Should I sell my 5D MKIII and pay the difference for a used 1DC?

[Ty Harper]

There's a few used 1DC I'm seeing going for about $3800.

Should I...

Sell my 5D MKIII and pay the difference on a 1DC?

I already have a ton of CF cards and my lenses are all Canon (except for a Nikon 35-70mm) + I'm used to the large file workflow.

The lack of DPAF and other features is frustrating but I don't see myself ever being able to justify buying something like a 1DX II.  

I also think as far as long term investments go, a 1DC is fairly future-proof and it's scarcity amongst documentarians (compared to other popular DSLRs) will likely make it a unique vintage look to have in your arsenal moving forward (am I wrong about this?).

Keep my 5D MKIII and just buy an A7S II?

The A7S II seems like the practical option but I'm a fan of the Canon out the box look (I'm a documentarian first so I'd rather focus on story than worry about becoming a better color grader) so I'm not really looking forward to constantly having to color match.

Thoughts?

Anything I'm not taking into consideration?

Now that it's discontinued do you think the 1DC price will drop or rise?

 

[Mattias Burling]

Personally I switched from the 5Dmkiii with Raw to the 1DC. And honestly I was a bit underwhelmed. Its a nice image but not that much better than the ML Raw. And not enough imo to justify the extra cost and lack of video features. Not a fan of the ergonomics either, comfortable grip but annoyingly tall imo.

But... I didnt use any of them for stills. If you shoot alot of stills the 1DC is a monster just like the 1DX. 

I also had the a7sii but again, rather have a 5D. Would choose the 1DC over the a7sii as well.

[mercer]

I think they are both great cameras, with their own unique looks. With MKiii you get ML Raw and it's simply gorgeous. With the 1Dc you get Canon LOG, equally gorgeous IMO, just different. Of those options, if you can afford it, I would go with the 1Dc... when paired with the right glass, the image is on a different level. There's just nothing else like it at that price point. But, in all honesty, if I had $4000 to spend, I would probably get a C100 mkii before either of them... DPAF, 60p, small file size, Canon LOG, XLR professional quality audio... a truly professional level video camera. You may be able to find a used C100 mkii and a used A7Sii if you're really interested in the Sony. 

[Ty Harper]

51 minutes ago, Mattias Burling said:

Personally I switched from the 5Dmkiii with Raw to the 1DC. And honestly I was a bit underwhelmed. Its a nice image but not that much better than the ML Raw. And not enough imo to justify the extra cost and lack of video features. Not a fan of the ergonomics either, comfortable grip but annoyingly tall imo.

But... I didn't use any of them for stills. If you shoot alot of stills the 1DC is a monster just like the 1DX. 

I also had the a7sii but again, rather have a 5D. Would choose the 1DC over the a7sii as well.

Hmmm, did you go back to the 5D MKIII Raw?

Maybe I should just buy another 5D III and be content with 1080 raw.

[jcs]

22 minutes ago, mercer said:

But, in all honesty, if I had $4000 to spend, I would probably get a C100 mkii before either of them... DPAF, 60p, small file size, Canon LOG, XLR professional quality audio... a truly professional level video camera. You may be able to find a used C100 mkii and a used A7Sii if you're really interested in the Sony. 

We replaced our backup 5D3 with a 1DX II: shooting both stills and video. The 1DX II / 1DC are great 'stealth' video cameras. Our main video camera is now the C300 II. PDAF, a swivel screen, pro audio, great 1080p (4K is not need for our current projects and Premiere still struggles with 4K material (each PP CC update is hit or miss- sometimes 4K works better, sometimes worse. FCPX handles 4K fine (even with high quality rendering / no transcoding)). Thus the C100 II really is a great deal right now- fantastic 1080p, pro audio, swivel screen, PDAF, tiny files, Canon color, etc.

[Ty Harper]

29 minutes ago, mercer said:

I think they are both great cameras, with their own unique looks. With MKiii you get ML Raw and it's simply gorgeous. With the 1Dc you get Canon LOG, equally gorgeous IMO, just different. Of those options, if you can afford it, I would go with the 1Dc... when paired with the right glass, the image is on a different level. There's just nothing else like it at that price point. But, in all honesty, if I had $4000 to spend, I would probably get a C100 mkii before either of them... DPAF, 60p, small file size, Canon LOG, XLR professional quality audio... a truly professional level video camera. You may be able to find a used C100 mkii and a used A7Sii if you're really interested in the Sony. 

I used the C300 professionally for a while and loved it (and the C100), but for my personal projects I'd prefer the option of either building up a cage (I've got the Wooden Camera one) with an external recorder and monitor, or travelling light with just the DSLR.

DPAF is the one thing I really want but not a deal breaker. A7S II just seems like the practical move but again I feel like the 1DC might be one of those unique looks that become vintage in the future.

[independent]

Nothing shot on the 1dc would be identifiably unique. It's just a camera.

What is far more recognizable is style of lighting or grading. 

[mercer]

2 hours ago, Ty Harper said:

I used the C300 professionally for a while and loved it (and the C100), but for my personal projects I'd prefer the option of either building up a cage (I've got the Wooden Camera one) with an external recorder and monitor, or travelling light with just the DSLR.

DPAF is the one thing I really want but not a deal breaker. A7S II just seems like the practical move but again I feel like the 1DC might be one of those unique looks that become vintage in the future.

That's understandable. Other than my XC10, I've only ever used low end DSLRs. Because I love the Canon Log out of the XC10, and since I cannot afford a C100, I've decided I am probably going to get an 80D... for close ups and DPAF. Hopefully I can match the two.

If I was contemplating switching DSLR brands, I would go with a Nikon D750 or D500 before I'd go with a Sony. I get the appeal of the A7Sii, but I'd rather deal with Nikon Flat profile before SLog... But I am not that great of a colorist either. 

So with all that being said, I'd definitely pick the 1DC before the Sony. But that's just me... Or wait a year and get the 1dxii used for the same price the 1DC is going for now. 

2 hours ago, jcs said:

We replaced our backup 5D3 with a 1DX II: shooting both stills and video. The 1DX II / 1DC are great 'stealth' video cameras. Our main video camera is now the C300 II. PDAF, a swivel screen, pro audio, great 1080p (4K is not need for our current projects and Premiere still struggles with 4K material (each PP CC update is hit or miss- sometimes 4K works better, sometimes worse. FCPX handles 4K fine (even with high quality rendering / no transcoding)). Thus the C100 II really is a great deal right now- fantastic 1080p, pro audio, swivel screen, PDAF, tiny files, Canon color, etc.

The C300ii is beautiful. In the recent C500 thread, Kino recently posted some clips from the internal 10 bit 1080p and it looks amazing. 

[squig]

8bit and 25ms rolling shutter is no upgrade. If you need 4k delivery the Fujifilm X-T2 has really good color; the 4k rolling shutter is still high though. The A7s was a real disappointment vs the 5D MkIII, the A7sII has better color but it's still not even close to the 5D.

[Django]

Canon has great colors no doubt but isn't that what Log + grading is about? A7S2 is still a beast for offering FF full readout 4K, zebra, peaking, log & IBIS.. 5D3 image is soft as hell 1080p and judders like crazy as soon as you pan. I still use mine as B-cam to my C100 PDAF but would seriously consider ditching it for an A7S2 if stills weren't important to me..

[Ty Harper]

12 minutes ago, squig said:

8bit and 25ms rolling shutter is no upgrade. If you need 4k delivery the Fujifilm X-T2 has really good color; the 4k rolling shutter is still high though. The A7s was a real disappointment vs the 5D MkIII, the A7sII has better color but it's still not even close to the 5D.

X-T2 is also on my radar, just haven't seen enough tests/reviews to include it in my options yet.

[Ty Harper]

40 minutes ago, Django said:

Canon has great colors no doubt but isn't that what Log + grading is about? A7S2 is still a beast for offering FF full readout 4K, zebra, peaking, log & IBIS.. 5D3 image is soft as hell 1080p and judders like crazy as soon as you pan. I still use mine as B-cam to my C100 PDAF but would seriously consider ditching it for an A7S2 if stills weren't important to me..

Yeah A7SII has got it feature-wise. 

As far as Log/grading goes, I'm a one-man band, and grading is a skill that doesn't come easy to me (yet?). I hope to get better at it (I actually feel like grading is a complex art like mixing/mastering), but I'm shooting, editing, producing and trying to create docs that make sense as video and as standalone audio, so if I can continue to get out the box Canon colors and not have to worry about grading, I'll be very happy.

More power to those that can grade and work magic with log but I'm just being realistic with my time.

[Django]

Grading is definitely a subtle art.. you could spend all day and in the end your footage looks like shit. That's why you got LUTs and Cine picture profiles. 

If you wanna remain with Canon for the colors then I'd strongly suggest as others have the C100 mark 2. I'm in love with this camera, the image, the video assist features, dual pixel AF, ND's & overall ergonomics/ease of use. The peace of mind it gives is so rewarding (i'm always nervous on how a shoot is going to turn out with DSLRs).

Btw, if Canon release a mk3 this year with 4K, super slo-mo and XC10 422 codec.. I'd upgrade in a heartbeat and be content for years to come.. Currently as is, i'm still undecided on what to do for my upcoming 4K needs..

[Andrew Reid]

If you are happy with the full frame raw image from the 5D Mark III you will love the full frame 1080p straight out of the 1D C as well, especially the 1.3x crop HDMI 1080p when 4K mode is engaged. I found raw on the 5D Mark III to be great, but reliability isn't a strong point.

[Dimitris Stasinos]

As a 5d iii user and big fan of 5d ML raw, i always wondered how raw on 5d is considered as a "real" option for this camera and not a luxury (time consuming, unriable, extreme cost per Gb of footage etc). It seems that you need these cameras for real jobs so i would stay away from a camera which has two modes: A) crappy & softy low cost HD (personal opinion as an owner...don't shoot me...), B) spectacular & CC friendly raw with a serious price tag. For me, a tool has to give a constant result every time i use it, because you never know what kind of challenge you will face in the near future. Lets say you have a 2-cam/100 min event coverage next week....hmmmm....mode A...damn, what if you desperately need mode B? You have seen it, you liked it but you can't have it this time because it's not a video clip.

Also, you may have become used to the workflow but you will never look back once you have used a proper codec from a serious video camera.

Also  If you keep your 5d and purchase an A7s ii you will have to face a painful workflow on the one hand and a CC odyssey on the other to match these cameras in post. So, i would pay the difference for a 1dc...

[squig]

1Dc MJPEG files are about the same size as 5D Mk3 raw 2.39:1 1080p files (62MB/s); even at full 1080p it's only around a 30% increase in disk space to shoot raw.

[Dimitris Stasinos]

45 minutes ago, squig said:

1Dc MJPEG files are about the same size as 5D Mk3 raw 2.39:1 1080p files (62MB/s); even at full 1080p it's only around a 30% increase in disk space to shoot raw.

If i remember correctly the bitrate for raw 1080p is 83 MB/s not 62. The 1dc 4K files are about 30% smaller as you stated but i guess the quality (just guessing here since i do not have the 1dc) after downscaling to 1080p will be equal if not superior. Maybe Andrew can enlight us. Also, i had i card failure with the ML hack (Lexar 1000x fried) and i have never used it after that so this is why i don't recommend it (only as a free time luxury as i said before).

[squig]

1 hour ago, Dimitris Stasinos said:

If i remember correctly the bitrate for raw 1080p is 83 MB/s not 62. The 1dc 4K files are about 30% smaller as you stated but i guess the quality (just guessing here since i do not have the 1dc) after downscaling to 1080p will be equal if not superior. Maybe Andrew can enlight us. Also, i had i card failure with the ML hack (Lexar 1000x fried) and i have never used it after that so this is why i don't recommend it (only as a free time luxury as i said before).

There's more to the IQ equation than just pixels. You have to factor in post processing; a compressed 8bit 4:2:2 image doesn't hold up as well as a 14bit raw image when it's denoised and graded. I see an IQ hit when I debayer raw files to 10bit ProRes4444; uncompressed 10bit RGB files look a lot better. Everybody's needs and expectations differ; I'm making features for theatrical release where a digital negative is the gold standard (after film of course).

CF cards can and do fail on every camera. I use 64Mb Lexars and Toshibas, I've never had one fail on me, but if one does the most I'll lose is 15min.

[neosushi]

Don't sell anything. Just buy a samsung NX1 for those 4K ultra detailed image you might need. 

[Ty Harper]

Just got an offer on a 1DC that seems like a very good price. Weighing everything everyone has said about the pros and cons of the 1DC, is $3000 for a used 1DC that includes cards and 2 batteries worth it?

Also wondering whether it ever makes sense to purchase one with a scratch on the sensor? (the one with the scratch on the sensor is not the one being offered for $3000)