tomsemiterrific

I agree. The build quality is fine. Is it a tank, like the C300/300 mk II? no. But it is sturdy enough and fine. I saw the Camera Store review and, IMO, they were not fair to the camera and presented one of the most biased, and worst reviews I've ever seen from them. I know the XC10 well, and the young guy who did the "review" missed one important point after another--and I'm not sure they had any intention of being fair--or spending enough time to actually learn how to best use the camera and appreciate its virtues. In response to my criticism of the review I was told they "hated" using the XC10. The only way they could say that is to not understand how to best use it to begin with. It's amazing fun to shoot. And it's image quality, in its range, matches well with the C300 Mk II 4k---especially when you use C-log. That's pretty professional, in my view. Even Andrew mentioned how much he was impressed by the image quality. Most Camera Store reviews seem good to me insofar as I can judge, but this lame, superficial attempt to "min-review" the XC10 really disappointed me. Basically, I think they just want to sell you the Sony--with it's crappy skin tones, etc. There are more XC10 reviews than those of the Camera Store. Besides Andrew's review, I really like Carlos Quinteros, Maarten Heilbron, and Jared Polin's reviews--they are much better, more informed, more thorough, and they actually took time to learn how to use the XC10 then be fair in assessing what the XC10 has to offer. Beautifully said, Andrew. I purchased the XC10 a few months before I saw your review, and I had flipped over everything you talked about...and kept wondering why no one had adequately acknowledged it until your review. Once I read your review I thought maybe I could have a little more confidence in my own judgement. You know the real value of a given tool by how you feel about using it to accomplish a task at hand. Thinking about shooting with the XC10 makes me frigging happy---and I know any poor result is going to be my own sorry fault--and not the camera; beautiful image, beautiful colors, fantastic grading with C-log, sharp---decent sound, high quality codec--gets the shot with minimum fuss---what's not to love about this camera?

Those would be wonderful upgrades. But what, IMO, would complete the camera in respect to its usefulness would be two levels of ND filter.Right now I would guess the XC10 handles about 80% of outside shooting with their present single ND filter--an additional filter could bring the camera to 90% or more. It would be terrific to take the camera out on a bright day and not to have to bring along ND filters or a Variable ND that can ruin shots when the lens crosses and darkens the cam unevenly.

I agree--we see that by hindsight. Canon seems like "wait and see, and then act IF necessary." But I'll have to say I was shocked at the amount of the price drop on the C300 mk II. I guess the FS7 has taken its toll on sales---but it shouldn't. IMO the C300 MKII is light years better with colors and skin tones to die for.

Here is another version of the birds...Vimeo allowed me to upload it in 4k---so the footage comes out a LOT better---I used a C-300 mk ii LUT and graded it...I don't think it came out badly.

Of course working at color grading is a great idea. I've spent years at it now. But getting a good LUT for particular footage and then grading it can give you great results, save a lot of time, and help you get stylistic uniformity to your footage. These Canon C300 MK II LUTS (there's a bunch of them)--the C-LOG LUTS for the C300 MK II work very well. Try to use WDR luts because they give you better dynamic range. Rec. 709 LUTS will clip and the highlight will washout--especially clouds and even the skies will turn white. Use WDR Canon Mk II LUTS you and you'll get better results in the highlights. I think this is pretty good advice. But, keep in mind, I just an amateur. PS I'm in the process of posting another tweety bird video (only 4 minutes)--but uploaded in 4k, so the quality, once they fully upload it, should be much better than the first bird video, which I could only upload in 720p because of the slo-mo footage.

Lexar, San Disk extreme--it's a pretty democratic camera as to what works well. The right LUT can give consistency to your footage and make grading quicker. I did add sharpening. You almost have to in Log, since shooting in Log removes any and all in camera sharpening whatsoever. I got the LUTS from Canon web site---

The sensor tends to be a bit bright. I usually shoot exposure lock -1/4 to 1/2. That exposes C-log pretty well. If it's not too bright I use -1/4, If it's bright I use -1/2 but either is pretty forgiving. If you can keep your highs below 80 IRE in C Log you're going to get pretty good exposure in most cases. I just shot this yesterday with C log at -1/2 mostly---very, very bright in Texas now and 100 plus. I allow zebras at 70 IRE--it's just an indication you're getting close to over exposing in log. See if you can get the Canon C300 Mk II LUTS from this site. They work great for grading XC10 Clog.

Just posted this today. Shot in 4k and 1080p slo-mo---Vimeo forced upload in 720p. All handheld--moving, slider/stabilizer-like shots done in slo-mo, hand held, in Dynamic IS. Shot in C-log, graded in FCPX and Color Finale. Several hand graded clips as well as grades using one of the Canon C300 mk II LUTs. Bright Texas sun requires internal ND as well as Variable ND on lens for proper exposure. Many wide angle shots were done with Canon wide angle lens attached.

Chris, you make many good points, but about the past. I'm not talking about the past. I'm talking about trends we're seeing in recent years and presently...and if they continue the future doesn't look good. And while I appreciate much of what you say I believe your "$5000.00" paid upgrade for C-Log is little more than bluster and hyperbole. It costs Canon nothing to adapt a present technology to increase profits by improving a model thousands and thousands own, and do it by firmware. The C300 shoots 4k at over 400 mbps. The people who need that will settle only for that. Meanwhile the C100 Mk II languishes with a 1080p bitrate of only 35 mbps. Activating the 4k sensor to produce 4k at, say, 100 mbps like the GH4, would not make the C100 mk ii competitive with the C300 mk II in any way. Those markets have little overlap. What such a firmware upgrade would do would be to increase the profit margin on a product already sold by means requiring only a microscopic bit of overhead---it would be almost pure profit. I would sure as Hell pay 500.00 or even 700.00 for 4k at 100 mbps on the C100 mk II. This could possibly kill C300 sales--unless the same firmware upgrade was offered for the model. But, again, the C100 mk II has a better sensor and processor than the C300...and a better image once you put a Ninja Star on it and record 422 10 bit off the C100 mk ii sensor.

The XC10 can use Canon's wide angle lens (WD-H58W wide converter lens) mounted on the XC10 lens.It's not all that heavy, easy to use, and you're only going to put it on for wide angle, so lugging it around on the camera won't wear you out. I use it when I want wide angle shots and it works very well. The downside is the H58W doesn't have threads for a Variable ND. Still, with just the XC10s internal ND you can get the vast number of your wide angle shots without clipping highlights--especially if you shoot in Log. I actually took an 80mm variable ND which, as chance would have it fit snuggly over the H58W with only a bit of tape inside of the rim of the Vari ND. Using it on the end of the H58W it works great in the harshest sun the light is easily controlled and you never clip. Once I'm done with my wide angle shots I simply take the lens off and shoot the rest.

But that's the problem. The cash isn't rolling in like it did before and more innovative companies are eating Canon's lunch. As I understand it sales are down and Canon are being displaced in many important and lucrative markets that have risen from the development of new technologies. Who thinks of Canon when the topic of mirrorless comes up? Yet this market is growing by leaps and bounds and Canon delivers a mirrorless without any kind of EVF. Do they really think that can compete? Don't get me wrong. I love Canon products. They do deliver what they say they will. They just don't say comparatively much. They look like the UNinnovators...like 7up is the UNcola. I just think the intended limitations on a model for the purpose of "nudging" present Canon owners to purchase yet another camera, shelling out thousands, for a few simple features that could have been added to their present camera for the price of a paid up grade cannot go on forever. It, like socialism, is doomed to backfire. Personally, I have become allergic to Sony color space and image quality---but there are other companies that are innovative that have lovely color and image---and some of those are beginning to use the tactics of Sony to further erode Canon's market share. I guess, stated briefly, how long can you sit around, living on your laurels, and feeling your ass grow? This is just not good business as far as I can see. It sounds like a company that has lost its way, its lead, and is not clear on what to do. Sad to say the XC10, good as it is, is one of the most innovative things Canon has done...and even then they purposely limit it in the hope of forcing you to buy a second iteration. It's useless--they seem totally tone deaf---of maybe I just don't know what the heck I'm talking about. But, then again, a lot of sharp, innovative thinkers with vast experience, I think of Tony Northrop and Andrew, see the trouble---but I don't think even they're being listened to. Personally, I'm rooting for Canon. I'd really like to them use their technologies and artistry to serve us better, give us more of what we ask for, and make more money for themselves...there's a causal connection here that benefits everyone. Presently, it seems to me the present policies and path they've taken doesn't deliver what customers ask for and it doesn't benefit Canon. How can that be good?

I don't disagree with any of these comments. In fact, what you say is obvious on its face. My point was and still is whatever they are thinking it's not about making money. I think that is a serious mistake. It seems there's a HUGE part of the market they are totally snubbing. There are many who would be completely satisfied with the status quo of a model...most even. But for those, for instance, would like some added features for the C100 Mk II, but simply could never dream of owning a C300 mk II--and such people are likely to jump to Sony for want of a few simple features. I know what they've been thinking. In the light of their sales trajectory the past years what I wonder is why they keep thinking it.

No problem--though I'm far from an expert on this...much better people than me to consult--people with real talent and skill.

I own several Canon camcorders and still cameras and really love them. But I can't imagine what directs their marketing thinking. One thing I know: it can't really be money. For instance, instead of pricing a camera out the roof, selling a few, and then, because they're not moving, dropping the price drastically, why not establish a fair and reasonable price and sell a crap load of them at the outset, and keep selling them according to the old sales adage, "the more you sell, the more you sell." Next, why not offer paid upgrades---such as offering a 4k upgrade with a, say 100 mbps, for the C100 Mk II? I'm sure thousands of C100 Mk II owners who would never consider the C300 mk II would be glad to pay a fair price for that upgrade. With cameras being upgradable by means of firmware this is a way to make lots of money if you are judicious about the features you decide to add. And there are dozens more examples. Then there's the crazy stuff. The new Canon 1DX mk II---with 4k but no Canon LOG. That's a deal killer for me. Why should I own the C300 mk ii and XC10---and then buy a 4k Canon I can't shoot Log with??? I know this subject has been lamentably considered many times. I'd love to hear your ideas on what Canon could be thinking---marketing seems crazy to me, and I own a business.

Mikos, the XC10 can produce useable footage up to 5000 ISO in my experience. It's not a low-light monster--and no one should expect it. But it does better than expected for sure. I find the sensor on the bright side and in TV or Av mode I stop down the exposure compensation a bit. But I ask who cares about these details, which are negligible, when the image and color of the Canon is so much better. IMO Sony skin tone/color always looks overprocessed and unnatural--that's why I left Sony after struggling for years with their color space. I couldn't believe they put the footage out they did to promote the FS5. Skin tones looked really artificial--too much magenta for sure---and so much blotchy imaging bereft of detail--just a mess. I never owned a Sony that can approximate the XC10 for image, color, and tone. Plus, the Canon is so much easier to use--menus so much simpler.

This camera is meant to be used in automatic modes. Andrew is spot on about that. Only use manual in controlled shooting circumstances, interviews, etc, where you're in full charge of lighting. I prefer TV mode for outside shooting. In full manual I tend to program the ISO to the wheel and ride it. But outside the in-camera ND is not sufficient in bright sun like we have here in Texas. If you rely only on it you will miss lots of shots due to over exposure. The best result I get with the least angst in harsh sun is to put the nd on, shoot in TV mode, and add a Tiffen Variable ND on the lens. I try to minimize riding the shutter on the wheel in TV mode by making quick adjustments with the Variable ND. The results I've gotten has worked just fine and I lose very few shots due to exposure issues. I also set my Zebra to 70 IRE and that helps me gauge my highlights. Setting the Zebra at 100 IRE--well, once you hit that you've already screwed the pooch and shot a lot of unusable footage. As far as a clean image, C-log will not allow you to shoot below 500 ISO. But all the other modes allow you to shoot at very low ISO--150, etc. If clean is what you want avoid C-log, especially in darker shots. But that's little worry in bright outside shooting. There is issue is blowing out your highs. Ergo, I always shoot in C-log outside, and it does a very credible job of preserving highlights and details in brighter areas like clouds, etc. Again, it's really too bad Canon did not include a histogram or waveform in this camera. I rely on the waveform a lot to get good exposure. Make me a little crazy that Canon do not do some very simple things, like include a waveform in the EVF of the C100 mk II as well as the LCD. I'm always having to take my eye from the EVF to check the LCD for exposure on the waveform when shooting hand held. What a waste of time and energy---and then you lose your shot. Fap!

Finally, I note some are making reference to the guys at The Camera Store in Canada. I ran across their "review within a review" that ever so perfunctorily touched on the XC10 near the end of the video. The review was such a joke I don't see how anyone could consider it worth mentioning, let alone regard as "authoritative" in any way--unless you're a Sony fanboy and love hearing Canon bashed. It was quickly clear to me they were not sufficiently familiar with the XC10. The Camera Store review format went as follows: the camera guy shooting the review used the XC10 to shoot the review of the other cam, and then he was to review the XC10 he had just used at the end---thus, a review within a review. In response to the review I commented that I had found the XC10 to be a really fine a video camera and that the review was very poor and simply wrong in important ways--uninformed. TCS shot back seeking to justify their shoddy excuse for a review by saying while he was happy I had gotten good results but that both he and the camera guy who did the review "hated" using the XC10. Furthermore, he continued, saying he had edited the footage of the XC10 that was used to shoot the non-XC10 review, and he thought the XC10 4K "looked like up-rezed 1080p....and that I should refrain from using words like "uninformed" when referring to what I could only surmise was the competence of the Camera Store folks. I answered back by saying the reason I used the word "uninformed" was that the guy who "reviewed" the XC10 obviously had it in for the XC10, knew little of what he was doing with the camera, and either out of ignorance or malice, had left out almost all the really terrific features and uses of the XC10---all of which Andrew takes the care to mention in his review. It was clear they were slanting the review against the XC10 and/or had taken almost no time to get familiar with it. In short, it seemed clear to me they were reviewing a product into which little care, thought, or imagination had gone. After seeking to explain my use of the word "uninformed" in closing I finally mentioned that it might be good to be somewhat more judicious in their use of a highly impactful word like "hate." I did not know Andrew's review at that time, nor Maarten Heilbron's excellent and thorough hands on review, if I had I might have referenced them in my response to TCS....but, probably not. I don't follow these guys a lot, but I have gotten a general sense they tend to be really pro-Sony---but it's just a sense. I could be wrong. It matters not, and I could care less, but when people say things I know to be misleading and clearly meant to discourage others from even looking into what I know to be and excellent product, I gotta speak up. Besides recoiling at the sight of most Sony color, skin tone, and image quality and wishing I could shred S-Log into tiny pieces and serve it to some denizen of the deep who would take it to the bottom of the Mariana Trench and keep it there, I have nothing against their cams whatsoever. To be completely honest I really wish Canon had a few more of the bells and whistles you always find on a Sony spec sheet. Alas, they don't. But Canon excel at, IMO, the few most essential things, without which, the bells and whistles are rendered all but meaningless: image quality, color science, skin color and skin tone, and...ease of use. Game over. And for those who cite the Camera Store review I can only say two things: 1. If you consider that authoritative you're digging deep. 2. Consider a real review, like Andrew's or, for video hands on, check out Maarten Heilbronn's on youtube and HONESTLY consider all the points he makes.

For me, down rezed 4k always turns out better 1080p than just shooting straight 1080p. But the 1080p is beautiful as a Ding an sich. Mostly, I just use it for slo-mo. Regarding C-log, there's some debate about the exposure issue, I shot C-log over exposing with iffy results, but Jem Schofield recommends shooting C-log with 18% grey at about 31 IRE, and white at 62 IRE. If you don't have a wave form to help you expose 18% grey, I'd recommend putting your Zebra at 70% and not letting your highlights in C-log go over that. You'll find your lowest exposure setting in Log will then be between 10 or 15% IRE. Too bad the XC10 doesn't at least have a histogram...waveform would be better. Jem Schofield discusses log exposure and reading a wave form in one of the video tutorial he does on the Canon C100 cinema camera. you can find it on youtube pretty easily. When I expose that way I always get better results so far. If you have a Ninja II, or some external monitor you can get a good idea of how to expose using a gray card by checking the monitor's waveform. C-log exposed correctly should show the exposed gray card at just over 30 IRE when you fill the cameras image with the gray card shot under the light you're going to be shooting in. If you get the gray card exposed correctly and then use a white card you'll see the white automatically shows exposure at just over 60 IRE. I find the XC10 censor just a bit bright. So when I shoot in TV mode I adjust the exposure compensation down about 1/2. I often grade C-log by hand with FCPX and Color finale--and get results that makes me happy with minimal angst. I'm sure others here with more experience will have more to say about exposing LOG. A wave form or histogram will give you some sense of what proper exposure that works for you is, and then you'll be off to the races. Hope this is helpful. PS: I just noted you're a regular here--so sorry for going over all kinds of stuff you, no doubt, know better than I. But it might just help someone else with the same questions but not the same level of skill.

I think one thing that is significant but has not been discussed at all is the issue of stealth. Most people see you shooting with the XC10, with its tiny form factor, they just think you're doing a few snap shots. They have no idea you're shooting high quality, robust 4k. Pick up a camcorder like the X70 and all of a sudden that's an attention getter and can cause problems in certain instanced in public. No one ever bothers me with the XC10...

I shot Sony cams for a decade. I still own an X70, and it is a fine camcorder, very good 1080, but image, color, and grading can't come close to the XC10---not even close; dynamic range, robustness of codec, stabilization, usability in most instances, etc--not even close. In reality, they are apples and oranges, like all cameras, with strengths and weaknesses unique to them, but for high quality 4k footage you can grade, is super LUT friendly, etc, the XC10 is a bargain--- the x70 is not even close with its 4k at 60 mbps.

Exactly. This is almost totally a video camera with the courtesy of photos in a pinch. But once you load in some Canon Log footage to your NLE at 305mbps, see how robustly grades, how sharp and clean the Log image can be made, how beautiful the colors are, and how it sits well along side of the C300 mk II image---you feel fortunate you can get a camera for under 2k that will produce an image that grades and looks like that. I do lots of talking head educational videos, and skin tones and skin color is gorgeous, with beautiful detail without looking harsh. The outdoor video---for a person with skill it makes beautiful landscape shots and anything you want, and it's surprisingly good in lower light---and with a small amount of effort it creates beautiful DOF shots with beautiful Boca. The reason you can shoot 4k with these other cams is because their bit rates are cruddy, 8bit --that fall apart. The XC10 does all this high bit rate 422, etc, IN camera--no rig, nothing to schlep around. With the XC10 you'll be getting high quality footage while the rigged up people will be fiddling with equipment and not coming out with footage that can approximate the XC10. Rigs are a burden and an albatross. Why schlep them around--just to look "professional?" You'll never appreciate this camera by looking at some cursed piece of paper. For someone with a degree of skill, who loves beautiful color, and sharp clean imagery, this seems an ideal camera for all sorts of purposes. Highly underrated, especially by those who have never taken the time to really try it. Image and color and grading compared to Sony---the Sony doesn't can't even come up to the plate.

I hadn't check your site here for a few months because of being busy with other things. Glad I did. Wow. What a great review. And only a few days ago I was wondering if anyone had done a comparison of the Sony RX and the XC10...and voila!!! In early May, after reading reviews and seeing video I decided to buy an XC10. To be brief, everything you mentioned just jumped right out at me. I own a C300 Mk II, and matching them in 4k Log is easy. I shoot Log almost all the time, and grading the XC10 yields a beautiful image in color and tone, which post-processing sharpening makes look even more amazing. This camera is everything you say it is---and more. And the more I shoot with it the more it knocks me out. Canon have a winner with this camera, and I suspect it will grow considerably in acceptance as more and more people overcome their biases and give it a fair try. This is being written post June firmware update--which, IMO, did only a marginal improvement of the sluggish auto-focus. And the camera still fixes on backgrounds in certain instances and no amount of coaxing will make it fix on the proper object-- even when you put it in MF and program one of the buttons for one-shot. But this happens only occasionally, and when it does the lighting is usually not the best. The loop combined with the joystick work great, and the loop gives added stabilization to hand held shooting. And did I say the image quality was beautiful--clean, and sharp and the Clog amazing??? At times I use a variable ND in combination with the internal ND---it gets pretty harsh under a bright Texas summer sun--and combining the filters on a very bright day works a treat. Often I end up "riding" the ND filter on the lens and the combined ND filters pretty much cover 99% of harsh outdoor exposure issues in bright sunlight. Add a couple more buttons, improve the AF and a few other tweaks and produce a second iteration and I"ll buy it in a heartbeat. I can't wait for the C300 mk ii firmware upgrade and Clog 3--which is supposed to be easier to grade and not as flat as Clog 2. I'm hoping Clog3 and the XC10 Clog will be easier to match than Clog 2. Andrew, thanks again for this great review. I plan to read over it several times to get all the the many points you made. Thanks for sharing your knowledge so generously.

This is all great information. Thanks for posting it. For the work I do shooting log is irrelevant, though I do use the WDR custom profile and grade in it. One question: the chart you included--are those settings for ITU709, or for C LOG? thanks again for taking the time to post these.

I don't want to beat a dead horse, and I'm sure this topic has been discussed ad nauseam, but, alas, I'm going to ask it again. Using a waveform monitor and grey card, what is the best setting for skin tone exposure on the C100 mk ii. The C100 is new to me, and I've done some experimenting--and the best I can judge I get consistently better facial and skin tone images with the grey card expose at about 40 IRE. Now, I'm not speaking about LOG. I'm just talking about one of the Custom Profiles Canon provides. But I would also be interested in correct grey card LOG exposure as well--but it's not my primary concern here. All I know at this point is I believe I get better results with skin tone at 40% rather than 50% with most all of these custom profiles as well as the image void of any of the profiles. What other methods other than a waveform are also effective on the C100 mk II? Could someone older and wiser (or just wiser would suffice, enlighten me further on this matter? As always, thanks for your kind attention.