# Canon EOS-1D C Coming Down in Price Again?



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jan 14, 2015)

```
<p>It looks like Canon Hong Kong has dropped the price of the Canon EOS-1D C down to what coverts to $7000USD. Will we see this sort of price decrease in Europe or North America? Only time will tell.</p>
<p><strong>From EOSHD

</strong><em>“According to <a href="http://www.eoshd.com/comments/topic/7709-canon-1d-c-used-price-slips-under-%C2%A35000-and-why-i-decided-to-take-the-gamble-and-get-one/?page=8">EOSHD forum member Fabuloux</a>, whose local dealer now sells the 1D C for HKD 54,000 ($7000 US dollars) the low price is a result of Canon lowering the official list price to $61,999 HK dollars. Sure enough you can view the new price on the official Canon Hong Kong website <a href="http://www.canon.com.hk/en/product/catalog/productItemDetails.do?prrfnbr=200477">here</a>.  That is now MUCH closer to the RRP in Hong Kong of the plain old 1D X, which sells for $44,000 ($5700 US dollars).”</em><strong>

</strong></p>
<p>The Canon EOS-1D C currently lists for <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/855962-REG/Canon_EOS_1D_C_EOS_1D_C_4K_Cinema.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">$11,999 at B&H Photo</a>.</p>
<p>Source: [<a href="http://www.eoshd.com/2015/01/canon-hong-kong-officially-lower-1d-c-price-7000/" target="_blank">EOSHD</a>] | <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/855962-REG/Canon_EOS_1D_C_EOS_1D_C_4K_Cinema.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">Canon EOS-1D C at B&H Photo</a></p>
<p><em>thanks Fred</em></p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## Famateur (Jan 15, 2015)

If pricing in Europe and North America follow, I'll bet this is a strong indicator that the next 5-series body will do 4K video...


----------



## WeekendWarrior (Jan 15, 2015)

Famateur said:


> If pricing in Europe and North America follow, I'll bet this is a strong indicator that the next 5-series body will do 4K video...



Lets hope!


----------



## user3977 (Jan 15, 2015)

can anyone tell the reason to use this body for photography? I watched the victorias secret fashion show and saw a couple photographers using the 1Dc you can tell by the little red C on the body, kinda stands out with a black body. just wondering why pay the premium to use it for shooting?


----------



## thelebaron (Jan 15, 2015)

with the 4k video you can probably use screengrabs from any video it outputs as photos


----------



## preppyak (Jan 15, 2015)

user3977 said:


> can anyone tell the reason to use this body for photography? I watched the victorias secret fashion show and saw a couple photographers using the 1Dc you can tell by the little red C on the body, kinda stands out with a black body. just wondering why pay the premium to use it for shooting?


Because its a one-size fits all solution for them. The 1D-C is the 1DX, but with video capabilities for 4k as well. So, if you're a fashion photog, odds are you pretty much have to be able to do both photo and video today. 1D-C is uniquely positioned to do both, and of course, have the ability to shoot high frame rates for other pro jobs.

Honestly, if the new price is true, the question is why anyone would purchase the 1DX. For $1000 more you get 4K video, etc.



thelebaron said:


> with the 4k video you can probably use screengrabs from any video it outputs as photos


yeah, but they are jpeg compressed and prone to motion artifacts. Its the RAW cameras where 4k is really interesting


----------



## dash2k8 (Jan 15, 2015)

> with the 4k video you can probably use screengrabs from any video it outputs as photos



It's actually been done. There was a video review of screengrabs from a 1DC printed to a huge size (A1? can't remember, but it was a roll). The details were exquisite and comparable to the best stills cameras (1DX, D4s). Of course, being a jpg there was not very much leeway in post editing so the video shoot has to be done right. And as mentioned above, it's prone to motion blur because videos are usually shot at 1/50s or 1/60s, so screengrabbing from high-speed events is close to useless.


----------



## Peer (Jan 15, 2015)

dash2k8 said:


> And as mentioned above, it's prone to motion blur because videos are usually shot at 1/50s or 1/60s, so screengrabbing from high-speed events is close to useless.



At "high-speed events" you just bump the shutter speed for 4k frame grabs. No prob. 

-- peer


----------



## dash2k8 (Jan 15, 2015)

Peer said:


> dash2k8 said:
> 
> 
> > And as mentioned above, it's prone to motion blur because videos are usually shot at 1/50s or 1/60s, so screengrabbing from high-speed events is close to useless.
> ...



I don't follow. You're not suggesting shooting video at 1/125s or 1/250s just so you can grab stills from it? That would ruin the video itself. It would be better to just shoot photos at 1/1000s.


----------



## Peer (Jan 15, 2015)

dash2k8 said:


> I don't follow. You're not suggesting shooting video at 1/125s or 1/250s just so you can grab stills from it?



Yes, for frame grab photo shoots, that's how it's done. But, of course, for pure video footage you'd use the 180-degree rule (e.g., 1/48s for the 1DC). 

-- peer


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jan 15, 2015)

WeekendWarrior said:


> Famateur said:
> 
> 
> > If pricing in Europe and North America follow, I'll bet this is a strong indicator that the next 5-series body will do 4K video...
> ...



+1


----------



## Antono Refa (Jan 15, 2015)

dash2k8 said:


> > with the 4k video you can probably use screengrabs from any video it outputs as photos
> 
> 
> 
> It's actually been done. There was a video review of screengrabs from a 1DC printed to a huge size (A1? can't remember, but it was a roll). The details were exquisite and comparable to the best stills cameras (1DX, D4s).



4K resolution is 4096x2160, which is 8.5MP with an aspect ration of 1:1.9, which AFAIK is rare in print, e.g. magazine page sizes are 1:1.3. I doubt that would make a quality print larger than A3.


----------



## Peer (Jan 15, 2015)

thelebaron said:


> with the 4k video you can probably use screengrabs from any video it outputs as photos



Nowadays, using frame-grabs in photography is a fairly common practice, (although mostly done with a 6k RED camera). Here's with the IDC: http://vimeo.com/56241602 

-- peer


----------



## PureClassA (Jan 15, 2015)

Yes...but will the new 5 body output 4k without the crud? A truly clean out for an external recorder? Does the 1DC? I don't even know


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jan 15, 2015)

PureClassA said:


> Yes...but will the new 5 body output 4k without the crud? A truly clean out for an external recorder?



If not and if the cam doesn't have better DR for stills then the solution is to keep 5D3 for general shooting and 1080P RAW and to get some A7R II with 4k from Sony later this year.


----------



## PureClassA (Jan 15, 2015)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> PureClassA said:
> 
> 
> > Yes...but will the new 5 body output 4k without the crud? A truly clean out for an external recorder?
> ...




Nah. Sony a7s II for this guy. I'm primarily interested in a new 1DX model. I do a lot of dance. Renting right now is fine, but I need speed. Otherwise 6D is lovely for my other stuff. Want video. Hence a7S... short of Canon blowing our minds with a new 5 body that can


----------



## dash2k8 (Jan 15, 2015)

Antono Refa said:


> dash2k8 said:
> 
> 
> > > with the 4k video you can probably use screengrabs from any video it outputs as photos
> ...



I was surprised myself. Here's one of many Youtube videos that prove 1DC screengrabs can print to HUGE sizes:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwpvzza_Q04

This is definitely many times larger than A3.


----------



## thelebaron (Jan 16, 2015)

PureClassA said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > PureClassA said:
> ...



Canon is all about continuity within their own product lines, Id love to be wrong but even if its capable I doubt canon allows a 5d to usurp their flagship cinema dslr with better video quality. expecting the same as the 7d2 personally.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 16, 2015)

thelebaron said:


> PureClassA said:
> 
> 
> > LetTheRightLensIn said:
> ...



Why? The 5D MkII ($2,500) did to the 1Ds MkIII ($7,999) with both a stills equaling and video beating camera (which wasn't difficult as the $7,999 camera didn't have video).


----------



## thelebaron (Jan 16, 2015)

The difference is that canon probably didnt even realise how big a deal that was. Look at how intentionally gimped the 6d's autofocus is. The cxxx line, and 1dc both came out at around the same time or before the 5d3 and feature better video/options.


----------



## expatinasia (Jan 16, 2015)

What exactly is the difference between a 1D C and 1D X? Is it just the firmware, or are there other differences? Has anyone broke them both down to look at the internals?

Not that any of that is all that important, but if it falls in price much more I could be very interested in getting a 1D C. And I never thought I would say that!

Why would I consider it now? I find myself more and more taking stills from the video I shoot with the 1D X. Of course, as it is not 4K they have limited use, and it would be great to be able to combine a 1D X with a 1D C to get the best of both worlds.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 16, 2015)

expatinasia said:


> What exactly is the difference between a 1D C and 1D X? Is it just the firmware, or are there other differences? Has anyone broke them both down to look at the internals?



There is a bigger heat sink inside the 1DC that accounts for the 150g difference in weight between them, the 1DC weighs more, and, apparently, that is matched to _'reworked circuitry and design to dissipate the heat from 4K recording'_. Another hardware difference is that the 1DC has a headphone jack.


----------



## mkabi (Jan 17, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> Why? The 5D MkII ($2,500) did to the 1Ds MkIII ($7,999) with both a stills equaling and video beating camera (which wasn't difficult as the $7,999 camera didn't have video).



First, just to clarify that the 5D Mark 2 was not announced with a $2500 price tag.
I don`t know how much it was when announced, but to give you an idea the original 5D (classic) was announced with a price tag of $3299 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EOS_5D)

Second, I believe that Canon wanted to capitalize on Hollywood using their equipment, hence the cinema line.
I mean, movies like `Captain America: The First Avenger` used the 5D Mark 2 and it grossed $370 Million (worldwide; budget was $140 Million). 
http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/about_canon?pageKeyCode=pressreldetail&docId=0901e0248035b051

Cannibalize your own brand and/or be Cannibalized by someone else... I think they've done that once and lost out already???


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 17, 2015)

mkabi said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Why? The 5D MkII ($2,500) did to the 1Ds MkIII ($7,999) with both a stills equaling and video beating camera (which wasn't difficult as the $7,999 camera didn't have video).
> ...



First: When the 5D MkII was released it was $3,499, less than half the list price of a 1Ds MkIII at $7,999. It had, essentially, the same sensor but it could do video, hence my comments.

Second: You might believe that, but your timeline is out of sync. Canon had no idea of the cat that was in their bag when they released the video able 5D MkII, not a clue. That big studios used them as throw away cameras, literally, and that the independents jumped on the bandwagon along with ML that grew it even more, and the fact that adapters are so readily available for the EOS mount and there are a billion good video able manual focus lenses available for next to nothing, was a complete surprise to Canon, there is no way on earth they planned that, it just took on a world of it's own. If any 5 series should be called 'classic' (and none of them should) it should be the 5D MkII.


----------



## expatinasia (Jan 17, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> expatinasia said:
> 
> 
> > What exactly is the difference between a 1D C and 1D X? Is it just the firmware, or are there other differences? Has anyone broke them both down to look at the internals?
> ...



Thanks, privatebydesign. So there is zero difference between the two in terms of stills performance?

These price cuts do make the 1D C very interesting. Definitely worth watching more closely.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 17, 2015)

That is correct, the stills performance is identical.

I wouldn't get too excited though, I strongly suspect we will have a 'new wave' of gear in the mid term, unless you are a committed 1 series user all rumours point to the 5 series bodies getting the goodies in future with, it seems, the single 1 series being left for the sport and bird shooters. Don't forget you can get 1DX's for well under $5,000 new, so that still puts a decent premium on the 1DC's limited 4k output.


----------



## expatinasia (Jan 17, 2015)

You make some good points there, pbd.

I am definitely a committed 1-series user, and doubt I would buy anything else in the future as I like the form, quality, weather proofing, weight etc. For what I do, they really are perfect. But it would be nice to have a camera that can take 4K video and 1D X-quality stills too. My work is mainly stills, but I do an awful lot of videos as well, and the ability to take quality stills from a 4K video would be nice especially with the same menu, layout and system on both cameras.

Will be keeping my eye on the 1D C a bit more closely now.


----------



## mkabi (Jan 17, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> mkabi said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



Exactly.

You asked "Why?" Right? 
Thats my reason why they _may_ not cannibalize the 1DC like the way you thought they cannibalized the 1DsIII by introducing the 5DII. BTW, besides the sensor, nothing else is the same... build, metering, AF...
They probably introduced video into 5DII, because they probably thought that they were skimping on video...
I mean your basic camcorder was able to take still pictures (go find yourself an early 2000 handheld camcorder, switch it to camera mode and take a picture), so _may be_ they were worried that their customers were going to ask since a camcorder is able to do both video and stills, why wasn't their expensive DSLRs able to do video? 

Anyway, my point is that planned or not... in this case it is not (planned)...
They lost out to the big studios...

Now, they want to make the big bucks from the studios (who made big bucks off of them).
And, the independents like us are complaining that we can't afford the stuff that is offered to the studios, which is obvious because it is a separate line called the cinema line.

We don't complain that Zeiss CP.2 lenses cost an arm and leg nor do we complain that the ZE lenses are crippled compared to the CP.2. And, yet we complain that the 7DII is crippled, and the 5D4 may not come with 4K.

You would think that they would care for the independents, we probably bought most of their cameras, but then again... they allowed us to hack into their cameras, heaven forbid if they started suing us.

Red cameras, Arri cameras they are all way out of our leagues... but we dont' complain about them.
Many companies, including Canon and Sony are cannibalizing their cameras... how come RED & Arri aren't worried and trying to cannibalize themselves?

BTW, my timeline is not out of sync, let me repost it - http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/about_canon?pageKeyCode=pressreldetail&docId=0901e0248035b051&WT.mc_id=C126149

Please read it, they mention that parts of Iron Man 2 was also filmed with 5DII.
Iron Man 2 was released in April 30, 2010 (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1228705/?ref_=nv_sr_3)
Rhetorical questions: How long does it take to write, cast, build sets, film and edit a movie???
Canon 5DII was announced September 17, 2008 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EOS_5D_Mark_II)
It was _announced_ in the final quarter of 2008, but it was available??? Late 2008, early 2009, right?
A movie takes about a year to produce no? So a 2010 movie is possible, right?

And, the following year, after Iron Man 2 they released Captain America (2011), it just goes to show that they made at least 2 blockbuster movies with the 5DII. Throw away cameras???
BTW, Iron Man 2 Grossed $623.9 million, more than triple their budget (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Man_2)

Now, where is Canon's share in those high grossing films?

If you screw up once, you can pass it off as an accident.
You screw up twice and you become the village idiot.


You know what the problem is??? We (including myself) are definitely spoiled.
Canon has wet our lips and now we are trying to hog the bottle.


----------



## Ebrahim Saadawi (Jan 20, 2015)

dash2k8 said:


> Peer said:
> 
> 
> > dash2k8 said:
> ...



Shooting video at a higher shutter speed than 180 degree is an excessively common practise. Videos can look perfect at 1/125, or higher, you just lose a little bit of motion blur on moving subjects, which to the expert eyes sometimes looks un-filmic if it's used in a theatrical feature film, but other types of un-filmic video? 180 degree is absolutely nothing to worry about. 

I would gladly shoot a wedding video with the 1DC at a 1/125 shutter at 4K and hand the couple a beautiful photography book on the side. 

Not to mention for people who always demand the highest of frame rates for news,sports, etc, where 12fps on the 1dx is not enough, you with the 1Dc, you can just pull down the resolution to Medium Jpeg and shoot continuous 24fps! 

It's a very interesting approach to discover and I am willing to give it try. It has it's faults, but as a videographer just being able to offer a high quality stills book besides my delivery is so tempting (especially rates-wise)

I hope the 1Dc really gets to 7K. It's one of my absolute most favourite cameras and I always lusted over owning one, just couldn't justify the 12K price tag because if I bought one at that price, the camera nerd in me would be winning over common sense (and over my credit card debt!)


----------



## dash2k8 (Jan 21, 2015)

I respectfully disagree that the 180-rule can be safely disregarded for non-film shoots. Shooting sports at 1/1000s just looks too rough. There still needs to be a certain level of motion blur. The exception would be high frame rate shoots (240fps+), then the visual clarity would help tremendous.

I do agree that 1/125s is commonly used. I do it myself and have no issues. But to shoot at super-high shutter speeds just so we can get a screengrab from it? Seems like the priority is the photo, in which case I'd gladly shoot in still mode. I would not risk shooting a dancing couple at 1/250s for fear of smearing their faces with motion blur.


----------



## Ebrahim Saadawi (Jan 21, 2015)

Point taken. I guess it's a matter of how sensitive one is to changing from the 180 degree rule, I believe most of my audience are not able to see a difference at all


what is the minimum shutter speed commonly used in various photography fields? Say 
Sports: shooting a football match
news: on the streets
events: indoor, outdoor
weddings: normal portraits of people/scenery
portraiture photography:

This would be helpful to know in order for us to evaluate how useful the video approach could be in real life photography situations


----------



## dash2k8 (Jan 21, 2015)

You raise a good point, my friend. Indeed, I agree most ppl cannot "see" the difference, but there are some customers who will comment that the motion looks "off" and can't describe it.  It mostly happens when there are elements of water (fountain, water splash) where the droplets look too sharp. I'm not saying it's a bad thing since different situations call for different looks, I'm just saying that shooting video at high shutter speeds for the sake of photo is kinda doing things backwards. If it works for you, I can respect that.


----------



## kphoto99 (Jan 21, 2015)

dash2k8 said:


> You raise a good point, my friend. Indeed, I agree most ppl cannot "see" the difference, but there are some customers who will comment that the motion looks "off" and can't describe it.  It mostly happens when there are elements of water (fountain, water splash) where the droplets look too sharp. I'm not saying it's a bad thing since different situations call for different looks, I'm just saying that shooting video at high shutter speeds for the sake of photo is kinda doing things backwards. If it works for you, I can respect that.



In cases of to sharp objects the solution would be for the PP software to blur them, that is easer then to go the other way.


----------



## dash2k8 (Jan 22, 2015)

Can you do motion blur video that way? I never even considered this possibility! I imagine a lot of frame interpolation would be required, meaning lots of rendering time?


----------



## Lawliet (Jan 22, 2015)

dash2k8 said:


> Can you do motion blur video that way?


In CGI it worked as an emergency kludge when rendertime for real motion blur wasn't available. Well sometimes, as the motion vectors mustn't change during the interpolation period, i.e. it falls apart for motions that contain a circular component or acceleration.

The whole still from motion picture-idea has problems on a higher level though: the visual language is different.


----------



## dash2k8 (Jan 23, 2015)

> the visual language is different.



Couldn't agree more. One looks to capture the moment while the other conveys a continuous action. I do think, though, that for slower-paced events (catwalks, wedding-in-church) stills from videos can work if there's no manpower to spare for a separate photographer, since there's not much to convey in terms of action anyway.

As for the motion blur thing, it seems like nobody does it if it can be avoided. Too much of a workaround?


----------

