Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

The Spec Race, or concerns about the 1DXii and C300ii



I'm a Canon Loyalist.  Cinema EOS, Pro DSLR, L series glass and flashes, I always come back to Canon.  I keep coming back for two reasons.  Canon color science and reliability.  Certainly not for specs, and it's certainly not news to anyone here that Sony, Panasonic, and Black Magic Design to name a few have consistantly offered "better specs" at a lower cost.   This hasn't yet bothered me.


Until the recent announcements about the 5div getting CLog, and the curious specs of the c200.


1. CLog coming to the 5div, but not the 1DXii.

The 1DXii is a great machine.  The sensor, the burst, the 4k60p, all great.  The 4k60p was the reason I purchased it, knowing the downside of the archaic codec and bloated files.  Unusably bloated to some, but I've worked around it with longer transcode and render times.    But the absence of CLog has been the 1DXii's biggest downside.  And this was such a strange decision to not include it, but it's always been known that Canon didn't want to threaten the Cinema line.  This theory goes out the window the minute you announced giving CLog to the 5Div without mention of it coming upstream to the flagship.  This was a slap in the face.  And when I consider my next complaint (below), where Canon has started to announce in advance coming firmware for some products, an industry norm that Canon has stayed away from, I can only assume that without an announcement of including the 1DXii in this paid upgrade, that Canon plans to keep it this way.  Where a vastly inferior machine will get a highly coveted feature not available on the flagship.


This perplexes and upsets me.


2. The 4k60p on the C200

I purchased the C300ii a month before the price drop, disappointed that I didn't have a lot of 4k60p choices after discovering the Ursa Mini 4.6k suffered from unworkable issues, despite the gorgeous image for the price.  But I felt confident that the sacrifice of 4k60p on a camera $5-6k above the price of its competitors that have it was worth the image.   All fine.   Even the recent announcement of the C200 didn't bother me much.  But when you announce XF-AVC coming to the C200 in 2018 at what to me is half the cost of the c300ii, you're again telling me cameras down the line will have better specs than ones up the line.  I'm well aware that there are other features of the c300ii that help it retain its value.  But this disparity is perplexing and upsetting.  



The way I see it, the option of a paid 1DXii CLog upgrade is a must.   And how hard would it really be to give the c300ii 4k60p 4:2:0 8 bit? You don't seem concerned with offering better specs for your mid range cameras that threaten flagships, like the recent announcements for the 5div and c200 do to their betters, so why would that stop you here?  Surely the c700 won't be threatened with a long gop 150 mb/s 4k60p 4:2:0 on the c300ii? My phantom 4 pro does as much. But to videographers that at some point need 4k60p, almost all of us, its terribly embarassing to not be able to produce 4k60p when a camera from the same manufacturer with the same sensor and $7.5k less can.  This is to say nothing of the inferior camera also having Cinemra Raw Light.  I recognize the limits of older processors and motherboards, but there must be something that can be done for c300ii users. 



I'd appreciate some clarity.