Official specs: Canon EOS-1D X Mark II

umphotography wrote in post #17892281
you guys are talking greek right now

Watch your spelling and word order...make that: "you guys are geek talking right now." (kidding of course)

Hi Guys,

With the release of 1DX mark ii with its impressive video capabilities one starts wondering if this DSLR is cannibalizing the EOS Cinema line?
I mean the new attributes of 1DX mark ii as far as video capabilities are concerned are quiet impressive.
It now has 4K, Dual Pixel AF solves DSLR focusing shortcomings, decent battery life also probably.

So now the question is why would anyone choose a EOS Cinema camera over a 1DX mkii?
1) Resolution? 1DX mkii has 4K, similar to EOS C300 mkii and better than 1080P of EOS C100 mkii.
2) Ergonomics? Support systems are available for both DSLR and EOS Cinema cameras.
3) Crop factor? I know that 1DX mkii will crop the picture/sensor quiet a bit to get 4K and I am not a big fan of that, meaning wide angle shots will be hard to get. Do EOS Cinema cameras crop the image too or is say a 24 mmlens on EOS Cinema camera a true 24mm? I don't know that but if EOS Cinema cameras retain the true focal length it is a big advantage in my book!
4) Focusing? Now 1DX mkii employs same dual pixel AF as Cinemas line cameras.

Which target market is 1DX mkii aimed at and which target market is EOS Cinema line aimed towards too?

I am not very knowledgeable as far as video is concerned, I just want to understand...

Thanks!

Van Gogh wrote in post #17892352
Hi Guys,

With the release of 1DX mark ii with its impressive video capabilities one starts wondering if this DSLR is cannibalizing the EOS Cinema line?
I mean the new attributes of 1DX mark ii as far as video capabilities are concerned are quiet impressive.
It now has 4K, Dual Pixel AF solves DSLR focusing shortcomings, decent battery life also probably.

So now the question is why would anyone choose a EOS Cinema camera over a 1DX mkii?
1) Resolution? 1DX mkii has 4K, similar to EOS C300 mkii and better than 1080P of EOS C100 mkii.
2) Ergonomics? Support systems are available for both DSLR and EOS Cinema cameras.
3) Crop factor? I know that 1DX mkii will crop the picture/sensor quiet a bit to get 4K and I am not a big fan of that, meaning wide angle shots will be hard to get. Do EOS Cinema cameras crop the image too or is say a 24 mmlens on EOS Cinema camera a true 24mm? I don't know that but if EOS Cinema cameras retain the true focal length it is a big advantage in my book!
4) Focusing? Now 1DX mkii employs same dual pixel AF as Cinemas line cameras.

Which target market is 1DX mkii aimed at and which target market is EOS Cinema line aimed towards too?

I am not very knowledgeable as far as video is concerned, I just want to understand...

Thanks!

They're very different form factors. The 1DXII doesn't have c-log, xlr inputs, waveform, focus peaking, identical dual memory cards (C300 Mark II has two CFast for dual backup of 4k), larger battery for longer documentary run time, more codecs, 4k output, 4k raw output. I do expect some updates by NAB though, either through new firmware or hardware for better slow motion on the C300 Mark II. I'm probably going to pick up a 1DXII because I shoot both video and photo (there are few who can do both well for some reason), but most cinematographers, videographers and assistant cameramen are better off with dedicated large-sensor video cameras (FS7, FS700, Cinema EOS, etc) if they spend little to no time taking photographs.

umphotography wrote in post #17892281
you guys are talking geek right now

fixed

idkdc wrote in post #17892403
They're very different form factors. The 1DXII doesn't have c-log, xlr inputs, waveform, focus peaking, identical dual memory cards (C300 Mark II has two CFast for dual backup of 4k), larger battery for longer documentary run time, more codecs, 4k output, 4k raw output. I do expect some updates by NAB though, either through new firmware or hardware for better slow motion on the C300 Mark II. I'm probably going to pick up a 1DXII because I shoot both video and photo (there are few who can do both well for some reason), but most cinematographers, videographers and assistant cameramen are better off with dedicated large-sensor video cameras (FS7, FS700, Cinema EOS, etc) if they spend little to no time taking photographs.

Hi, thanks for input.
The thing is our company is planing to offer video coverage as well for weddings.
My logic was if 1DX mk2 is as good as the C100 v.2 than by getting a 1DX mk2 for the same price we would also have a nice camera in addition to a video recorded.
1DX mk2 also has 4K when needed whereas C100 mk2 doesn't.

Unfortunately C300 mk2 is a little bit out of the budget for now

Xyclopx wrote in post #17891786
alright man..... since you mentioned it twice :

not all cars have steering wheel controls for the touch screen radio (one of mine doesn't.) k? and like screen UIs, some cars are better designed than others. in fact, the very worst touch screen implementation i have ever seen was in a mercedes E-series--and there were TONS of ways to interact via the steering wheel. so many ways in fact that no one could figure out how to use it, and thus did not. and as for my other cars with screens, i only use the wheel for volume control--the channel buttons are useless. so, and again, as i have said, i am happy yours is good for you.

but it is certainly the very nature of a dynamic screen UI to force you to look at it to control it. that's kinda the whole point--to take away tactile buttons in favor of better visual effect and dynamic controls. that is a screen's primary strength and its ultimate criticism.

until the day they build a morphing tactile contraption that has the strengths of a touchscreen without its deficiencies, you will never be able to replace real buttons.

again, that said, i think touchscreen is better than screen without touch. so i still welcome the change. i don't think it's the goal to replace buttons with the screen anyway. so i guess whatever i just said is a moot point. (though it does seem that it certainly is the goal to replace reality with non-reality. definitely do not want that.)

You still need to take your eyes of the road when operating physical buttons on a radio

USB C is faster for tethering!

jonneymendoza wrote in post #17892619
You still need to take your eyes of the road when operating physical buttons on a radio

well.... no. i don't. sure, often you do... but i can tell you i do operate the buttons often without looking. some radios even have dot patterns on the buttons for this very reason. your own camera also has a few buttons like are purposefully shaped differently to be identifiable by touch.

anyway............... taking your eye off the road isn't a big deal. it's just a point. and if it were too dangerous to take my eyes off the road, like lapping at a track, i probably wouldn't be thinking about the radio anyway. cars aside, i think it's pretty obvious how it works on a camera. i push most of the buttons on my camera without looking, as do most people i assume.

i still like the idea of a touchscreen. i was only saying that i agreed with the cyber on stuff to improve and weaknesses of touch screens.

Xyclopx wrote in post #17892634
well.... no. i don't. sure, often you do... but i can tell you i do operate the buttons often without looking. some radios even have dot patterns on the buttons for this very reason. your own camera also has a few buttons like are purposefully shaped differently to be identifiable by touch.

anyway............... taking your eye off the road isn't a big deal. it's just a point. and if it were too dangerous to take my eyes off the road, like lapping at a track, i probably wouldn't be thinking about the radio anyway. cars aside, i think it's pretty obvious how it works on a camera. i push most of the buttons on my camera without looking, as do most people i assume.

i still like the idea of a touchscreen. i was only saying that i agreed with the cyber on stuff to improve and weaknesses of touch screens.

no you do. how would you know what radio station frequency you are in without looking at the screen?

or knowing what artist is playing on your cd player or bluetooth?

Sorry but you still need to look into your stereo for various things.

Most new cars be it some low end one from the past 5+ years have controls on the steering wheel as someone clearly pointed out.

The whole point is that for a DSLR, having both is perfectly feasable then not having no touch screen at all.


Already many here have given loads of detailed reasons how a touch screen is extremely useful for a DSLR and how it wont impact on the physical buttons on a DSLR at all and that you can have both, not one or the other.

Mark0159 wrote in post #17892144
The USB-C connector is faster than USB3.

Yes... and no...

USB-C is just a connector (shape). The speed is related to USB 3 vs USB 3.1, and you can get USB 3.1 capable type A and B connectors.

The benefits of type C are that it can carry a higher wattage (for charging devices) and that you don't end up with the quantum superposition problem of which way up the bl**dy thing needs to be used:

jonneymendoza wrote in post #17892677
no you do. how would you know what radio station frequency you are in without looking at the screen?

or knowing what artist is playing on your cd player or bluetooth?

Sorry but you still need to look into your stereo for various things.

Most new cars be it some low end one from the past 5+ years have controls on the steering wheel as someone clearly pointed out.

The whole point is that for a DSLR, having both is perfectly feasable then not having no touch screen at all.

Already many here have given loads of detailed reasons how a touch screen is extremely useful for a DSLR and how it wont impact on the physical buttons on a DSLR at all and that you can have both, not one or the other.

Dude I don't think you read much of what I said in the past few replies, nor even what I said in my reply to you except apparently the first few words. Everything you just said I addressed previously.

It's like talking to a broken Turing machine.

I suppose touchscreens have their place. Zooming, and perhaps even contextual menus. When it comes to adjusting detailed settings however (ISO, aperture, shutter speed, or even focus point selection), give me my buttons. I can't stand the touchscreen keyboards on today's phones, yet if you want a capable smart phone you either end up with a touchscreen keyboard or you carrying around a phablet. I have an iPhone now, but I miss the slide up qwerty keyboard of my original Droid. I could easily type without looking at the keyboard at all... not so with with iPhone.

So we have some agreement, any time you would normally be using your screen, having touch features would be handy, although some would not really use it. Unfortunately again, this isn't included on the 1DXII, so we will wait until the 5D4, which will probably have it.

jonneymendoza wrote in post #17892619
You still need to take your eyes of the road when operating physical buttons on a radio

Not on my three cars. They all can control the radio, CD player, and satellite radio from the steering column buttons. Simple to use. Buttons are all shaped and feel different. I can control most important functions without taking my eyes off the road.

Xyclopx wrote in post #17892634
well.... no. i don't. sure, often you do... but i can tell you i do operate the buttons often without looking. some radios even have dot patterns on the buttons for this very reason. your own camera also has a few buttons like are purposefully shaped differently to be identifiable by touch.

anyway............... taking your eye off the road isn't a big deal. it's just a point. and if it were too dangerous to take my eyes off the road, like lapping at a track, i probably wouldn't be thinking about the radio anyway. cars aside, i think it's pretty obvious how it works on a camera. i push most of the buttons on my camera without looking, as do most people i assume.

i still like the idea of a touchscreen. i was only saying that i agreed with the cyber on stuff to improve and weaknesses of touch screens.

My 7D2 allows me to make almost every shooting adjustment I need without taking my eye away from the viewfinder. The intelligent viewfinder can show practically everything I need. Using a touch screen on the 7D2 would more often than no take longer to use. I know every button and control on my camera by touch, for me, I can't see the usefulness of a touch screen on my current camera.