Canon 1D C to get $4000 price drop February 1st

[mtheory]

Do wedding shooters actually call themselves "CINEMAtographers"? Wow.

[Lenscamera]

1. ​Because you get a free 1D X, for stills.

2. Because of stealth factor, nobody notices you

3. The 1.3x crop sensor is larger

4. The native EF mount is better than using an adapter

5. It's much smaller and lighter

6. It's less complicated, allowing you to direct the shoot rather than button press on the shoot

7. The image is better, I personally feel

8. The menus are faster and more direct

9. Ergonomic controls are more direct and less fiddly

10. Because it's cheaper used, mine cost £5k. The FS7 would have cost me at least £2k more.

11. I prefer Canon LOG to S-LOG, it is easier to grade. Lighter LOG.

12. I prefer the colour I get from Canon's cameras

13. It shoots to relatively cheap compact flash cards and they're common

14. Better low light (cleaner at 3200,6400 and 12,800)

15. OK yes it does have some disadvantages (rolling shutter, large file sizes, no peaking) but for me they are relatively unproblematic. Would love slow-mo though!

​True it's a good camera I have worked on a shoot where it was used but I'm talking mostly for video. Yes it's compact and stealth factor will be high. For me the only points from your list worth noting are 3,4 and 14 but I can do without. I think for me I will use a 1D C for small short projects for everything else the Fs7 will be my perfect tool. 

[Jimmy]

I'm gonna test a 1DC soon.... Do you recommend ETTR?

[Andrew Reid]

I'm gonna test a 1DC soon.... Do you recommend ETTR?

​Not particularly, depends on the shot. If half your image is in the upper part of the scope, ETTR compresses that area into a small luma range and you won't get as nice colour or smooth gradients.

ETTR is more for the shadows, helps bring them up into the middle and allocates more dynamic range to them than otherwise would be the case.

Just expose with the histo in the middle, a nice even spread.

Use Canon LOG. The view assist I find poses no problems either.

[Jimmy]

Cool thanks, I generally expose to protect highlight anyway as I'm not shooting people/skintones, but some cams can offer a bit of highlight recovery with log.

[mtheory]

​True it's a good camera I have worked on a shoot where it was used but I'm talking mostly for video. Yes it's compact and stealth factor will be high. For me the only points from your list worth noting are 3,4 and 14 but I can do without. I think for me I will use a 1D C for small short projects for everything else the Fs7 will be my perfect tool. 

First you ask a general question "why would SOMEONE spend the money on 1DC", then you get the answers and turn around and say you actually meant "Why would I spend money on 1DC". Why didn't you say from beginning it didn't fit YOUR PERSONAL requirements instead of pissing on a product that works for most others? You deserve a troll award, dude.

[photographer-at-large]

When is 1Dc Mark II expected?

[PaperBag]

Do wedding shooters actually call themselves "CINEMAtographers"? Wow.

​I don't, but many do. Some call themselves "filmmakers" as well. It's mainly a marketing thing.

The history of it is something like this: wedding shooters have for ages been trying to make their work more "cinematic" -- with 24p, 35mm lens adapters, grading, jibs, dollies, multiple angles, etc. (The last is an interesting technique. Rodriguez more or less did the same thing in El Mariachi -- large number of camera setups to give the illusion of multiple cameras and therefore "higher production value".)

When DSLRs came in around 2008, 2009, that was huge. And other developments as well, like GoPros, drones, lower prices of things like remote heads for jibs or motion control. So, now people started using steadicams, sliders, very shallow depth of field, timelapse, slow motion, better lenses, etc, and the goal really did become to make something as film-like as you could under crazy event conditions. Audio setups became more elaborate as well. Some (but not much) lighting technique was introduced. Even editing -- with much more time put into it, and the emergence of a polished 15 minute video of the day, including "time-shifting" and other techniques, over the traditional 2-hour documentary. The work was definitely more "cinematic" than it used to be, and, in fact, you couldn't really do both the traditional "documentary" style as well as the newer style at the same time. The gear was different -- instead of one HVX200 or Ex1, say, you were looking at a $50,000 investment in multiple cameras, lenses, multiple audio recorders, etc. The simple act of using the Rodriguez technique of running around to change angles meant you ended up with hundreds of 5-10 second clips instead of longer continuously watchable takes.

But, as a matter of marketing, how to convey this to clients, and how to distinguish yourselves from the guys doing still doing single-camera shoulder-mounted shoots, shining lights in everyone's faces? There's no easy word for "person who makes videos that look cinematic" -- "cinematic-ographers" doesn't work. So, the term "cinematographers" gained a lot of currency, though of course real filmmakers are invariable shocked to hear this.

One more quick thought -- mtheory, not sure if you've seen any wedding videos made in the last few years, but, if you haven't, do check out one or two 3-minute highlight videos -- Joe Simon, Ray Roman, Rob Adams, Bob Nicholas, etc, or even their short films. If you haven't seen any of these, I think you might be surprised. I mean, ultimately, the word doesn't matter, but I don't think there's any denying that there's a lot of artistry in the work, and that obtaining these sorts of results under event conditions is very challenging.

[mtheory]

how to distinguish yourselves from the guys doing still doing single-camera shoulder-mounted shoots, shining lights in everyone's faces?

​Make a film, a music video or a commercial. Everything else...absolutely everything and anything else...is videography, not matter how "cinematic" it is.

And Rodriguez didn't shoot weddings.

[Simon Bailey]

​Make a film, a music video or a commercial. Everything else...absolutely everything and anything else...is videography, not matter how "cinematic" it is.

And Rodriguez didn't shoot weddings.

​Film, music video or commercial dont automatically equal cinematic. There are plenty of those that look more video than filmic.  And on the other side there are plenty of corporate films, weddings etc that look cinematic. There are no rules and no need to even have titles. Cinematographer sounds sounds wanky and videographer doesnt quite cut it. Its easier just not to bother with titles. 

[Simon Bailey]

How about a new title if one really is needed?? 

Photographer works so well for for stills (sometimes used for motion) because it refers to the act of making a photo, not what the photo was made on film or digital. Its timeless because it refers to the act rather than the medium. 

So something like that is needed for motion.... 

If stills translates to photographer -

Still is to Photo

as 

Motion is to ??... Video? Whats another word for a video file that would work with ographer at the end...

[mtheory]

Sure, there are no rules, let's rename cooks to engineers and let them build our bridges, or rename plumbers into astronauts and send them into space, it's all just words anyway. Anybody know a good make-up artist to do brain surgery for this guy? I heard make-up artists are good with their hands. 

[Cinegain]

Cinematocrapper sounds like it could be a thing.

[Nick Hughes]

Why the hate for people who shoot weddings? As if you can't be an artist and also make money (a lot, in fact) with a not-necessarily-as-artistic job that just so happens to sharpen your skills as a shooter. Shooting weddings has allowed me to quit my shitty, irrelevant part-time day jobs and focus way more on my art since I can make the same amount of money in 1/5 of the time. So yeah, shooting a wedding might not stimulate my creative side quite as much as, say, an abstract non-narrative documentary, but at least I'm getting some damn good shoulder rig and glidecam practice during those 8-10 hours. Does that strip me of the title of cinematographer or artist? Or do those terms only apply when I'm actually working on an 'actual' film?

mtheory - you mentioned working on a commercial as an accepted use of the word 'cinematographer.' Where's the cinema in that? Sure, I'll admit that there's definitely more creative leeway, but you're still just selling something. A wedding and a commercial can both be infused with some strong creativity. They can just as easily be flat and boring, like the days when 'wedding video' meant shooting to VHS with lots of slow zooms and awful dissolves on every cut. By the way, if you can figure out a way to think creatively during a boring wedding, then you're probably going to fare well when you actually have some interesting content on your plate.

Ok, so maybe you don't actually have a disdain for those who film weddings (though I know plenty of people who do), maybe it's just the term 'wedding cinematographer.' But is it really so offensive for someone to use such words to market themselves to brides who probably don't know the first thing about video? They don't care that a wedding video is not technically 'cinema.' They want to know that you understand how important their wedding is and that you can capture it in an immensely beautiful and artistic way (at least to them). If someone calling themself a wedding cinematogropher helps them get hired, then so be it. If they happen to also be a crappy videographer, then so be it. I'm more worried about the over-saturation of the market than the degradation of the word 'cinema.' And honestly, the word has already been degraded in my mind by douchey film school kids who can't frame a shot but love to spew pseudo-philosophical garbage about 'pure cinema.' Nothing against film school, but man, I can't stand some of the people who come out with no experience, thinking they've already 'made it.' 

 

So there's my rant. I hope I'm not missing the point.

[mtheory]

Why the hate for people who shoot weddings?

First of all, please honorably accept this month's Victim Award, just wonderful talent for whining and conflating sarcasm with hate there.

Short answer to your rant, - if you're gonna use the word "cinema" in your professional title, it better be related to the art of storytelling, not just filming an event. That's what a wedding is. A live event. That you are covering. It is basically a fucking local news report with shallow DOF, no light and a bit more angles. It lacks both the art of storytelling and the craft of lighting. Yes, it sure feels creative. Making a tuna sandwich in the morning makes me feel creative too. But it isn't cinema. So don't call it that. That's all.

 

[noa]

Well, many self acclaimed wedding "cinematographers" claim they are telling the story of a wedding day, so it's storytelling, therefore, cinematography, no? But your right, a wedding is just an event, but good wedding shooters can make it look like "cinema" and that sells better then saying you are a videographer, especially if you charge 10K+ for one wedding. There are only a few that I feel did deserve the title of cinematographer which was Still-Motion and pacific pictures with their "City of Lakes" below. Still-Motion didn't want to be called videographers, they insisted on being called cinematographers as they did tell the story of a couple. Are they worthy of that title? Who cares, it's just a word. To be a bit on topic, the 1DC is being used by some very known wedding "cinematographers", so just by having that camera they also deserve the title

 

 

[Nick Hughes]

First of all, please honorably accept this month's Victim Award, just wonderful talent for whining and conflating sarcasm with hate there.

Short answer to your rant, - if you're gonna use the word "cinema" in your professional title, it better be related to the art of storytelling, not just filming an event. That's what a wedding is. A live event. That you are covering. It is basically a fucking local news report with shallow DOF, no light and a bit more angles. It lacks both the art of storytelling and the craft of lighting. Yes, it sure feels creative. Making a tuna sandwich in the morning makes me feel creative too. But it isn't cinema. So don't call it that. That's all.

 

​Thanks, I'll take any awards I can get. By the way, 'conflate' means to combine or fuse, not 'confuse,' so don't use that word to mean something it doesn't. Just kidding, I don't really care if people use words incorrectly from time to time.

Nah but really, that post wasn't directed at you, except for the part that was directed at you (and that question still stands). It was all moreso towards the general people who look down with disgust upon wedding shooters. I know a few. And I want to kick them in the groin. 

 

(and for the record, I don't call myself a wedding cinematographer)

 

[mtheory]

​Thanks, I'll take any awards I can get. By the way, 'conflate' means to combine or fuse, not 'confuse,' so don't use that word to mean something it doesn't. Just kidding, I don't really care if people use words incorrectly from time to time.

​Nope, you specifically conflated sarcasm with hate because whining about hate is easier than responding to legitimate criticism in the form of sarcasm. That is to say, I used the term 'conflate' because I interpreted your response as a sign of your dishonesty and intellectual cowardice, not your stupidity. Otherwise I would have used the term 'confuse'. 

Now let's address the mistake of the other English language drop-out, which funny enough, settles the debate :

Well, many self acclaimed wedding "cinematographers" claim they are 

There is no such thing as "self-acclaimed". There is "self-proclaimed" and "acclaimed". Acclaim, by definition, is a sympathy/approval/applaud/recognition that is directed at someone other than yourself. A man whose work is recognized by the public is called an acclaimed artist, as there are numerous public claims about his work being artistic.  A man whose work is not ( yet ) recognized is called a "self-proclaimed artist", because other than him there are few claims of his artistic talent from the public.

So what the fuck is a "self-acclaimed cinematographer"? Basically some dude that adores himself AND claims that he is publicly adored/recognized in the cinema industry while not being so. In other words, a liar. Like...a wedding videographer calling himself a cinematographer.

[Jimmy]

Grammar policing... The most tedious part of the internet.

Maybe time to get back to discussing the 1DC?

[noa]

 

There is no such thing as "self-acclaimed". There is "self-proclaimed" and "acclaimed".​

​oops, sorry, thx for correcting, I"m Dutch so it's not always easy to find the right phrases. (Not even sure if "phrase" is the right word either but I think you know what I mean ) 

also about your comment: Now let's address the mistake of the other English language drop-out

Not anyone on this forum is native English speaking. It's good that you correct but try to say it a bit more nicely.