Canon XC10 versus Sony RX10 III. The Canon is underrated!

[Mikestern]

Andrew. 

When I read that part about the image quality comparison of these 2 cameras, I was surprised. So I went to DPreview and put the images side by side to check.

???

xc10 image quality is no where close to RX10III. Honestly. It doesn't even offer RAW. You mentioned this under "cons" for Canon, but why not mentioning the same thing under "pros" for Sony?

Canon does not have to have a better image quality, I understand, but near 2000$ camera that doesn't offer RAW for this category of a camera is not easily acceptable, not only for me, for so many of us.

i really would like to believe you conducting this article unbiased. Having difficulties.

 

[KrisAK]

6 hours ago, Michal Gajdoš said:

But the price of 2000 USD ! add another 500 and you have a7sii, or two a6300 / gh4. i don't know man, the video must have been miles ahead of others to even consider paying 2000 for non constant aperture, no raw photos hybrid one lens camera :| 

anyway, will you add video too Andrew ? 

But when you factor in a decent lens, a external recorder for long takes (which is all I do), etc., the value proposition of the XC10 becomes startlingly clear.

I've costed-out multiple options (the GX8, 12-35 and a Pix-E5H is my current favorite) that would give me more flexibility down the line, but in each case I think, sure, great, but I'll also be screwing around with a much more elaborate setup, cursing to myself while moments slip away. In a narrative or corporate talking-heads stuff...scenarios where I'd have the luxury to take my time...that would be fine. But for grab-and-go shooting, forget it.

[ND64]

Samsung wants to put 1/1.7" sensor in its future smartphones. ISO performance gap is going to be less than we see today. So 1" format camera makers should differentiate with fast lenses. f/1.2 or at least 1.4. Imagine 13mm f/1 on this XC10. 

[HugoS316]

3 hours ago, Miklos Nemeth said:

Exactly, no XLR, no ND filter in XC10, and just add the hilarious prices of CFast2 cards just to be able to record 4K. Even the "consumer" Sony A6300 can get an XLR module.

XC10 does have an ND filter. When I purchased mine, B&H was shipping a free XLR module with the camera.

It's good to see an article like this which discusses the real positives and negatives of actually shooting with the XC10, rather than just being critical of a spec sheet, which is the reason the vast majority of people have written the camera off. Those who actually shoot with it realize its usefulness. Or they get drunk around Christmas and film YouTube videos saying it's the worst camera of the year, when that is far from the truth. 

[Prandi]

I earn my money among others with the XC10 and I enjoy it.
crazy the a say with a nikon j5 here oh god.
1. Price XC10: ~ $ 1,700
2. Price CFast card: Transcend 64Gb 2.0 ... 59 $
                                  128Gb ... 100 $
3. XLR? ... A small adapter .... $ 40
4. ND .... she has a.
and when I say "very good" photos need, I'll do it with a Canon 5D III and not with an A6300, RX10 III
The XC10 is a Video camera with photo function ... and a RX10 III, A6300, a photo camera with Video function.
Here to talk some with which they had never been in his hand,
let have ever worked with her.

sorry, but is always the same....Canon basher or which they have previously seen photo on only one.

Sorry for the google translation.

[KrisAK]

2 hours ago, Mikestern said:

Andrew. 

When I read that part about the image quality comparison of these 2 cameras, I was surprised. So I went to DPreview and put the images side by side to check.

???

xc10 image quality is no where close to RX10III. Honestly. It doesn't even offer RAW. You mentioned this under "cons" for Canon, but why not mentioning the same thing under "pros" for Sony?

Canon does not have to have a better image quality, I understand, but near 2000$ camera that doesn't offer RAW for this category of a camera is not easily acceptable, not only for me, for so many of us.

i really would like to believe you conducting this article unbiased. Having difficulties.

 

 

What do you mean by "this category"? The XC10 is sold and marketed as a professional camcorder. 

[fuzzynormal]

2 hours ago, Mikestern said:

I was surprised. So I went to DPreview and put the images side by side to check.

???

Maybe I missed something, but EOSHD is writing about and comparing video IQ output, not JPEG stills, which is what that DPreview test is illustrating, correct?

[jgharding]

3 hours ago, Mikestern said:

Andrew. 

When I read that part about the image quality comparison of these 2 cameras, I was surprised. So I went to DPreview and put the images side by side to check.

???

xc10 image quality is no where close to RX10III. Honestly. It doesn't even offer RAW. You mentioned this under "cons" for Canon, but why not mentioning the same thing under "pros" for Sony?

Canon does not have to have a better image quality, I understand, but near 2000$ camera that doesn't offer RAW for this category of a camera is not easily acceptable, not only for me, for so many of us.

i really would like to believe you conducting this article unbiased. Having difficulties.

 

Yes that's just stills.

The XC10 is a video camera that allows you to take 4K JPEGS as an extra. It's not strictly speaking a hybrid like the RX10. This is a video site, so stills aren't really the focus. If you like to take stills too, maybe this will affect your decision.

I sold an RX100 ii to buy an XC10 and and very glad I did. It's so much easier to use and the results just work, no hours of fixing colour in post.

[Dave Del Real]

5 hours ago, Mikestern said:

Andrew. 

When I read that part about the image quality comparison of these 2 cameras, I was surprised. So I went to DPreview and put the images side by side to check.

???

xc10 image quality is no where close to RX10III. Honestly. It doesn't even offer RAW. You mentioned this under "cons" for Canon, but why not mentioning the same thing under "pros" for Sony?

Canon does not have to have a better image quality, I understand, but near 2000$ camera that doesn't offer RAW for this category of a camera is not easily acceptable, not only for me, for so many of us.

i really would like to believe you conducting this article unbiased. Having difficulties.

 

 

Do you work for Sony, Mike? Comparing Apples to Oranges with the DPReview comment - we're not talking stills here.

 

Anyhow, I think the XC10 is very promising indeed. A good enough "A" cam and better "B" cam. The next iteration will probably be even better.

[kidzrevil]

I'm confused cause not too long ago there was an article on this site that made the xc10 look shitty in terms of concept, it was ignored for the best cameras of the year article and now its leaps and bounds better than the sony rx10 iii ? if the image quality is similar as the rx10 ii then what changed ?

I'm sure the camera is good in capable hands like any other camera but its hard to keep up with the wild shift in opinion in these articles

http://www.eoshd.com/2015/04/canon-xc10-should-you-buy-one/

[k-robert]

I am also confused.

There is this whole internet with a galaxy of information, and it is tougher and tougher to find the correct ones. You almost have to be a professional, to be able to see, who you can trust, what is right and what is BS. Many sites are sponsored by somebody, Canon-Nikon-Sony ambassadors are not unbiased either, and all the fanboys with their own truth, as there were nothing else important to photography.

Full-frame fanboys are the most visible. Some of them are educated enough to understand, in reality they are swallow DoF fanboys. And there are the low-light-funboys, the DR-fanboys, the filmic-look-fanboys, the MP-fanboys, the 24p-fanboys, the color-science-fanboys... All of them suggest, exactly that function has to be superior, but I believe, usability is a mix of functions, and for every job there can be a different mix. And there is no perfect camera.

For me the XC10 is a strange bastard. Like a tired product management came together on a Monday to decide, what should be in and what out for this camera, positioned between the pro and consumer segment. As it doesn't shoot RAW, it is not a real bridge camera, and not a real video-reporter camera either. In comparison with the RX10, for me the Sony is a way better all-round offer. Probably, for video-reporting the Sony AX100 would also be a better choice.

Looking wider at the competition, for 2.000 EUR/USD there are better all-round cameras.

[Andrew Reid]

The ones who are confused clearly were like me when I didn't own an XC10, just looking at the specs and even the JPEG resolution (for reasons only they can know!) and thinking that it is an expensive, odd product, lagging behind Sony in the specs race.

Try one, get to know it, look at the images, you will be surprised like I was what a lot of fun it is and how great the images can be.

I'll upload some footage, still shooting with it.

Better all-round cameras? Maybe, but what if you want 422 internal 305Mbit 4K and 24-240mm zoom though?! Not much to compete with that in one-body for under $2k, especially not with the colour and ergonomics of the Canon.

[hmcindie]

29 minutes ago, k-robert said:

I am also confused.

There is this whole internet with a galaxy of information, and it is tougher and tougher to find the correct ones. You almost have to be a professional, to be able to see, who you can trust, what is right and what is BS.

There are as many cameras as there are users. Even a "professional" will not necessarily help you in choosing a camera FOR YOU because you are not that professional and won't use it the same way. I can easily pick a camera I like the best, but I can't choose a camera for someone else. I can give hints and tips but I will not tell anyone "buy this, it's the best". That's the thing, you have to learn it yourself.

[gelaxstudio]

8 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

The ones who are confused clearly were like me when I didn't own an XC10, just looking at the specs and even the JPEG resolution (for reasons only they can know!) and thinking that it is an expensive, odd product, lagging behind Sony in the specs race.

Try one, get to know it, look at the images, you will be surprised like I was what a lot of fun it is and how great the images can be.

uh...TheCameraStoreTV gave it the award as the worst video camera of 2015 and the lens was awarded one of the top three worst lenses of 2015 !

https://youtu.be/Mexs7HvHR2I?t=1316

[Prandi]

and you believe the shit also ..or yet? :-)

[David Bowgett]

33 minutes ago, gelaxstudio said:

uh...TheCameraStoreTV gave it the award as the worst video camera of 2015 and the lens was awarded one of the top three worst lenses of 2015 !

https://youtu.be/Mexs7HvHR2I?t=1316

The two main guys might have thought that, but one of their other reviewers also took a look at it in their 5DS review and was a lot more positive about it, saying that while there were a lot of annoying issues with the camera's design, the actual video quality was pretty good.

https://youtu.be/QwLZRKfFmUY?t=12m57s

 

[Miklos Nemeth]

19 hours ago, hmcindie said:

You are criticising cameras for not having XLR's or ND filters but you are yourself shooting with a Nikon J5 out of all things?!

I have zero emotions either pro or against cameras of any brand/make. I was seriously thinking of going for an XC10; in my post I just wanted to point out facts/limitations that I should take into consideration before buying any camera. Reviews and comments on this forum help me a lot to evaluate a camera. I was totally wrong anyway when I wrote that the XC10 has no ND filter: it has a (3-stop (?)) ND filter, which I could live with; still, it's weird that the consumer Sony AX100 has a 3-step (4/16/64) ND filter, while the "professional" XC10 has only one.

When I mentioned Nikon J5, my point was that the J5 is a decent camera for $500, but a "1" sensor camera" is definitely not what I'd pick today whatever great its codecs and other features would be, because the low-light performance of 1" cameras are disappointing vs the image quality of APS-C video cameras (Sony A5100/A6000/A6300, for example). Daylight or for professional video applications/assignments with led lighs 1" cameras are excellent, but not for (ad-hoc) indoor, eveining, club recordings where no video lighting is available or allowed. If I paid $2000 for a camera, I'd expect it to be perfectly fine for low-light handheld applications, too; the XC10/RX10iii/J5/AX100/X70 are not. 

[RackMount]

19 hours ago, Miklos Nemeth said:

 

Smaller chip cameras still get plenty of professional use so is hardly a dead end. Many news organizations continue to use them and buy them and spec them for broadcast. And you can't get the giant zoom range in a small package with a big sensor like you can with a small chip cameras. Short of paying mega $$$ for a not-so-compact Cine Servo lens. Decent codecs also make a big difference that really separate pro gear from consumer grade. 

 

 

19 hours ago, Miklos Nemeth said:

Exactly, no XLR, no ND filter in XC10, and just add the hilarious prices of CFast2 cards just to be able to record 4K. Even the "consumer" Sony A6300 can get an XLR module. In a couple of months, hundreds of affordable cameras will shoot excellent 4K videos on regular SD cards. I have a decent 1" camera Nikon J5, but definitely, I wouldn't buy any camera with only 1" again, since their low light capability is way inferior to what we can have today from affordable APS-C cameras. To me 1" is dead end.

 

[Miklos Nemeth]

17 hours ago, HugoS316 said:

XC10 does have an ND filter. When I purchased mine, B&H was shipping a free XLR module with the camera.... negatives of actually shooting with the XC10

I stand corrected, apologies for the false information. Honestly, I don't regard the missing XLR module a big negative, but it is a fact that the $2000 XC10 Canon professional videocamera has no direct XLR support. I use a Tascam DR-60DmkII ($200) and a Zoom H5 anyway, so I am quite OK with the fact that the XC10 has only a mic jack and no XLR.

Nevertheless, you cannot ignore the fact that the XC10 has only a 1" sensor, which is really below today's expectations for low-light applications; today, when ((much) more) affordable solutions exist that are great for daylight and low-light situation either. The XC10 might be (much) better than an Sony RX10iii, RX10ii, AX100, RX100iv, X70, but definitely it is not a competitor of larger sensor 4K cameras especially not APS-C/S35 (JVC GY-LS300, A6300) let alone the 4K A7 family. I have enough experience with 1" sensors, I've been there, I don't want to go/step back, definitely not for $2000. 

[hmcindie]

I have the A6300 and I feel it is useless for professional applications because A) rolling shutter in 4k and B) overheating.

Nobody will buy an XLR adapter for the A6300 because no one who is doing professional shooting will want to shoot with an A6300. They are not competitors. The A6300 is for consumers who shoot a couple of clips of 4k here and there.