ago, independent said:

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.

Of course you can, I've shot several documentaries all manual. All single operator. Are you guys kidding? Never heard of a "cameraman"? 

[Guest Ebrahim Saadawi]

God how did we all shoot before Canon came upwith the 70D! 

No on a serious note, DPAF is FU##%ing AMAZING. 

It's a glimpse of how easy shooting will be in the future. I expect Autofocus of this quality once tried by the majority of shooters, manual focus will be an exclusive hobby practiced in the highest-end production environment who would hate seeing a focus puller job come obsolete. 

When it's in all of our camera, when we can touch the screen and get perfect organic focua, why would we pull the ring again? It will litteraly be the standard for 90% of shoots to utilise AF (once all camera companies catch up to Canon DPAF as one company with a few models is too little to disrupt the pattern). I would love it on the Alexa, on the Red, on the FS7, on the F65, on anything. If I buy the 1DXII I'll be pulling focus with the touch screen more than the focus ring I am sure, unless I am on a Rokinon/Nikkor manual only lens. Maybe we can still have a focus puller but instead of using a regular LCD with a FF glued on the side they'd use a touchscreen. 

 

anyhow it's major major game changer and only very very few releases/features deserve that designation. 

We forget that manual focusing, while been done and we've used to is, actually very recent. manual focusing a S35/FF lens was exclusive to sophisticated focus pullers up to 2009/10. Before than manual focus for every other non-cinema camera was simply a tiny sensor with deep DOF news/documentary packages. So manual focusing a cinema size sensor and Lena is not a small feat and not something we have all mastered in just 5-6 years since its existence. 

Giving a fix to this, giving an easy way for shooters to focus large sensor cameras and lenses with a touch of a screen, is huge. Nobody is taking away from it. But also to be levelled, manually focusing large sensor cameras while hard, we/many of us have mastered over these past few years. It's a struggle on fast pace projects when the camera man has to focus a large sensor camera, move, compose, frame, expose, monitor audio, all in one moment while directing and talking to the talent. And a less of an issue on controlled sets like interviews and narratives but STILL is an issue. DPAF gives me the ability to lock on the interviewee face and forget it will go out of focus when they change position, and gives me the ability to pull focus on a narrative and not having toworry eyeballing whether my marks have been hit or is my screen fooling me. 

 

So yes. We can manually focus large sensor cameras for 5-6 years now as a sole operator. I have mastered it. using any lens and any screen even a BMPocket one.

But I'll jump to the easier solution once it's available for me.iI don't live by nostalgia and drive a manual car while automatic transmissions that can shift gears in less than 5milli seconds exist, so faster and easier and gives the same control as manual driving. And there will always be that group that loves manual transmissions on high end sports cars, to get the manual hand-on experience of driving a car. 

 

Point is, PDAF is quite an important feature and one that's making me confused choosing a 1DC vs 1DX. Along with the 60p and the 120p, which I would like to have a slow motion ability in my A cam. But the 1DC just makes a prettier image with higher DR and highlight rolloff and lower digital look or sharpening plus the C-Log colours. It's a miserable choice. 

 

 

So anyone willing to give me those frame grabs I asked for please guys? 

Just shoot outside your window on a wide lens with Neutral dialled all down. 

1- 4K 24p 

2- 4K 60p 

3- HD 120p

4- HD 24p (for 120p reference) 

That would really really help. Just JPEG grabs. The camera records to JPEG 8bit 4:2:2 and a Jpeg photo is 8bit 4:2:2, no loaa in quality. 

I would appreciate it if someone did each shot in Cine style along aide the Neutral, just to see the claims on how it's affecting DR different from all the other canon cameras. 

[karoliina]

Handheld cat video, 1DX mark II + Cinestyle, trivial grade in FCPX with color corrector: No audio (because internal audio is crap)..
First shot under the text is Landscape profile as it is. The camera was set to Landscape by mistake. Other shots are Cinestyle.

 

[Kino]

6 hours ago, Ebrahim Saadawi said:

Point is, PDAF is quite an important feature and one that's making me confused choosing a 1DC vs 1DX. Along with the 60p and the 120p, which I would like to have a slow motion ability in my A cam. But the 1DC just makes a prettier image with higher DR and highlight rolloff and lower digital look or sharpening plus the C-Log colours. It's a miserable choice.

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.

[Jimmy]

@karoliina  ... Savannah cat is way too fast for Canon's AF.