EOSHD video quality charts - 2015/2016

[kidzrevil]

the NX1 is the real deal for me. I had an a7s and it was cool with the high iso's and all but I hated the color and how it clipped the LED's in concert lights. Made it unusable for city and live performance scenarios. This NX1 though ? Killer. And the more I figure out how to expose with it to avoid noise and macroblocking the better it gets. It also makes vintage lenses sing...im blaming that on its exclusion of an anti aliasing filter.

vimeo.com/kidzrevil

[Lintelfilm]

Not even a mention of the XC10 Andrew? Personally I'd rank it highly on all of these lists but I think even its critics would acknowledge its place here. Beautiful colour, strong codec, decent low light, great handling. For me it's the most interesting "enthusiast" level camera released this year. Unassuming specs but very powerful for capturing strong real world images.

[kidzrevil]

Not even a mention of the XC10 Andrew? Personally I'd rank it highly on all of these lists but I think even its critics would acknowledge its place here. Beautiful colour, strong codec, decent low light, great handling. For me it's the most interesting "enthusiast" level camera released this year. Unassuming specs but very powerful for capturing strong real world images.

I heard that camera sucks. Would be great in the 1990's but sucks by todays standards. F5.6 in telephoto mode are you kidding me ?! 

[Lintelfilm]

I heard that camera sucks. Would be great in the 1990's but sucks by todays standards. F5.6 in telephoto mode are you kidding me ?! 

Oh well if you heard that it sucks I'll retract my comment. And I'll buy one of the many other 4:2:2 4K 305mbps with good low light, lovely colour science, small form factor and IBIS that are available. And chuckle to myself about how 90s the XC10s image looks. Yeah, I'll do that.

[kidzrevil]

Oh well if you heard that it sucks I'll retract my comment. And I'll buy one of the many other 4:2:2 4K 305mbps with good low light, lovely colour science, small form factor and IBIS that are available. And chuckle to myself about how 90s the XC10s image looks. Yeah, I'll do that.

smart move bro ! Glad you're willing to save yourself the headache of shooting with a failed experiment

[rungvang]

XC - 10 

• Limiting lens. The non-constant aperture can drive one crazy while shooting at multiple focal lengths…The maximum aperture difference between wide (F2.8) and tele (5.6) is too large.
• Not enough assignable buttons. There are only 3 of those and that’s very limiting. After assigning 1-Magnification, 2-Display and 3-Push auto focus, had to dig into “FUNCTION” in order to change ISO values, engage the internal ND filter,  use the focus peeking or enable zebra.
• After changing a value in “FUNC”, when starting to record, the menu screen will still be present, preventing the possibility of quick recording. You are forced to close the menu in order to have a clean view of your recording.
• No viewfinder. The proposed original Canon solution (loupe over the LCD) is a good idea but badly implemented. The image is distorted and not evenly in focus when you enable the diopter, which can cause eye fatigue and headache at times.
• Cheap stiff rubber on the loupe is extremely uncomfortable to use.
• Not a worldwide camera. Region restricted.
• Magnification will punch in only once. Not enough to judge critical focus in some shooting situations.
• Build quality is questionable, especially the lens on the camera.
• If you intend to shoot in HD (1080) or slow motion 120 FPS in 720p, prepare to have an extra SD card as those formats will not record onto the CFast card.
• Canon is marketing this camcorder as professional. A better professional XLR audio solution from Canon is missing for that though.
• Minimum ISO in video mode is ISO 500.
• the CFast 2.0 media are still quite expensive for such an entry level camera.

I just cant understand why a camera with such high specs, even got c-log, is, nd filter has such crappy lens. This camera is not suck, its ridiculous. 

[Oliver Daniel]

I heard that camera sucks. Would be great in the 1990's but sucks by todays standards. F5.6 in telephoto mode are you kidding me ?! 

The XC10 seems totally fine for it's intended use (news, drones). 

I'm very surprised to see the BMCC lower than the Sony A7SII, A7RII and 1DC for "character and rendering". In my opinion it blows the socks off the Sony's for this. 

[gsenroc]

The XC10 seems totally fine for it's intended use (news, drones). 

I'm very surprised to see the BMCC lower than the Sony A7SII, A7RII and 1DC for "character and rendering". In my opinion it blows the socks off the Sony's for this. 

XC10 is quite a special camera for its purpose indeed, I don't think it's bad. 

Don't know why BMCC is lower. I was actually planning to get one instead of NX1.

 

[Jpr]

I've been using the A7rii with a c/y -> fe mount metabones speedbooster. Really makes the great contax lenses sing. Very happy with this combination for video.

My favourite lens is the c/y 100-300mm 4.5-5.6 which is so much improved with the speedbooster.

[kidzrevil]

The XC10 seems totally fine for it's intended use (news, drones). 

I'm very surprised to see the BMCC lower than the Sony A7SII, A7RII and 1DC for "character and rendering". In my opinion it blows the socks off the Sony's for this. 

its all subjective...plus you have to factor in lenses used during his tests. Lenses I own that look great on one camera body don't look as good on another. I've had that issue before.  The BMCC does have a great image as do the sony's. How the Sony's render certain colors (yellow, green) gets on my nerves but you know that stuff is subjective. Right now I prefer the colors from the GH4 & NX1 and I know a couple of people who would disagree. As far as the XC10 is concerned nothing about it appeals to me from specs to image...especially in comparison to cameras such as the 5d mark iii and even t3i 

[MBFrancis]

I'm shooting with an LX100 and FZ1000 atm, but I'm a bit surprised they're so low on the lists. I feel like I have most of what I need to shoot covered yet I can't help but consider if I should sell and go for a G7.

I hear good things about the G7 for the price. With the LX100 to cover lower light conditions and FZ1000 for range and slo-mo (and both having auto zoom via rocker nub or wireless control), it seems almost redundant to start over again. I do know that I will be able to invest in particular lenses and even go forth with a speedbooster in the future, handle greater lower light conditions and maybe less noise image patterns overall... still. While I can't make much for comparison, any advice from those who have handled all these cameras would be of help.

[Guest Ebrahim Saadawi]

XC - 10 

• Limiting lens. The non-constant aperture can drive one crazy while shooting at multiple focal lengths…The maximum aperture difference between wide (F2.8) and tele (5.6) is too large.
• Not enough assignable buttons. There are only 3 of those and that’s very limiting. After assigning 1-Magnification, 2-Display and 3-Push auto focus, had to dig into “FUNCTION” in order to change ISO values, engage the internal ND filter,  use the focus peeking or enable zebra.
• After changing a value in “FUNC”, when starting to record, the menu screen will still be present, preventing the possibility of quick recording. You are forced to close the menu in order to have a clean view of your recording.
• No viewfinder. The proposed original Canon solution (loupe over the LCD) is a good idea but badly implemented. The image is distorted and not evenly in focus when you enable the diopter, which can cause eye fatigue and headache at times.
• Cheap stiff rubber on the loupe is extremely uncomfortable to use.
• Not a worldwide camera. Region restricted.
• Magnification will punch in only once. Not enough to judge critical focus in some shooting situations.
• Build quality is questionable, especially the lens on the camera.
• If you intend to shoot in HD (1080) or slow motion 120 FPS in 720p, prepare to have an extra SD card as those formats will not record onto the CFast card.
• Canon is marketing this camcorder as professional. A better professional XLR audio solution from Canon is missing for that though.
• Minimum ISO in video mode is ISO 500.
• the CFast 2.0 media are still quite expensive for such an entry level camera.

I just cant understand why a camera with such high specs, even got c-log, is, nd filter has such crappy lens. This camera is not suck, its ridiculous. 

It's not ridiculous, it doesn't suck' it's simply not intended for your use. 

Do you need to use an XLR microphone in-camera? it's not for you. Do you need a 240mm f/2.8 depth of field, it's not for you, it's f/5.6!, do you need 240p slowmotion, it doesn't have it, do you want to use your lenses on it? it'a a fixed lens camera. Simple, not for you. 

Does that mean it's also not for anybody? Absolutely not. 

In these days, image quality of a camera, seems to be a secondary matter while specs are primary. You list the things the XC10 lacks compared to the rivals, let me lost what it has compared to the competition: 

-Simple, the XC10 offers an amazing image quality, with un'sharpened (hard to find) 4K resolution vs sharpened 4K in the GH4, NX1, X70 and practically all the current 4K cameras, it's a very very annoying issue with these cameras for me that noone seems to mention. Video-like artifical sharpening is always there as an attempt to wow the regular viewer. 

-12 stops of latitude in an incredible C-Log gamma, higher than GH4, NX1, X70, that all cap at 10 usable stops.

-Class leading colour rendition,

-High ISO performance higher than any 1" sensor out there, actually beating the m43s GH4, s35 NX1 and By a great margin X70. All of which are incredibly noisy above 1600/3200 while the XC10 offers a prefectly usable 5000 ISO image. 

-Unlimited recording time 

-A one-of-a-kind 305mbps 4:2:2 8bit 4K image, somethinf absolutely no rival touches, they all cap at less than 100mbps 4:2:0 consumer codecs, this is a cinema grade XFAVC codec that's as robust as ProRes when you try to grade it. 

-It's an approved camera for teir 1 broadcast aquisition by the EBU, something the GH4, NX1, A7s/RII do not have. Which alone opens an entire mass market for the camera the rivals cannot enter due to their codecs. 

-Dual Card Slots, with a professional standard CFast 2.0 media that supports the XFAVC high-end codec, vs a single SD card for compressed consumer recording. 

-Audio quality is better than any DSLR/Mirrorless I've used, Canon/Nikons/GH4/A7s, making it capable of high qualiy internal audio with 3.5mm microphones, has a headphone jack and manual control. I don't use the rivals audio, this one I can use comfortably for a final delivery, removing my external recorder. Huge plus. Just because two cameras have a 3.5mm input doesn't mean they have the same audio capability, one sucks and one is brilliant. This is a perfect example of spec reading without using the camera. another example of that is the ''crappy'' lens, 

-A lens quality of crappiness is NOT evaluated by its maximum aperture. It's one element. It's evaluated by resolving power, distortion, chromatic abberation, purple fringing, coma, corner sharpness, viggnetting, focus and zoom rings, build quality, and more. And this is a GREAT 1" 24-240mm equivalent lens in a compact size. It offers exceptional performance optically. It'a both wide and telephoto with a great MFD, snappy and usable for all scenarios. Crappy as it has a variable iris? ok 

-The lack of any kind of heating issues due to the high-end internal cooling system and quiet fans/venta, the camera can record for straight 24 hours without a sweat. It's called reliability, something many value. 

-The ergonomics are one-of-a-kind, with the rotating grip, the size and weight, the accurate touch screen LCD panel and operating system that allows one screen tap to change any settings. Properly organized menus that are fast to navigate and customisable. 

-It's a perfect timelapse camera as it has an internal mode that allows long exposure, giving 4K 305mbps timelapse file so easily. 

-Internal ND filters. 

-Long battery life, as in normal camera battery not crippled 20-40 mins onea that seem to have dominated the market and people accepted it, carrying 5/6 spares.The XC10 only needs one spare or maximum two for a day shoot. 

-MINIMAL rolling shutter in 4K. 

I can go on.

All these qualities are unique to this camera, the image and body and features it has make it an incredibly useful camera for uses that aren't what regular EOSHD readers do. This is a perfectly nice camera for news, photo-journalism, weddings, documentaries, broadcast television, B/C camera for Cx00 line (having an identical gamma and colours and overall image), and a great Drone/gimbal camera for 4K aquisition. 

Is it a camera of no issues? Of course not. It would be great if it had an XLR module, had a dedicated EVF on top of the LCD, had two more buttons on top of the grip (5D/7D style), and raw photo mode. These would really improve the camera for its intended purposes even more. 

Is it a great camera for those who NEED to create a look based on their lenses and get a shallow depth of field for film/narrative work? Of course not. It's a pick-up-and-shoot run and gun camcorder with a unique image and feature set. Facts. 

People have different video needs than only me or he or she. Video is a vast field of genres and companies create cameras for each genre giving the features that specific field needs and removing the ones they don't needs. Just because a camera system is not designed for your own field doesn't mean it sucks. 

I hate it when people review cameras as good or bad upon announcement without even using them. It doesn't make any sense. I wrote an article on this for anyone interested search here for ''Why specifications mean zero'' thread. 

[kidzrevil]

It's not ridiculous, it doesn't suck' it's simply not intended for your use. 

Do you need to use an XLR microphone in-camera? it's not for you. Do you need a 240mm f/2.8 depth of field, it's not for you, it's f/5.6!, do you need 240p slowmotion, it doesn't have it, do you want to use your lenses on it? it'a a fixed lens camera. Simple, not for you. 

Does that mean it's also not for anybody? Absolutely not. 

In these days, image quality of a camera, seems to be a secondary matter while specs are primary. You list the things the XC10 lacks compared to the rivals, let me lost what it has compared to the competition: 

-Simple, the XC10 offers an amazing image quality, with un'sharpened (hard to find) 4K resolution vs sharpened 4K in the GH4, NX1, X70 and practically all the current 4K cameras, it's a very very annoying issue with these cameras for me that noone seems to mention. Video-like artifical sharpening is always there as an attempt to wow the regular viewer. 

-12 stops of latitude in an incredible C-Log gamma, higher than GH4, NX1, X70, that all cap at 10 usable stops.

-Class leading colour rendition,

-High ISO performance higher than any 1" sensor out there, actually beating the m43s GH4, s35 NX1 and By a great margin X70. All of which are incredibly noisy above 1600/3200 while the XC10 offers a prefectly usable 5000 ISO image. 

-Unlimited recording time 

-A one-of-a-kind 305mbps 4:2:2 8bit 4K image, somethinf absolutely no rival touches, they all cap at less than 100mbps 4:2:0 consumer codecs, this is a cinema grade XFAVC codec that's as robust as ProRes when you try to grade it. 

-It's an approved camera for teir 1 broadcast aquisition by the EBU, something the GH4, NX1, A7s/RII do not have. Which alone opens an entire mass market for the camera the rivals cannot enter due to their codecs. 

-Dual Card Slots, with a professional standard CFast 2.0 media that supports the XFAVC high-end codec, vs a single SD card for compressed consumer recording. 

-Audio quality is better than any DSLR/Mirrorless I've used, Canon/Nikons/GH4/A7s, making it capable of high qualiy internal audio with 3.5mm microphones, has a headphone jack and manual control. I don't use the rivals audio, this one I can use comfortably for a final delivery, removing my external recorder. Huge plus. Just because two cameras have a 3.5mm input doesn't mean they have the same audio capability, one sucks and one is brilliant. This is a perfect example of spec reading without using the camera. another example of that is the ''crappy'' lens, 

-A lens quality of crappiness is NOT evaluated by its maximum aperture. It's one element. It's evaluated by resolving power, distortion, chromatic abberation, purple fringing, coma, corner sharpness, viggnetting, focus and zoom rings, build quality, and more. And this is a GREAT 1" 24-240mm equivalent lens in a compact size. It offers exceptional performance optically. It'a both wide and telephoto with a great MFD, snappy and usable for all scenarios. Crappy as it has a variable iris? ok 

-The lack of any kind of heating issues due to the high-end internal cooling system and quiet fans/venta, the camera can record for straight 24 hours without a sweat. It's called reliability, something many value. 

-The ergonomics are one-of-a-kind, with the rotating grip, the size and weight, the accurate touch screen LCD panel and operating system that allows one screen tap to change any settings. Properly organized menus that are fast to navigate and customisable. 

-It's a perfect timelapse camera as it has an internal mode that allows long exposure, giving 4K 305mbps timelapse file so easily. 

-Internal ND filters. 

-Long battery life, as in normal camera battery not crippled 20-40 mins onea that seem to have dominated the market and people accepted it, carrying 5/6 spares.The XC10 only needs one spare or maximum two for a day shoot. 

-MINIMAL rolling shutter in 4K. 

I can go on.

All these qualities are unique to this camera, the image and body and features it has make it an incredibly useful camera for uses that aren't what regular EOSHD readers do. This is a perfectly nice camera for news, photo-journalism, weddings, documentaries, broadcast television, B/C camera for Cx00 line (having an identical gamma and colours and overall image), and a great Drone/gimbal camera for 4K aquisition. 

Is it a camera of no issues? Of course not. It would be great if it had an XLR module, had a dedicated EVF on top of the LCD, had two more buttons on top of the grip (5D/7D style), and raw photo mode. These would really improve the camera for its intended purposes even more. 

Is it a great camera for those who NEED to create a look based on their lenses and get a shallow depth of field for film/narrative work? Of course not. It's a pick-up-and-shoot run and gun camcorder with a unique image and feature set. Facts. 

People have different video needs than only me or he or she. Video is a vast field of genres and companies create cameras for each genre giving the features that specific field needs and removing the ones they don't needs. Just because a camera system is not designed for your own field doesn't mean it sucks. 

I hate it when people review cameras as good or bad upon announcement without even using them. It doesn't make any sense. I wrote an article on this for anyone interested search here for ''Why specifications mean zero'' thread. 

find me footage of this camera that isn't totally underwhelming and id change my mind. If specs dont contribute to the image quality id take a hacked gh2 over this anyday

[Andrew Reid]

I can only put on the chart cameras I've actually used extensively.

I'll admit my interest in the little XC10 is growing.

It hasn't had a positive reception from most people. The Camera Store and Canon Rumors voted it their worst of the year. I didn't like the handling when I briefly tried it and I wasn't blown away by the specs or the pricing either. But if the 8bit image really is like a small chip 1D C with great colour it could be useful. The 4K 300Mbit/s 4:2:2 compared to 4K 100Mbit/s 4:2:0 on the Sony RX10 II does seem to look a lot more organic with a better texture, better noise, better colour, more natural detail. So maybe it is worth a closer look after all.

[Guest Ebrahim Saadawi]

Specs are nothing. Thet only rate the cameras' dimensions, size and weight, plus the number of photosites on the sensor and the size of it. Nothing else. All the other elements that make upna good or a bad camera are exclusively rated by using the camera, not for a day, but for at least +week. 

 

The examples are all around us and we should know better by now. An FS5 was crowned as a beast crushing the C100II/FS700/C300/lS300/DVX200 with its over the moon the specs, but guess what: You can't use an external monitor while recording enternally. You can't record to dual cards simultaneously. The HFR 240p mode is of very low quality and is 8 second-burst with quadriple that to buffer, the image is broken, yes, at 4K the image shows a major ''tearing'' defect at the corners that make higher ISOs than 1600 unusable, even in the uncompressed HDMI output so not a codec issue, and the codec even farther shows horrible macroblocling and excessive noise above 1600 ISO. There's an audio hissing problem as well. It's a reported fact the A7sII/A7rII produce a much better image than the camera. 

Now does it crush the C100II, that merely has an 8bit codec but zero image defects? can shoot up to 10.000 ISO? can monitor externally with an added LUT? record to dual cards? produce perfect audio? has knowingly better colour reproduction and C-Log? magical Autofocus system? 

Specs rarely tell any truth. You have to HOLD the camera, set it up, shoot with it for long hours, under heavy environments, at different settings, and then spend sometime viewing the footage carefully corner by corner, evaluate audio quality and features disabled/enabled, only then one can say a camera is good or not. 

[Lintelfilm]

A couple of months ago Faith Fuller of Desktop-Documentaries.com (a site aimed mainly at doc-making noobs) asked me to write an article recommending a few "ready to shoot" camera packages in the $2500 price range. You guys know I don't have vast experience when it comes to cameras but I basically whittled it down to a choice between a GH4 with a 12-35mm, and an XC10 (this is for documentary shooting remember so useability was high on the list of requirements). If you want to take a look it's here (I also go into the general 2015 video camera landscape a bit): http://www.desktop-documentaries.com/best-documentary-video-camera-2500.html

I went for the XC10 as the overall best choice (obviously acknowledging that ultimately it comes down to what you want and need the camera for though). Personally I use a GH4 with 0.71x speed booster and a BMPCC with the 0.58x SB. For myself I would choose my fully rigged out BMPCC over the GH4 or XC10, but recommending that set-up to noobs isn't really fair.

Unless you're using a speed booster, I see very little advantage of a GH4 over an XC10 (speaking purely of video and disregarding stills capability) and even with a speed booster the only real advantage is shallow DoF.

By the way, does anyone have any opinion on how nicely XC10 footage plays with mid-spec computers? The XC10 stuff I've graded and edited was OK on my 2013 i7 iMac but I didn't do a lot. Is it comparable to ProRes in terms of smooth editing? Honestly, for the work I do I do wonder sometimes about selling my GH4 and BMPCC and just buying an XC10. It would make my life sooo much easier, with very few downsides (loss of shallow DoF basically).

[Guest Ebrahim Saadawi]

We're artists, the absolute most important elenent in a camera's evaluation is image quality, and the XC10 wins that race by a good margin. The highly acclaimed GH4 and NX1produce a far more video-like image withlower dynamic range, far more compression, lower lowlight performance, harder to grade gammas, worse colours, higher artefacts (RS). 

Its amazing how the specs are now the primary concern. for example, the RX10II and vX70 have a COMPLETELY different image from the XC10, just because they have a one inch sensor and a LOG gamma makes them equal in anything. 

Image quality. It's important. Very, very important.   

I am blown away by my XC10 image and ergonomics. It's an exact opposite of why I gave up the GH4, video-look (mostly digital sharpening, dynamic range and compression and coloir science). I really want to share imformation about this camera, it's a huge opportunity loss if people skip it due to the first few forum impresssions. And hey, I have no reason to want it to be good, I had a full week of trial before making the purchase. 

I LOVE the footage on the timeline. 1Dc with a quality lens on it, just without the excessive shallow DOF, and has MUCH better video ergonomics/features than the 1DC (thoufj of the 1Dc was the same cost I'd have mich preffered that fullframe with EF mount and 12fpa raw stills) 

[kidzrevil]

We're artists, the absolute most important elenent in a camera's evaluation is image quality, and the XC10 wins that race by a good margin. The highly acclaimed GH4 and NX1produce a far more video-like image withlower dynamic range, far more compression, lower lowlight performance, harder to grade gammas, worse colours, higher artefacts (RS). 

Its amazing how the specs are now the primary concern. for example, the RX10II and vX70 have a COMPLETELY different image from the XC10, just because they have a one inch sensor and a LOG gamma makes them equal in anything. 

Image quality. It's important. Very, very important.   

I am blown away by my XC10 image and ergonomics. It's an exact opposite of why I gave up the GH4, video-look (mostly digital sharpening, dynamic range and compression and coloir science). I really want to share imformation about this camera, it's a huge opportunity loss if people skip it due to the first few forum impresssions. And hey, I have no reason to want it to be good, I had a full week of trial before making the purchase. 

I LOVE the footage on the timeline. 1Dc with a quality lens on it, just without the excessive shallow DOF, and has MUCH better video ergonomics/features than the 1DC (thoufj of the 1Dc was the same cost I'd have mich preffered that fullframe with EF mount and 12fpa raw stills) 

i think the term "looks like video" is very subjective. I have an nx1 and my work looks very far from "video". Again I've shot and owned an a7s,gh4 and nx1 and it takes a bit of skill and finesse to get the image to look how you want it too...no matter the compression, in camera sharpening, dynamic range etc.

I cant speak for everybody but my concern isn't with specs...sony loves inflating their specs and underdelivers in performance with some of their cameras but still people found a way to produce great footage while others managed to fuck it up and make an a7rii look like a DV camera. Im more into image quality than specs...

If you say that canon looks like a 1dc i'll take your word for it...I haven't seen footage from it that comes remotely close to a 1dc style of rendering. 

[Lintelfilm]

They're nice shots and I don't want this to sound mean but to me your NX1 shots just look low contrast - low dynamic range with the shadows lifted until they aren't true black (no detail, just grey, and no "punch"). Furthermore the colour looks 8-bit with a generic "film" LUT applied, and the in-focus details look overly sharp. Colour depth, dynamic range and strong codec are not what these images say to me. The XC10 has the latter 3 in abundance. It's a question of taste I agree, but to say the XC10 "sucks" in comparison to the NX1 is to dismiss dynamic range, colour depth, motion cadence, image integrity/robustness, camera use-ability, rolling shutter performance, and the huge benefit of using a camera that "just works."

[kidzrevil]

They're nice shots and I don't want this to sound mean but to me your NX1 shots just look low contrast - low dynamic range with the shadows lifted until they aren't true black (no detail, just grey, and no "punch"). Furthermore the colour looks 8-bit with a generic "film" LUT applied, and the in-focus details look overly sharp. Colour depth, dynamic range and strong codec are not what these images say to me. The XC10 has the latter 3 in abundance. It's a question of taste I agree, but to say the XC10 "sucks" in comparison to the NX1 is to dismiss dynamic range, colour depth, motion cadence, image integrity/robustness, camera use-ability, rolling shutter performance, and the huge benefit of using a camera that "just works."

 I grade with scopes there is true detail in the black and my lenses were stopped down to f8 hence the sharpness. Also it was graded with LUTS. Impulz and delut's but I guess if the source was 8bit the colors will look 8 bit like the many other 8bit cameras like the a7 line. Plus even with a 10 bit camera you can only see those variation in colors on a 10 bit monitor. Everything is output to 8 bit color even from an 8bit source. Totally forgot to mention downscaling to 1080 from 4k gets you 444 color at 10 bit but lol ok copy. And I didn't say the xc10 sucks by comparison, I said it sucks in general. Specs wise it's very underpowered. They could have at least have allowed us interchangeable lenses but whatever. Would love to see your xc10 footage cuz the footage I've seen hasn't selled me on the camera at all.