tomsemiterrific

I've never loaded magic lantern on any Canon. I purchased a 5D Mk III, but the firmware prevented me from loading lantern in for use. Why does Canon do this? Pissed me off! They don't provide what you need to shoot and get the best results from their products, and then prevent you from supplementing their lack. In the long run I don't think that is wise business policy. As soon as a company comes up with what you need and treats you like a human being you'll never by Canon again. Of course, I'm an amateur at this, but I'm a professional at my work, and I've learn on thing from it that applies to everything you do: the easier the tool you use makes the job the better you can do it and the better the results. The best example I personally know of this is the Canon C300 Mk II--but you shouldn't have to pay 16,000.00 for such a tool--not today, not considering the present state of the market. I think someone is going to give much of this stuff in a really usable package for a reasonable price, and Canon will be gone or really hurt badly. I feel the same as you about investing in a system, and there are pluses and minuses into both. The big minuses with Canon is that they are $$$. The second is they don't have very fast lenses in full frame, very fast zoom lenses in full frame or crop, and very fast lenses in zoom with IS. In order to get a full frame 2.8 zoom with IS I had to buy a Tamron---and it weighs a ton. The fasts zoom Canon has with IS is only a constant f.4...very disappointing. In crop you have the f2.8 zoom I mentioned. It's very good, and has good IS. Here is a link to the description. It's very good: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/425812-USA/Canon_1242B002AA_EF_S_17_55mm_f_2_8_IS.html So, I hear they may release magic lantern for the 80D. Have you heard that? I wonder if it's true? Short of that, if I got an older Canon DSLR for magic lantern which would you recommend? Is it hard to install?

Mary has been in 28 shows, has starred in most of them, and is a top-notch singer. The best thing is to get her talking in an animated way about something she likes or finds funny. Regarding the 80D I wasn't crazy about it until I got the f 2.8 STM zoom---an excellent lens. Now, the new custom profiles and C-log Andrew has created have given the 80D a new lease on life. I love the skin tones--they seem so alive and vibrant. Generally, I think it's not all that hard to get the 80D with eoshd Log and Canon Log to match. I think you just have to be careful to white balance the camera well--using a Kelvin Number. But people with experience doing this may disagree and have a better way. The thing I like about the 80D most is how easy it is to shoot and get good results. The dual pixel focus is a great feature---secure enough to trust it and be able to concentrate on composition and exposure. I XC10 gives similar ease and security. The issue between these two cams is that the 80D only shoots in 1080p---so no real matching in 4k. But, IMO, the good news is the XC10 is a great 1080p camera. All the footage here was shot in 1080p. I really don't care for any of the custom profiles Canon provides, but I really like Andrew's. I wish I could get the cinema pic files he created on the XC10.

Using Andrew's C-log with Canon LUTs here is some footage, some shot with eoshd C-log on the 80D compared with standard Canon C-log shot with the XC10. Our youngest child,Mary, condescended to be an impatient model.

Nice footage, Krisztian---love those chickens. This is a great service. Every Canon DSLR should be equipped with Canon Log---It's to Andrew's credit that he took this upon himself, and to Canon's detriment that they have failed to do so, and failed for years.

Just posted this on Vimeo---EOSHD LOG W/ LUTS

No. I mean the 1dC. With my 1dC in Canon C-log there is no AF. There is no one push auto focus. Manual focus is your only option. AF is disabled when you go to Canon Log. Your C-Log, in contrast, doesn't disable Auto Focus, so the one push focus is retained. I use manual focus most of the time, but sometimes the "one push" AF is really necessary--otherwise forget getting the shot. So, your C-log is really helpful, and the LUTS for it are lovely--knocked me out how beautiful the colors are.

Andrew, what GREAT products. Honestly, I can't seem to download the files for the 80d, but the download worked great for my 1dC. NOW, I have C-log on the 1dC with Auto focus----fantastic!!! Thank you so much. And the LUTS you made for LUTS are beautiful--lovely and useful. I had been so frustrated that Canon Log on the 1dC didn't have an AF option, but now you've solved that and included what seems to me three great LUTS. The Vivid Skin tone is GORGEOUS, requiring only small tweaks in exposure for publication...and the colors!!! I also like Scarlett a lot. I wish I could replace several of the Canon standard custom profiles with your monochrome--which is beautiful---and the other files. Awesome! Log with AF out of the 1dC---and three great LUTS. Thank you so much.

Andrew wrote: "The Sony A7S II is the only game in town, which in many ways is a tough game to play as you end up spending more time colour correcting in Resolve than actually shooting!"" I'm done with that game.

I actually have a one like that but no way to attach it securely--it's a real pain to deal with. The Zacuto adds weight and bulk, but it is stable and problem free once it's secured. How do you attach this on? A lot of things might be added, but I'd avoid anything that adds bulk or weight---not completely avoidable altogether, but a goal, IMO, to try to maintain. Many other things are much more important in my view: an additional level of ND filter would be great to eliminate the need for an external Variable ND altogether. Better AF if not DPAF, better MF--I hate the type of MF on this lens--maybe I just don't know how to use it, but a camera man's performance depends upon practice, and practice involve muscle memory training and repetition---something impossible with the MF on this lens. I love shooting MF with the 1dC...I'd prefer having the traditional MF on the XC10. Another one or two assign buttons would also be great, and the one push AF is not always dependable for me--especially if the exposure isn't near ideal. A few more levels of F-stop would be appreciated, and more zebra levels. If I could get all these improvements I'd be happy to pass on a handle or similar such things.

CANON SHOULD TAKE NOTE: What I'm seeing here is a very large response to Andrew's commentary in a VERY short time--less than a day. This tells me there is a lot of interest in this camera everyone mocked and hated not all that long ago--mocked and hated without actually trying. I'd really look forward to a more in-depth review of the XC10 by Andrew--and let's hope there's more under the hood of the XC15 than we see outwardly. Let's think good thoughts to help make it happen. Canon, don't screw this up! What model Kinotehnik are you talking about.

Use better mic with more robust connection, lower noise floor, and put it on both channels. I think I recall the camera was seen as a news shooter---and XLR attachment for better sound would make a lot of sense for news gathering and quick interviews....maybe??!?

Could what we're looking at be an XLR port rather than an SDI?

I can't say my experience matches your hypothetic scenario. I used Sony cams for 10 years, first as a sort of beginner and the longer I worked, always seeking to improve every aspect of the video, the more dissatisfied I grew with the skin tones in specific and color in general--VERY unhappy. The last Sony cam I purchased was the FS5--which I intensely disliked. It was then I finally decided to try Canon, and purchased the C100 Mk II--and voila! There was the image quality skin tones and colors I'd always been wanting. So, I'm not so sure conditioning is all that significant. We're not just subjectively comparing product to one another. There's an objective aspect to this: we're comparing each of those two things (Sony and Canon color and image) to Reality. And using reality as the standard, IMO, is where Sony consistently failed to satisfy me. The better and more discerning I've grown the more unhappy I was with the results I got out of my Sony cams. In contrast, I've been very happy with my Canon 300 mk II and love the images and color out of the XC10 and 1dC: images and color out of the camera I could not approximate in post with my Sonys. Believe me, if I could be pleased with Sony color and image I would go to them in a New York minute--they give you so many more bells and whistles for less money, I'd be an idiot not to make such a move. But they fail to satisfy regarding to most essential things--that's my take anyway. I can live without super slo-mo, but not without image, skin tones, and color.

So, Andrew, how would you compare the image and color of the A7Sii with the 1dC? The tilt screen and in camera 5 way stabilization are really tempting, but I have heard complaints the stabilization problematic. And I loathed battery life of the A7 I once owned. But if the image and stabilization are good the battery life would be bearable.

Canon maps C-Log at 32% IRE for 18% gray. When I shoot that way I get noise in the darker parts of my footage--makes me a little crazy. So, generally, I try to shoot at 40% IRE for 18%, and top out at 75 or 80% for 90% white and I get much less noise in the darker areas and still preserve my highlights pretty well. People have different ideas about this, but there is a general consensus about not starving Canon sensors regarding light. I know Shane Hurlbut shoots Canon Log at higher IREs than Canon recommends and likes the results. For a long time I was confused about how to best expose C-Log--mainly because I had such a horrible time making Sony S-Log look like anything decent. But Canon C-Log is much easier to grade and, though I'm sure I'll get a lot of disagreement on this, I think C-Log is pretty flexible regarding exposure. Just don't blow out your highs (keep them below 80 IRE and you'll probably be fine. I do a lot of shooting in TV mode, especially out of doors or where I have little or no control of the surroundings. Rather than adjusting exposure compensation I leave it where I would normally shoot non-Log gammas. I find this footage grades well, preserves the highs adequately, yields low noise in the blacks, and works great with C-log 3 709 LUTs you get from Canon for their C300 Mk II. In contrast, when I adjust exposure compensation to yield 18% gray at 32 IRE (or thereabouts) I get noise in the darker areas of the image. You may find you don't like the results, but they can't shoot you for trying. PS As an afterthought consider the sensors of the C100 Mk II and C300 Mk II are large and better, pound for pound, regarding low-light. So exposing Log 18% gray at 32 IRE yields a reasonably clean image in low light most of the time. So, it seems to me the XC10 with its smaller sensor might require exposing the image at higher IREs than the C300 mk II to yield similar results. Is this reasonable thinking--or what?

On the mark, as per usual. What Canon is doing makes no sense at all to me...and apparently I'm not alone. I think the crazy thing is what you pointed out in your open letter; they give something wonderful and exceptional and, in the same model, take something else equally wonderful or essential away. What kind of marketing is that? What kind of thinking is that? As I've said before, is this some twisted revenge for WWII? Add to your takeaways taking the auto focus feature from Log in the 1dC. WTF! Who the Hell made that decision? Plus, what they offer on the one hand is terrific, but what they don't offer is downright weird. Where is their full frame constant 2.8 zoom lens? Sigma can make a crop sensor lens at 1.8 and the best Canon can do is 4.0?!? It's all very strange. snatch.tiff

While no one can rightly disagree with you, your comments and the digression to lenses misses my point altogether. Yes, there have been fantastic advances beyond what most any of us could have hoped for or imagined. So, what about the grousing and disgruntled? I try to describe it in my last paragraph: "I'm not asking for the moon here. Just a camera that incorporates common technologies that have been found in cameras of almost all price levels for several years now." That is my point. The only reasons these things are not being brought together are bad, self-serving reasons for the corporations, not because they can't be done. THAT, in so far as I understand the matter, is at least part of the reason for disgruntlement: don't give me a camera with autofocus in every custom profile except the Log gamma profile I bought the camera for. Stop trying to dictate how I use the camera and telling me what my needs ought to be. I have customers--and if I didn't listen to them, but rather tried to dictate the terms of uses of my products, I would not be in business for very long. The companies exist to serve and satisfy the market, not vice versa.

Does that preserve the quality of the footage?

What I love about Canon: The image. The color science, the ergonomics, the menus. What I hate about Canon: Everything else. Here are just a few of the top contenders on my hate list: Before I began using Canon's late last year I had alway heard about their glass and all the fantastic choices they offer. Maybe so, but not for video shooters who do a lot of hand held work. I have a C300 Mk II --a wonderful camera. But can I find a zoom lens that is at least 2.8 with IS? No sirreee Bob, it doesn't exist except in the EF-S version of the 17-55 2.8 and IS---works a treat on the humble 80 and 70D...with dual pixel and follow focus--the whole nine yards, and probably does the same on the C100 Mk II. But provides nothing but basic AF on the C300 Mk II. I have a Tamron 2.8 zoom with IS. Works on the 1dC--but the C300 Mk II won't even read it. WTF! Who the Hell does this kind of stuff to their customers?!? Now, I could see this if Canon was pushing you to buy a more expensive full frame option---but none is provided. I am positive a firmware update would provide those full focus features to the EF-S--which is a very sharp lens--for the C300 Mk II. Yes, it's noisy, but it would still be usable in many circumstances. But in lieu of that Canon offers: nothing, NADA, Nichts, zippo, zilch. Come on Canon. How about some 2016 lenses. The only concession Canon has made for run and gun shooters is the XC10. As good as it is, how about providing it in an APS-C sensor and a 2.8 constant f-stop? How about doing something innovative instead of leading from behind, making your customers wait for years, and then never giving the market what they ask for? Canon marketing and product planners--you suck. Stop cheating one product in a pathetic attempt to protect another. Think about your customers for a change---believe me you will sell more. Honest to God, if there was a mirrorless company that could provide wonderful color science, 4kDCI with reasonably substantial bit rates and a Log gamma, that offered IN CAMERA stabilization and lens flexibility like Sony does I'd never give Canon a second glance, and never buy another over-priced Canon product. And speaking of over-priced: what kind of company gouges their customers for their new models, and when they (and their distributors) don't get the sales numbers they hoped for (because the price was so absurdly out of line with the rest of the market), they stab those who were loyal to them by cutting the price by thousands--down to about what the product should have been in the first place. Here's what I learned in running my company: price a fine product fairly and reasonably and you will have robust sales out of the chute and sustained sales in the long run. How many people don't buy a Canon product at the outset, use what they have satisfactorily, and wait it out for the big gouge to end and save thousands? How many of those would buy earlier if the pricing was fair and reasonable for the quality? In my business experience a LOT would. What company repeatedly stabs their customers in the backs like Canon does? I mean these sorts of things can't be avoided 100% by any company, the one I own included. But with Canon it almost seems pathological--like a kind of revenge for WWII--oops, did I say that? Am I full of it, or does anyone else feel as frustrated as I am? Oh, Sony, if you only provided a decent image and DPAF and skin tones that don't make people look like shape shifting weirdos from another planet. Who provides a field camera that doesn't have to be tethered to a tripod, has a usable form factor, video features like peaking, waveform, and zebra; a camera that will give you a beautiful image from decent sized sensor, reasonably fast lenses, 2016 quality IS--and beautiful skin tones, and I don't have to mortgage my house to own it. Tell me and I'll buy it! Promise. I'm not asking for the moon here. Just a camera that incorporates common technologies that have been found in cameras of almost all price levels for several years now. Andrew once wrote in his article on forgotten older cameras: "We're being diddled with."--I think that's the quote. Indeed!

Okay, I'm confused---as per usual. I downloaded EditReady and it transcoded fine, I sent the transcoded files to a folder destination, but when I checked the size of the original clips and the transcoded clips I did not see any significant difference in file size. Isn't transcoding supposed to reduce file size for editing and storage?? Where are my going wrong?

Thanks so much..and cheap is good!

I own a 1dC, recently acquired from B&H--and it is a fabulous image making machine--but with HUGE files. What program or application is best to transcode them into ProRes for FCPX? Anyone??/

So, I have a question for Andrew. Just out of curiosity, considering all the capabilities and features Canon has shown they are capable of putting in cameras, which would you cobble together and present as your version of what a 5D Mk IV should be?

Lots of products continue to sell today because they are living on their past reputations. All the while they have been surpassed or others are beginning to provide what the market keeps demanding for those who know. But as in all fields of knowledge and discipline those "in the know" are few, those unable to look beyond the label are many, and the many keep those living off their past reputations in business for quite a while. What kills me is how reactionary and disappointing something like the long-awaited 5D Mk IV is, and yet Canon will turn around and do something unexpected like the XC10--which, for what it is, is a very innovative camera.

Exactly, only someone with experience and some skill would know what to do with most of the things the XC10 offers. And it's stealth quality is one of its biggest pluses.