Cant see the difference

digitalfailure

digitalfailure

Staff Bog Cleaner 2015
Messages
12,595
Name
Brian
Edit My Images
Yes
Canon have announced a new dslr with 4k video capability, it's called the 1d c and it appears to be a 1dx with the extra video functionality. I'm struggling to get my head around the need to have the 2 bodies, surely if this new 1d c can do everything the 1dx can do and more, it makes the 1dx irrelevant now???
 
1dx will attract different (read lower) import duties and tax due to the max time limit of each video clip....hence will cost a chunk less.....
 
I don't think they've announced a price for it yet, I wouldnt have thought the feature set of it would see it priced in a higher tax band as its a camera that does video in the same way the 5d3 does

:confused:
 
It's a filmmakers camera. Of no interest to stills togs.
 
arad85 said:
It's a filmmakers camera. Of no interest to stills togs.
Click to expand...

Hardly, it's a 1dx with better video.

It's a multimedia journalists dream, high end moving footage with Getty ready stills ability.
 
digitalfailure said:
I don't think they've announced a price for it yet, I wouldnt have thought the feature set of it would see it priced in a higher tax band as its a camera that does video in the same way the 5d3 does

:confused:
Click to expand...

The EU have, in their wisdom, decided that anything that can record more than (IIRC) 5 minutes of HD video in a single shot (or whatever it's called in video) is a camcorder and those are subject to higher import duties than stills cameras.

This new Canon has no such limitation (apparently) and so becomes a video recorder not a stills camera hence the higher anticipated price.

Still confused?
 
digitalfailure said:
surely if this new 1d c can do everything the 1dx can do and more, it makes the 1dx irrelevant now???
Click to expand...

Now ask yourself why the 1D X keeps being delayed ;) as posted elsewhere, could it be that Canon are looking how to stop you buying a 1D X and putting 1D C firmware on it, saving yourself £5K
 
Last edited:
digitalfailure said:
Hardly, it's a 1dx with better video.

It's a multimedia journalists dream, high end moving footage with Getty ready stills ability.
Click to expand...
You don't need 4k for journalism. Film making, yes, journalism - no. I'd say the audience was Spielberg and Cameron - or at least their camera people...
 
arad85 said:
You don't need 4k for journalism. Film making, yes, journalism - no. I'd say the audience was Spielberg and Cameron - or at least their camera people...
Click to expand...

Speilberg and Cameron's people use cameras worth close to half a million dollars! :)
 
odd jim said:
Speilberg and Cameron's people use cameras worth close to half a million dollars! :)
Click to expand...
I was just making the point that it's aimed at people who make films and TV programmes, not photographers... If I'd said it was aimed at people like David Shore, you wouldn't have known who I meant without reverting to google ;)
 
arad85 said:
You don't need 4k for journalism. Film making, yes, journalism - no. I'd say the audience was Spielberg and Cameron - or at least their camera people...
Click to expand...

Probably, but as we know, the lines between different sectors blur easily when new (read: accessible) technology is introduced - selling some high quality footage to the news (or whatever) might get you some extra bucks and that pays off a £15000 camera off a lot quicker....
 
Last edited:
arad85 said:
I was just making the point that it's aimed at people who make films and TV programmes, not photographers... If I'd said it was aimed at people like David Shore, you wouldn't have known who I meant without reverting to google ;)
Click to expand...

I might have known, but now you'll never know, lol!
 
arad85 said:
I was just making the point that it's aimed at people who make films and TV programmes, not photographers... If I'd said it was aimed at people like David Shore, you wouldn't have known who I meant without reverting to google ;)
Click to expand...

David shore is a writer/producer not a director ;)

I'm an avid due south and house fan :P


The 1dc has different hardware to combat heat too
 
Last edited:
specialman said:
Probably, but as we know, the lines between different sectors blur easily when new (read: accessible) technology is introduced - selling some high quality footage to the news (or whatever) might get you some extra bucks and that pays off a £15000 camera off a lot quicker....
Click to expand...
TV isn't broadcast at any resolution above 1080p anywhere in the world at the moment and the broadcast studios aren't geared up to take anything above 1080p as far as I'm aware. I really don't think it's going to get you anything extra by recording in 4k then downsizing when the 1808p the 1Dx produces is perfectly adequate.

You only have to look at the dodgy mobile phone footage of events in Syria to see that high quality footage is not needed to make the headlines.

This camera will be very firmly buried amongst some ironmongery and addon screens such that you'll have to look very closely to see there's a DSLR in there.

What Canon are selling here is their ability to produce large CMOS sensors cost effectively.
 
Bristolian said:
The EU have, in their wisdom, decided that anything that can record more than (IIRC) 5 minutes of HD video in a single shot (or whatever it's called in video) is a camcorder and those are subject to higher import duties than stills cameras.

This new Canon has no such limitation (apparently) and so becomes a video recorder not a stills camera hence the higher anticipated price.

Still confused?
Click to expand...

It's 30 minutes. Hence the fact that DSLR's tend to stop at 29 mins 59 secs.
 
arad85 said:
TV isn't broadcast at any resolution above 1080p anywhere in the world at the moment and the broadcast studios aren't geared up to take anything above 1080p as far as I'm aware. I really don't think it's going to get you anything extra by recording in 4k then downsizing when the 1808p the 1Dx produces is perfectly adequate.

You only have to look at the dodgy mobile phone footage of events in Syria to see that high quality footage is not needed to make the headlines.

This camera will be very firmly buried amongst some ironmongery and addon screens such that you'll have to look very closely to see there's a DSLR in there.

What Canon are selling here is their ability to produce large CMOS sensors cost effectively.
Click to expand...

True, but I wasn't talking solely about news footage although in relation to the news, shonky footage off mobiles will still be around as long as shonky capture is built into phones and people own them and use them.

But there's always a point where technology moves forward.....
 
Last edited:
Bristolian said:
It's 30 minutes of non-HD recording in a single clip or 5 minutes of HD - just checked the HMRC site ;)
Click to expand...

I don't know which page you've seen that on but it's incorrect, the likes of the EU Panasonic micro 4/3 cameras (and all others I'm sure) are restricted to 29 minutes and 59 seconds in any of their video modes including 1080p. The non-EU version have no such limit in any of the video modes. From what I remember of the original change which still applies, the 30 minutes limit applies to any video recording 800x600 at 23 frames per second and above.

John
 
The 5d2 andd 3 will both record 29.59 @1080, so that info must be incorrect.
 
Phil Young said:
Imagine what you could do with a long lens shooting in 4k and then editing in 720p...the crop factor alone is a nice way to achieve certain shots.
Click to expand...

We don't need to imagine it. We do it every day with stills. :)
 
odd jim said:
Speilberg and Cameron's people use cameras worth close to half a million dollars! :)
Click to expand...

They do use DSLR's too....they can go places and get shots that half a million dollar cameras can't. Stunt scenes for example....a DSLR is disposable by their standards.
 
Beardy said:
They do use DSLR's too....they can go places and get shots that half a million dollar cameras can't. Stunt scenes for example....a DSLR is disposable by their standards.
Click to expand...

No they dont.

Sorry, they just dont. When you have budgets of $250 million you don't use dslr's.

Google Panavision ;)

99% of film companies rent them directly from Panavision, they don't even buy their own.
 
Last edited:
odd jim said:
No they dont.

Sorry, they just dont. When you have budgets of $250 million you don't use dslr's.

Google Panavision ;)

99% of film companies rent them directly from Panavision, they don't even buy their own.
Click to expand...

and something like 90% of this years oscar winners were shot on kodak flim, don't think that fits in a dslr :)
 
arad85 said:
I'd say the audience was Spielberg
Click to expand...

Spielberg shoots exclusively film (and usually anamorphic panavison) and has finished all his films except War Horse traditionally (i.e with no film scanning for digital editing, grading etc). Somehow don't think he'll be using this!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top