1DC vs 1DX II Shootout

[Andrew Reid]

49 minutes ago, Steve Adams said:

Canon has inventory still remaining on 1DC, so no C Log until 1DCs are emptied from warehouse. Everyone at Canon knows the value of C Log added to 1 DX II -- however the bigger deal is what it means to 5D IV-- no 10bit, certainly even no antiquated C Log.  Canon got lucky with their initial 5Ds -- and they continue to follow their tried and true sell the 'ink cartridges' -- lens rather than work to deliver a better copier, er 4K DSLR.  Canon's short legacy is over with the exception of their great customer service.

And no full frame 4K either, possibly no articulated screen, definitely no in-body stabilisation and if they keep MJPEG as the 4K codec, there would be zero reason to pay $3500 for the 5D Mk IV, because by that time a used 1D C would probably cost the same for a superior video spec, superior build quality and superior reliability.

[jcs]

2 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

@jcs So this is your definition of Shakespeare is it? The boring pot woman is telling the story. Johnnie is just pointing his camera at her and editing out the 'ums and ahs'.

She's not so much telling a story as reeling off a bunch of facts about her business.

Just as a cafe owner would in an advert for his cafe.

As far as the storytelling goes, it is 100% advert, 0% fiction.

Documentaries tell a story too: all good content tells some kind of story. Test videos or 'art videos' have a very limited audience to the general public. To be honest, calling something 'art' when it's a random jumble of incoherent shots is a cop out. True art tells a story and evokes emotion in a way that words alone cannot. Telling a good story isn't easy, that's why most content leaves us unfulfilled. My first short (which I co-wrote) wasn't very good, as the story was weak. All great filmmakers say the same thing: keep making movies, the first ones won't be very good and don't give up. You'll get better by making more. If one doesn't continue to make more, and learn from each until they are good, then they are stuck where they quit. If one is making a filmed work and not thinking about story, they are missing out on the most important element. Just a little bit of story makes the work much better (even wedding videos, a soccer game, etc.). Save the Cat explains 'the physics of storytelling' and it's right on: http://www.amazon.com/Save-Last-Book-Screenwriting-Youll/dp/1932907009 . If you add story to your next test video / review, it will be much better / easier to watch. Sure it's more work and planning, but well worth the effort. Which reminds me, I need to re-read Save the Cat

Her story resonates with me- she was a teacher and also worked some kind of corporate job ('interior office'). After she had her daughter and having learned the basics of pottery she decided to take a risk and start her own business doing what she loved. And she succeeded, which is very rare, starting a business from nothing with no experience and becoming successful on the first go (profitable) . In the end it's more work than a corporate office job, but since she loves what she's doing it's not really work. Doing what you love and getting paid for it, isn't that what everyone wants? That's an inspiring story.

Our current project involves interviews which on their own can be boring unless watched by a very small relevant market. So we're adding fun cutaways / animations / graphics to make it more entertaining for a wider audience. What's boring to you may be very interesting to someone else (for example anyone interested in starting their own business, entrepreneurs etc., may find the pottery piece interesting as it involves doing what one loves, art, creativity, recycling, and making enough money to not have to work a corporate job). The pottery piece also shows the 1DX II works well as a doc / short / advertorial camera.

Sure, the 1DX II highlights blow out earlier than we'd like (I'll compare to the C300 II's Canon Log 2 at some point (much better than CLog, though requires 10 or more bits)). However I doubt a single non-camera-person consumer would ever notice blown highlights when the subject is properly exposed (they've seen blown highlights for years). IIRC, shooting with highlights at 80 IRE on the WFM (sunlight on a white fence, subject in shadow) with the C300 II resulted in blown highlights which I couldn't fully recover in post with PP CC. My background is image/graphics software and tech (not a camera operator), and intuitively 80 IRE should have been recoverable (where 100 IRE is 'max voltage'/signal value). Guess I'm missing something or there's an issue with PP CC. The point is even the mighty C300 II with Canon Log 2 will clip highlights if care is not taken (need to shoot tests to understand highlight clipping behavior).

The 1DX II's strengths are very good color reproduction, including pleasing skin tones, very good (but not perfect by a long shot) PDAF, very nice 4K (and 4K 60p), decent audio preamps, and native Canon lens support without adapters. It's so nice to get footage straight from camera that needs little or no tweaking- that's why we skipped the FS7, FS5, etc. We're voting with our dollars: we're not spending any more money on cameras with poor color science (regardless of bells and whistles).

[Andrew Reid]

Clearly you have lived in the US for too long - You can't tell the difference between an advert and a documentary

[Nikkor]

Although I find there is some truth in what JCS says in that random shots are boring,but I think that story thing with camera ads/tests always turns out to be pretty pathetic and forced.Just have a look at all the official presentation videos from Canon/Nikon...

[DBounce]

11 hours ago, jcs said:

Documentaries tell a story too: all good content tells some kind of story. Test videos or 'art videos' have a very limited audience to the general public. To be honest, calling something 'art' when it's a random jumble of incoherent shots is a cop out. True art tells a story and evokes emotion in a way that words alone cannot. Telling a good story isn't easy, that's why most content leaves us unfulfilled. My first short (which I co-wrote) wasn't very good, as the story was weak. All great filmmakers say the same thing: keep making movies, the first ones won't be very good and don't give up. You'll get better by making more. If one doesn't continue to make more, and learn from each until they are good, then they are stuck where they quit. If one is making a filmed work and not thinking about story, they are missing out on the most important element. Just a little bit of story makes the work much better (even wedding videos, a soccer game, etc.). Save the Cat explains 'the physics of storytelling' and it's right on: http://www.amazon.com/Save-Last-Book-Screenwriting-Youll/dp/1932907009 . If you add story to your next test video / review, it will be much better / easier to watch. Sure it's more work and planning, but well worth the effort. Which reminds me, I need to re-read Save the Cat

Her story resonates with me- she was a teacher and also worked some kind of corporate job ('interior office'). After she had her daughter and having learned the basics of pottery she decided to take a risk and start her own business doing what she loved. And she succeeded, which is very rare, starting a business from nothing with no experience and becoming successful on the first go (profitable) . In the end it's more work than a corporate office job, but since she loves what she's doing it's not really work. Doing what you love and getting paid for it, isn't that what everyone wants? That's an inspiring story.

Our current project involves interviews which on their own can be boring unless watched by a very small relevant market. So we're adding fun cutaways / animations / graphics to make it more entertaining for a wider audience. What's boring to you may be very interesting to someone else (for example anyone interested in starting their own business, entrepreneurs etc., may find the pottery piece interesting as it involves doing what one loves, art, creativity, recycling, and making enough money to not have to work a corporate job). The pottery piece also shows the 1DX II works well as a doc / short / advertorial camera.

Sure, the 1DX II highlights blow out earlier than we'd like (I'll compare to the C300 II's Canon Log 2 at some point (much better than CLog, though requires 10 or more bits)). However I doubt a single non-camera-person consumer would ever notice blown highlights when the subject is properly exposed (they've seen blown highlights for years). IIRC, shooting with highlights at 80 IRE on the WFM (sunlight on a white fence, subject in shadow) with the C300 II resulted in blown highlights which I couldn't fully recover in post with PP CC. My background is image/graphics software and tech (not a camera operator), and intuitively 80 IRE should have been recoverable (where 100 IRE is 'max voltage'/signal value). Guess I'm missing something or there's an issue with PP CC. The point is even the mighty C300 II with Canon Log 2 will clip highlights if care is not taken (need to shoot tests to understand highlight clipping behavior).

The 1DX II's strengths are very good color reproduction, including pleasing skin tones, very good (but not perfect by a long shot) PDAF, very nice 4K (and 4K 60p), decent audio preamps, and native Canon lens support without adapters. It's so nice to get footage straight from camera that needs little or no tweaking- that's why we skipped the FS7, FS5, etc. We're voting with our dollars: we're not spending any more money on cameras with poor color science (regardless of bells and whistles).

Indeed. I honestly could care less about paper specs. I for one could not be happier with the images produced by this camera. It is more than could enough to capture a compelling story.

[PabloB]

@Andrew Reid. Hi Andrew, If you're in London and would like to use my 1DXII to compare the two cameras I'd be willing to let you use it for take on the the two

[jcs]

6 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

Clearly you have lived in the US for too long - You can't tell the difference between an advert and a documentary

I lived for 3 weeks in Royal Leamington Spa* and London. That and watching Monty Python provided exactly the proper training to spot a documercial from over a foot away. The best commercials... tell a story. Story doesn't have to be a fictional narrative- the basic form is beginning, middle, and end. E.g. the setup with a challenge, the journey to overcome, and success/salvation/coming home (Hero's Journey). A boring cat video / camera test could become the quest to catch the cat doing that funny thing they won't do on camera, etc. A little effort can have big payoffs.

*beautiful little town and Warwick Castle is pretty cool  too, esp. the fireball

5 hours ago, Nikkor said:

Although I find there is some truth in what JCS says in that random shots are boring,but I think that story thing with camera ads/tests always turns out to be pretty pathetic and forced.Just have a look at all the official presentation videos from Canon/Nikon...

What if Kubrick or <insert favorite director here> said "I'm not going to make movies because others suck at it?". The guys at DigitalRev make entertaining camera tests- they tell a story, however simple, and make jokes which creates an entertaining camera test: http://tv.digitalrev.com/v/uXpDOS4wTkg . 

[Nikkor]

18 minutes ago, jcs said:

What if Kubrick or <insert favorite director here> said "I'm not going to make movies because other suck at it?". The guys at DigitalRev make entertaining camera tests- they tell a story, however simple, and make jokes which creates an entertaining camera test: http://tv.digitalrev.com/v/uXpDOS4wTkg . 

JCS and his fallacies. I would point them out for you, but I don't have time for this crap right now. 

[jcs]

11 minutes ago, Nikkor said:

JCS and his fallacies. I would point them out for you, but I don't have time for this crap right now. 

Such as 79,400 views for that camera test. Northrup and Dugdale have millions of views by making camera tests entertaining. Whether you agree with them or not, they are creating content that many people enjoy watching. My 'best' camera test only got 26K views- no story and pretty boring (this kindof had a story, though not much really going on (11.5K views)). How about yours?

[Andrew Reid]

Kubrick also said that the best restaurant was not always the one with the longest queue.

[jcs]

29 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

Kubrick also said that the best restaurant was not always the one with the longest queue.

Relativity Theory- it depends on one's point of view, right? If one is running a business, they need a certain number of customers/viewers/subscribers etc. to make a living. They don't need the longest queue/line, but they need enough to keep the lights on. Many times film critics reviews are far off from the average viewer. Sometimes critics may be influenced by elements totally unrelated to the film itself (politics, money, personal life experience, etc.). When statistics are used without bias (understandably hard to do, thus the desire for double-blind studies), the 'law of large numbers' when sampling a population gives a pretty good unbiased view of collective reality. That said, we learned a major lesson while working at MySpace (and social media in general): popular things become more popular because they are popular. Thus with enough advertising money, things can become popular primarily from promotion. The more indirect, such as social media posts, the better. That said, people are becoming more savvy to sniff out this kind of fake social media. It would appear most of the popular YouTubers generated audiences by creating great content for their respective markets (advertising can only go so far). 

[Luke Mason]

Cinema5D lab test is up:

https://***URL not allowed***/canon-1d-x-mark-ii-vs-canon-1d-c-which-one-shoots-better-video/

I don't understand why they used ISO800 and different aperture when comparing DR:

[jcs]

As expected, CLog doesn't provide any more usable DR on the 1DC vs. the 1DX II without CLog.

[DBounce]

On 6/1/2016 at 6:40 PM, Kino said:

That was Roger Machin of Canon, South Africa, and it was an off-the-cuff remark. I would not take that too seriously as a much higher spokesman from Canon has confirmed that these are two separate "lines." The most telling aspect of this is that the 1DC retails for $2,000 USD more than the 1DX II and will continue in production, at least until it is replaced by the 1DC II. The number to call is actually 1 855-CINE-EOS.

Being seperate lines in no way implies their will be a Mkii. As I understand it the 1DC did not sell well. Case in point, did you buy one?

I can recall a lot of people tearing the XC10 apart also, but it turns out it was pretty good after all. Most of those that have not used this camera will have a hard time understanding what a great content capture device it truly is. I can safely say it is my favorite all around camera at this time. It's great for stills and video. Yes, there are other cameras that can take higher resolution stills, and there are cinema camera with more dynamic range. But the 1DX Mkii strikes a good balance. And when compared to the 1DC imo represents a much better value.

[tomekk]

Unfortunately, though, popular =/= top quality. "Popular" may at best be somewhere in between. This is because top end of almost anything meaningful requires a lot of knowledge/thinking/experience/time/money. Therefore, audience is very limited.

Popular youtube vidoes are a good starting point, but advanced knowledge on most topics is not in the most popular vidoes.

Movies: popularity makes $$$ so they can't be too hard to understand. For maximum profitability they have to attract the biggest audience. Unfortunately, this means they can't be too complicated. If there is an interesting concept, then, it needs to be dumbed down for the average viewer. Don't get me wrong, some of them are a good starting point for the minority if they want to educate themselves further with QUALITY sources on certain topics.

Like with anything, there are always exceptions to the rule. 

[Kino]

2 hours ago, Luke Mason said:

Cinema5D lab test is up:

https://***URL not allowed***/canon-1d-x-mark-ii-vs-canon-1d-c-which-one-shoots-better-video/

I don't understand why they used ISO800 and different aperture when comparing DR:

I posted this amazing Xyla on the other thread not knowing you had already posted it here. Anyway, the reason for the different apertures is because the 1DX II has better ISO performance and thus the 1DC needs to open up for more light on the Xyla test. Moreover, ISO 800 is chosen to maximize the DR performance on both cameras.

With Technicolor Cinestyle, the 1DX II is thus achieving the exact same DR as the 1DC with C-Log. If I can see some Cinestyle footage from the 1DX II that demonstrates this, it will have saved me thousands of dollars as the 1DX II is also far superior to the 1DC for rolling shutter. It's actually even better than many cinema cameras.

I suppose there is no need for C-Log or any "1DC II" when we can install Cinestyle for a similar effect.

[Luke Mason]

6 minutes ago, Kino said:

I posted this amazing Xyla on the other thread not knowing you had already posted it here. Anyway, the reason for the different apertures is because the 1DX II has better ISO performance and thus the 1DC needs to open up for more light on the Xyla test.

With Technicolor Cinestyle, the 1DX II is thus achieving the exact same DR as the 1DC with C-Log. If I can see some Cinestyle footage from the 1DX II that demonstrates this, it will have saved me thousands of dollars as the 1DX II is also far superior to the 1DC for rolling shutter. It's actually even better than many cinema cameras.

I suppose there is no need for C-Log or any "1DC II" when we can install Cinestyle for a similar effect.

If you look at my test, their ISO performance is the same, in neutral profile they have the exact exposure at each ISO rating. It's just that C-Log maps midtone differently so it appears to be darker. It's intended to be brought back to normal level in grading/by C-log LUT. This is very likely a flaw in their test methodology, the exposure has to be kept the same (same ISO, same apeture, same shutter).

What this test does not tell you is the difference in highlight roll off, as you've seen in my real world controlled test, 1DX II clips more harshly, Cinestyle raises shadow and it does not recover anymore highlight detail compared with neutral with -4 contrast (this has been researched before).

[Kino]

24 minutes ago, Luke Mason said:

If you look at my test, their ISO performance is the same, in neutral profile they have the exact exposure at each ISO rating. It's just that C-Log maps midtone differently so it appears to be darker. It's intended to be brought back to normal level in grading/by C-log LUT. This is very likely a flaw in their test methodology, the exposure has to be kept the same (same ISO, same apeture, same shutter).

What this test does not tell you is the difference in highlight roll off, as you've seen in my real world controlled test, 1DX II clips more harshly, Cinestyle raises shadow and it does not recover anymore highlight detail compared with neutral with -4 contrast (this has been researched before).

I agree that in the footage we have seen thus far, the 1DX II has much more contrast and has nowhere near the same highlight roll-off as the 1DC. At the end of the day, I don't care about Xyla tests as much so I have no idea why the DR is exactly the same here: the 1DC just has a very different and much more appealing look to me. As you suggest, the results may be due to a flawed testing methodology.

I just want to see 1DX II footage that demonstrates the DR results in this Cinema5d test because I'm not seeing it in the 1DX II videos. Perhaps it has to do with the way the DR is distributed in the 1DX II since it does not have the same DR as the 1DC in the highlights. C-Log is also able to access RAW sensor data in a way that Technicolor Cinestyle does not, so there should be a significant difference between them as there is on the 1DC itself, where neutral and Log show about 3-4 stops of DR difference. This difference is especially evident in the highlights:

 

[Luke Mason]

15 minutes ago, Kino said:

I agree that in the footage we have seen thus far, the 1DX II has much more contrast and has nowhere near the same highlight roll-off as the 1DC. At the end of the day, I don't care about Xyla tests as much so I have no idea why the DR is exactly the same here: the 1DC just has a very different and much more appealing look to me. I just want to see 1DX II footage that demonstrates the DR results in this Cinema5d test because I'm not seeing it in the 1DX II videos. Perhaps it has to do with the way the DR is distributed in the 1DX II since it does not have the same DR as the 1DC in the highlights. C-Log is also able to access RAW sensor data in a way that Technicolor Cinestyle does not, so there should be a significant difference between them as there is on the 1DC itself, where neutral and Log show about 3-4 stops of DR difference (especially in the highlights).

This is a better test:

C-log as is:

std gamma, -4 contrast:

[Andrew Reid]

3 hours ago, jcs said:

As expected, CLog doesn't provide any more usable DR on the 1DC vs. the 1DX II without CLog.

Shows what a bullshit test it was then.