# 1DC vs C300/C500 for pro video



## symmar22 (Oct 11, 2012)

Question : I am mostly ignorant about video matters, can someone explain the interest of a 1DC camera versus a C300/C500 dedicated video camera? 

No irony here, just an honest question, I don't understand the advantage of a DSLR for pro video.


----------



## studio1972 (Oct 11, 2012)

symmar22 said:


> Question : I am mostly ignorant about video matters, can someone explain the interest of a 1DC camera versus a C300/C500 dedicated video camera?
> 
> No irony here, just an honest question, I don't understand the advantage of a DSLR for pro video.



Without thinking too deeply, 2 obvious advantages:

1. It's a fantastic stills camera as well (effectively a 1Dx)
2. Full frame sensor would be an advantage if you want very shallow DoF, and it will work well with EF lenses

On the other hand, the C100/300/500 have XLR ports etc, making them much better for audio


----------



## symmar22 (Oct 11, 2012)

Thanks for the fast answer, the DoF makes sense, I was confused by the "super 35mm" sensor of the C500, that's obviously the cinema format of the 35mm film.

I am a bit less ignorant...


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Oct 11, 2012)

The c100/300/500 handle like a camcorder, have a more video orientated interface, decent audio inputs and options, sdi interface.

Although the full frame sensor offers even shallower depth of field, very shallow depth of field is attainable with the super 35mm sensors, as for APS-C.

The c300 & c500 come in versions with either EF mount if you want to use photo lenses, or PL mount, if you want to use proper cinema lenses with mechanical iris, focus endstops, retianed back focus through zooms etc.

I really cannot emphasize enough that if you are using a camera specifically for video then the c100/300/400 are the way to go.


----------



## symmar22 (Oct 11, 2012)

paul13walnut5 said:


> The c100/300/500 handle like a camcorder, have a more video orientated interface, decent audio inputs and options, sdi interface.
> 
> Although the full frame sensor offers even shallower depth of field, very shallow depth of field is attainable with the super 35mm sensors, as for APS-C.
> 
> ...



Thanks Paul, I was wondering what market target is the 1DC aiming at, since aside from the bigger sensor advantage for some type of video, it's more a still camera than a video one. My ignorance in video matters tells me that people who need to film 4K are full time video pros who need a dedicated video tool, while people who shoot pro stills have a decent tool with the 1Dx. I mean is there such a market for people who shoot pro stills and 4k video in the same time ?


----------



## preppyak (Oct 11, 2012)

symmar22 said:


> Thanks Paul, I was wondering what market target is the 1DC aiming at, since aside from the bigger sensor advantage for some type of video, it's more a still camera than a video one. My ignorance in video matters tells me that people who need to film 4K are full time video pros who need a dedicated video tool, while people who shoot pro stills have a decent tool with the 1Dx. I mean is there such a market for people who shoot pro stills and 4k video in the same time ?


A very specific example would be if you are shooting something for NatGeo or another similar outdoor/travel scenario. You need to be able to deliver high quality stills and high quality video, and with a rig that can handle harsh conditions. You also have to be mobile, so you don't want to bring a super-heavy RED setup, or drag along all the rigging that would go with the C-series cameras. In that realm, 4k out of a DSLR body is very much a dream, especially when you can couple it with incredible low-light handling. You're basically equipped with everything you need without lugging around weight (and weight means assistants, and assistants mean more money).

Now, that's obviously a very specific example, but its also why many video pros will rent their gear. I don't need a 1D-C if I'm on a locked down set, I'd much rather be shooting RED or a traditional rig. But in the field, I might need something else


----------



## symmar22 (Oct 11, 2012)

Makes sense, so you means these cameras are more likely to be sold to renting companies ?


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Oct 11, 2012)

Thats quite often the case, especially with things like phantoms, or f65's, PL lenses or even reds, which do somethings exceptionally well, but are of limited interest for other applications. You wouldn't want to do a live broadcast from a RED for example.

Also many productions are set up as limited companies which only trade temporarily, expensive assets with high potential losses are less appealing than hiring a set up for a well organised short period of time.

For example, you can't buy Panavision gear, productions hire in as required. No maintainence issues, no getting pithed off when a better camera comes out etc.

The 1C has the 4k benefit over the c100 & c300, but thats only important if you are shooting 4k.

I think the 1C is also an exercise in seeing whats possible from larger resolution sensors, as the c100/300/500 have lower resolution but also reduced moire etc, reduced jello etc.

I don't think a 1Dc would be the first choice of a film-maker, and lets not forget, the c100/300/500 also have stills capability, but they wouldn't be the first choice of a photographer.

I think the nail was hit on the head, the market for the 1Dc may well be staff photographers at agency, who have to gather photo and video, to different standards.


----------



## SepusAshey (Nov 16, 2012)

Wow, so cool. 



----------------------------------------------
Feast your eyes with Desperate Housewives Seasons 1-8 dvd


----------

