Lintelfilm

Yeah the 4K HDMI signal can be sent to a Ninja Star and auto downsampled. There is very little difference as the 4K is intraframe 422 so already most of the way there. I think maybe colours do look slightly better from the Atomos but it could just be the exposure shift I'm seeing (Atomos records slightly darker and therefore colours are more saturated). I doubt motion will be any different as 4K on the XC10 is intraframe. I was pretty sure the XC10 outputs 10bit - at least from 4K - why do you think it's 8bit? Anyhow the Ninja Star fares quite nicely with XC10. Small in size. Auto down samples from 4K and does pulldown from the Canon 50i/60i signal. Can be start/stop triggered by the Canon. File sizes are smaller than 4K 305mb but (I believe) better colour depth.

I agree we should start a thread. I'm away from my mac this weekend but will repost the stills I posted to this thread next week. I'll also contact Canon direct like you did. Let's make a ruckus. Even if it just makes them aware of it or they explain what's causing it would be something. If any XC10 owners here haven't registered with CPN (the XC10 makes you eligible) I suggest you do so and voice your concern via that way. No doubt you'll get more attention than consumer channels. might be a bad idea to dilute the message but if they do release another firmware update I'd also like to lobby canon to add the waveform and shutter angle features from the xc15 to the XC10!

I understand what Kisaha is saying about the 416 but because I'm a one man band and a camera guy first the 600 gives that leeway to be a little less precise. I also honestly prefer the sound too. The 416 always sounds a bit too harsh to me but that's just from listening to online tests, I haven't tried them side by side. regarding the MKE600 vs the NTG3 I looked atand listened to pretty much every test, review and spec sheet I could find online at least twice and I honestly couldn't find anything better or worse between them. They're different obviously but I couldn't say one is better than the other. The 600 is not just Sennheiser's NTG2 it's significantly better and a step up from the ME66 too. Much smaller and better built for one but again it sounds much warmer/ less harsh to me. Im not a sound expert by any means but I'm just saying find a clear reason to go for the NTG3 over the 600. Personally I prefer the Sennheiser sound. The CS1 is more in the ballpark of the 416 in that it might be technically the better mic but not as versatile and forgiving as the 600 and NTG3. I really value well rounded kit for the work I do as it's just me and I just own one shotgun. If you're doing dedicated sound work no doubt the pricier mics are better, but to stick into a camera for factual stuff the 600 is great ...

I started a very similar thread a couple months ago when i wanted to upgrade my NTG2. I looked into all the options, including the CS1 and was settled on the NTG3. Then I started looking at the Sennheiser MKE 600 which I'd written off without looking closely due to cheap price and AA battery option. Actually it's a fantastic mic and personally for me I prefer the sound to the 416. It's warm like the NTG3. It's the same size and high build quality as those two high end mics too. Its pretty decent as an indoor close quarters mic. Way better than the NTG2 and a step up from the ME66. It's a gem IMO I don't know why it's not the standard go to XLR shotgun for everyone here.

Where it at???!

Only you can answer that question. The differences are very obvious. If compact size and 4K are a priority go XC10, if low light and shallow DOF matter go C100. If audio is important go C100 or XC15 with XLR unit. If you want to moan about no camera being all things to all men, hang out on this forum instead of making films. ?

Well you shouldn't be changing shutter speed on the fly and personally I don't often want to change aperture while shooting as generally I leave it either wide open or at constant f5.6 depending on light and subject. A combination of ND filters and riding the ISO wheel in Manual mode is all you really need then. Of course the other option is to put it in shutter priority mode, set it to 180 degrees and leave it there. That puts ISO and aperture onto full auto which works well and exposure changes are smooth. You can use NDs to tweak how the AE behaves in bright light. It's a camera that's built to be used in auto mode, which is a bit scary to us geeks, but it works well as it's auto functions are prioritised for video not stills.

There's a pretty straightforward workaround for this that I use all the time. Set the jog wheel to ISO in M (Manual) mode, then if you need to change aperture, change the mode dial to A (Aperture Priority) and use the jog wheel - or to change shutter speed move to Tv (shutter priority) and use the jog wheel. Then go back to Manual mode. Any changes you made in the other modes are retained in Manual mode. Simple! It seems a bit fiddly at first, especially with the lock button on the mode dial, but you soon get used to it and it is effectively physical controls. Much better than the menu approach.

The XC10's HDMI output is done via 50i/60i (interlaced) so you have to set the Ninja to convert it back. It doesn't affect image quality. I believe Canon do this so that HDMI output works smoothly when connecting to TVs.

Thanks for letting me know about the DV Info review. In a bad sort of way it's good to know it's not just a problem with my unit. It hasn't destroyed any shots for me as it's fairly well hidden by motion when video is playing. A fine example of what this camera is great at. I must remember to use HD mode more!!

You can shoot HD video up to 50mbs to SD cards on the XC10.

I'm talking about Canon protecting existing Cinema camera owners in this instance. If they add high quality video to a milc the C line looses its footing quite a bit.

I love the C100 image but a huge part of the reason I got it (I came from a speed boosted GH4 and BMPCC - never owned a C100 MK1) is the use-ability factor. It's just a fantastic all-rounder. For the majority of work I do it's just so painless to get a great image and audio in 99% of situations. I was very reluctant to give up the BMPCC and still love the image but it wasn't practical for work. For narrative stuff I don't think there's such a compelling case for a C100 as you have time and space for shooting and the image will be judged a bit more vs "real" cinema cameras like BM, RED, Alexa. But if you like the image why not? C300 looked great in Blue is the Warmest Colour. If you find a good deal you may find you love it and if not you can probably sell it without loosing too much. Check out Noam Kroll's C100 review from ages ago - he tried it for narrative vs his BMCC and liked it a lot.

I use both. 1080 when I want slow motion or IBIS and 4K the rest of the time. Unless for some reason I want to save card space. But as I said before the 4K image offers what the C100 doesn't. My current project involves a lot of landscapes so I'm using the XC10 a lot in 4K and time lapse. I avoid shooting deep DOF with the C100 because it can't match the XC10 4K there. If light isn't good I avoid using the XC10 as it can't match the C100. But in terms of colour, dynamic range, etc the cameras are very similar in all modes.

Yeah I've used them in the same video a few times but they're not really cut together as such so not much use as a comparison. My Durham Cathedral Lego films use both. I'm working on something atm that requires them to cut seamlessly and I'm not worried abut it. They're very similar in terms of colour.

Thanks man. Yeah it's a fantastic combo. But Canon's pricing only makes sense if the camera pays its own way. I'm testing the 18-135mm STM this weekend so may post something later ...

I have the Sigma APS-C Art zooms (18-35mm and 50-100mm) which I use almost exclusively with my C100MK2. I also use the Canon 10-18mm STM a bit and like it (I call it my "Revenant lens" as the AF and IS, used at 14mm with the C100 top handle, allows very similar shooting setup (albeit not quite so high-end!) to Lubezki's I've recently bought the other STM zooms (18-135 and 55-250) as backup for when the Sigmas aren't practical. I'm not sure how useful they are to me though. If I want ease of use I have my XC10 and don't yet see much that the STM's offer over it. But because they're so cheap, light and small it seemed worth having them on standby. I've also just ordered a 50mm 1.8 STM for when I don't want to carry the 50-100mm. The Sigma's are just fantastic. The 18-35 is a known quantity - just beautiful. The 50-100mm Art I love also - the image quality is IMO out of this world and cuts perfectly with the 18-35. The two together make a full set of cine primes that work great with DPAF. They are both quite noisy with AF though (another reason I got the STM's). And the 50-100 is pretty huge, so not for everyone. With the C100 I find it fine but wouldn't like it for video on a hybrid. I wrote a review of it for Dan Chung over on Newsshooter.com if you're interested in hearing more (including thoughts on using it with the C100MK2): http://www.newsshooter.com/2016/05/05/guest-post-first-impressions-of-the-sigma-50-100mm-f1-8-art-lens-by-matt-james-smith/ Here's the video I made to go with it: and this one (a personal piece for a friend with a new baby) is the same setup: Other lenses on my list of long term purchases: Canon 35mm f2 IS Canon 70-200mm f2.8 II IS Canon 17-55mm f2.8 IS Tokina 11-20mm f2.8 However I'd honestly be happy shooting with just the two Sigma's for the rest of my days (only if they added IS and silent AF would I change them).

Great stuff. I really like the stuff you've done with the XC10 as well.

Exactly. They cut very nicely, but only at lower ISO's. The HD image from the C100 (mkII in my case) is superior to the XC10's image even in good light, but not that noticeably. But the C100 has the best 1080p 4:2:0 image below 50mbps by a very long margin. The XC10 has the characteristics of a smaller sensor - more noise, a hair less dynamic range, more depth of field. Having said all that, if you shoot 4K 305mbps 4:2:2 on the XC10, it outperforms the crap out of the C100 for colour and detail in good light.

No doubt. The C100 image is beautiful. But the extra sharpness, cleanness and higher bit rate of the 80D - combined with shallow DOF, a log-like profile and some nice glass - is going to look a great deal closer to a pro image than a Rebel ever could. Personally I still like the 5DIII's native H264 image quite a bit (esp for shooting people). The 80D is arguably better in some regards. I'd be interested to know what kind of DR can be coaxed from video on an 80D with the EOSHD c-log profile, as the sensor is rated at over 13 stops for RAW stills (much better than the 5D3).

Don't you have an 80D? Using Andrew's Log profile, fast lenses (e.g. Canon 50mm 1.8; Sigma 18-35) and sticking to shallow DOF (i.e. what you want it for) by ensuring subjects are within a few meters of the camera, you'll get results very comparable to a C100. The benefits of clean, high res cameras only really come into their own for deep DoF shots with loads of detail. The old Rebel cameras, 60D, 7D, 5DII, etc were always fine when shooting portraits etc because A) out of focus areas negate moire and B) the codec & processing that caused those cameras to be soft struggles much less when large parts of the image are out of focus - allowing bitrate and processing etc to do more in the in-focus parts of the image. Also the contrast between OOF background and in focus foreground makes the subject appear sharper than it actually is. Besides, if you're shooting people you don't want them to be too sharp. As the 80D is significantly better than any of those cameras you should be getting shallow DoF results that cut perfectly well with the XC10's wider shots. Something that doesn't get talked about much is that 4K actually makes far more sense on small sensor cameras, because you're always going to have deeper DOF and therefore far more detail to deal with. So for Panasonic it makes sense for them to have led the 4K move because (apart from the fact they want to sell 4K TV's) they have the smallest ILC sensors. Even their HD cams were much higher res than APSC counterparts - and really they had to be, because the MFT sensor always meant more detailed scenes (less OOF areas).

The XC10's ISO performance - especially in HD mode - is very good for a 1" sensor. Compared to a GH4 in 4K (not too big a size difference: 2.9x vs 2.4x crop) it is noticeably better. The thing is that it's pointless making such comparisons as the XC10 has a fixed lens with an aperture that gets slow at standard and long focal lengths. So although you can do noise comparisons at equal ISO's, the interchangeable lens cameras are always going to do better with half-fast glass (let alone a speed booster). As I said before I find myself ramping the ISO right up in only moderately dim situations unless it's a wide shot. Although noise performance is good at high ISO's, the situations in which you have to ramp it up are way more frequent. It's a fantastic camera - I really love it for it's ergonomics, ease of use (with a few niggles that I've found perfectly good workarounds for), unsurpassed shot-grabbing ability, incredible stabilization and beautiful image quality. But there's no doubt it's put to best use in decent light. However it's basically an evolution of a classic camcorder and compared to most of those it does superbly in low light. Again it's a fantastic companion for the C100. The compliment each other very well. The C100's strengths are low light and shallow depth of field (where 4K is less important). The XC10 is great for deep, detailed DoF (4K), timelapse and as a small, inconspicuous all-in-one shot grabber (incredible IS and well implemented automatic modes). If you want both in one camera you pay a hefty price (money, size and weight) for a C300MkII.

The faster focus is a pretty important update. It was much too slow before and led to missing loads of shots. The low light improvement (HD only) is important too as ISO is the only tool you have in dim situations with the XC10. I regularly max it out when shooting at the longer end. I'd say it's an essential update. I wish they'd port the shutter angle option and waveform etc that the XC15 got over to the XC10 with a new update. No shutter angle always seems like a very weird thing for such a video oriented camera. It would also take all the pain away from calculating timelapse shutter as the XC10 only does TL as 2x, 4x, 10x, etc. Talking of which, time lapse on the XC10 doesn't get talked about much but it's a fantastic aspect of the camera. Auto-generated, high bitrate, 4K 4:2:2 TL videos with a built in ND and C-Log! Unless you're a proper timelapse nut and want to shoot RAW stills, the XC10 has to be one of the best in-camera time lapse options out there, particularly if you're wanting a painless and not-data-heavy workflow. The small sensor is much less of a disadvantage for TL too, due to generally wanting deep DOF and long shutter speeds letting plenty of light to the sensor (I haven't tried it at night mind you). I'm shooting time lapse more than ever before with this camera.

Can anyone confirm that the XC10 only works with self-powered external mics please? My Videomic Pro works fine on it but I get no sound at all from a wired lav or a VideoMicro (both of which require power from the camera).

I find this a serious issue with the LX100 - even with RAW stills. I struggled with it a bit with my GH4 but I'm sure it's worse on the LX100. Any suggestions of best way to minimise it?