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

[josef]

Everybody keeps asking about making the lens constant 2.8... I'd love that but it would be much more expensive as a result.  What about removing the lens and giving us an EF mount so we can use our own glass? I think if Canon did that they'd find more buyers for this kit.

[gelaxstudio]

4 hours ago, josef said:

Everybody keeps asking about making the lens constant 2.8... I'd love that but it would be much more expensive as a result.  What about removing the lens and giving us an EF mount so we can use our own glass? I think if Canon did that they'd find more buyers for this kit.

But sony and zeiss  did make one under $1000 (RX10) and a fast one with F1.8(rx100),and all with powerzoom

[hmcindie]

23 minutes ago, gelaxstudio said:

But sony and zeiss  did make one under $1000 (RX10) and a fast one with F1.8(rx100),and all with powerzoom

And with a shit usability. 

P.S It's funny reading through gelaxstudios message history from 2012. It's like reading a Sony fanboy page. Four years of typing the same messages over and over?

[KrisAK]

5 hours ago, josef said:

...What about removing the lens and giving us an EF mount so we can use our own glass? I think if Canon did that they'd find more buyers for this kit.

That would be a very different camera, and for certain uses would actually be less appealing.

(And if that's what you need, I think Canon expects you to cough up for a Cxxx-series camcorder.)

[David Bowgett]

5 hours ago, josef said:

Everybody keeps asking about making the lens constant 2.8... I'd love that but it would be much more expensive as a result.  What about removing the lens and giving us an EF mount so we can use our own glass? I think if Canon did that they'd find more buyers for this kit.

With the sensor size that'd produce something like a 3x crop factor. They'd need to slap a m4/3rds mount on it for it to be even vaguely useful for most purposes, and somehow I just don't see Canon giving that sort of validation to their competitors.

[TheRenaissanceMan]

Just now, David Bowgett said:

With the sensor size that'd produce something like a 3x crop factor. They'd need to slap a m4/3rds mount on it for it to be even vaguely useful for most purposes, and somehow I just don't see Canon giving that sort of validation to their competitors.

Or EF-M mount. You can get a c- mount adapter on that. Only 17mm flange distance iirc.

[Andrew Reid]

An EF-M version would be great.

They might even sell more than 2 EF-M lenses if they did that.

Vintage c-mount glass would look very nice on it, not cheap though.

It would be tricky to find a 24-240mm equivalent 10x zoom with AF in compact proportions too I don't particularly like manual focus on zooms, it's a lot to think about when you just want to get the shot.

[Prandi]

On 5. Juni 2016 at 0:12 PM, Miklos Nemeth said:

The 128G Transcend CFast card is $300 at B&H or €200 at Amazon.DE  What XLR module/adapter can you get for $40?

Hi Miklos,

XLR Adapter 
http://www.thomann.de/de/rode_sc3.htm
And http://www.thomann.de/de/ik_multimedia_irig_pre.htm?ref=search_prv_7_2

Transcend Cfast 2.0 64Gb
http://geizhals.at/transcend-cfx600-cfast-2-0-compactflash-card-cf-600x-64gb-ts64gcfx600-a1315158.html?hloc=at&hloc=de&hloc=pl&hloc=uk&hloc=eu

 

Transcend Cfast 2.0 128Gb
http://geizhals.at/transcend-cfast-2-0-compactflash-card-cf-600x-128gb-ts128gcfx600-a1135911.html?hloc=at&hloc=de&hloc=pl&hloc=uk&hloc=eu

 

 

 

[Andrew Reid]

Good find on the CFast 2 cards. Wow, they have crashed in price. The CFX600 128GB was $250 when it came out.

Specs - Read: 515MB/s, Write: 160MB/s

There's the CFX650 too, perhaps more future proof with write speeds of over 300MB/s

No reason future cameras can't do raw internally now.

[Prandi]

The  Cfx600 function properly

[jydurocher]

Love these post, have gone thru them in some or another for almost 50 years. First with: The only way to shoot a movie is with a Mitchell. Followed by: Reflex are for sissies. Then: Arris may be good as expendable cameras. And let's not forget: 16mm is for amateur! Which was technically true as it was introduced as such.

Let's not forget the great Super8 debate! There is a better format and it's 9.5mm! Which was true, except that film was not available in most places on the planet.

I've bought an XC 10, not even touching it (that was almost 2 months ago, it's backordered at Canon Canada), but I've read the EBU report, those that have actually edit a 2" quad tape with a blade needed reading skills, seen the videos and for what it is intended to do: A news video camera with decent still capability. It mores than fill the needs for me and I guess a couple of thousands of news person in North America alone.

Now if only someone would produced a 8K video camera with a 1:100, T1.4, lenses with integral satellite uplink for a slightly lower price than the XC-10 in the same size and weight, I'm willing to reconsider my purchase. Gosh i was forgetting the XLR.

[gelaxstudio]

Fuji T-2 is coming !With 4K!

 

[gelaxstudio]

On 2016年6月7日 at 10:14 PM, hmcindie said:

And with a shit usability.

P.S It's funny reading through gelaxstudios message history from 2012. It's like reading a Sony fanboy page. Four years of typing the same messages over and over?

You judge something without a detail review and now judging me? A load of piffle

I did not seeing any professional review evaluate the lens on rx10 as trash,but reviews like thecamerastoreTV and cinema5d did shows the xc10 lens is just a plastics toy,and you trying to compare a plastics lens with a metal lens and said the metal one is shit?

Dude,you are so fanboy than I can be ,one without brain

On 2016年6月7日 at 10:14 PM, hmcindie said:

And with a shit usability.

P.S It's funny reading through gelaxstudios message history from 2012. It's like reading a Sony fanboy page. Four years of typing the same messages over and over?

You judge something without a detail review and now judging me? A load of piffle

I did not seeing any professional review evaluate the lens on rx10 as trash,but reviews like thecamerastoreTV and cinema5d did shows the xc10 lens is just a plastics toy,and you trying to compare a plastics lens with a metal lens and said the metal one is shit?

Dude,you are so fanboy than I can be ,one without brain

On 2016年6月7日 at 10:14 PM, hmcindie said:

And with a shit usability.

P.S It's funny reading through gelaxstudios message history from 2012. It's like reading a Sony fanboy page. Four years of typing the same messages over and over?

You judge something without a detail review and now judging me? A load of piffle

I did not seeing any professional review evaluate the lens on rx10 as trash,but reviews like thecamerastoreTV and cinema5d did shows the xc10 lens is just a plastics toy,and you trying to compare a plastics lens with a metal lens and said the metal one is shit?

Dude,you are so fanboy than I can be ,one without brain

[Robbieg]

Andrew have you tried the SLR MAGIC Anamorphot on the XC10? Ive seen some nice footage of it on the rx10 ii i''m so torn on which one to get! 

[jpfilmz]

7 hours ago, gelaxstudio said:

You judge something without a detail review and now judging me? A load of piffle

I did not seeing any professional review evaluate the lens on rx10 as trash,but reviews like thecamerastoreTV and cinema5d did shows the xc10 lens is just a plastics toy,and you trying to compare a plastics lens with a metal lens and said the metal one is shit?

Dude,you are so fanboy than I can be ,one without brain

You judge something without a detail review and now judging me? A load of piffle

I did not seeing any professional review evaluate the lens on rx10 as trash,but reviews like thecamerastoreTV and cinema5d did shows the xc10 lens is just a plastics toy,and you trying to compare a plastics lens with a metal lens and said the metal one is shit?

Dude,you are so fanboy than I can be ,one without brain

You judge something without a detail review and now judging me? A load of piffle

I did not seeing any professional review evaluate the lens on rx10 as trash,but reviews like thecamerastoreTV and cinema5d did shows the xc10 lens is just a plastics toy,and you trying to compare a plastics lens with a metal lens and said the metal one is shit?

Dude,you are so fanboy than I can be ,one without brain

The lens isn't plastic.

[Leica50mm]

It really does look like good super sixteen millimeter 

[tugela]

On ‎6‎/‎6‎/‎2016 at 6:08 PM, fuzzynormal said:

Ironically, I think lots of folks ultimately use these hybrid cameras for rather mundane personal purposes.  They're the one that seem to be clamoring for a camera that does absolutely everything top in class.  And oh, for 1-2K please.

One thing I believe I've sussed out from online rants about specs is that a camera enthusiast is not necessarily an accomplished craftsman or an artist. (not that there's anything wrong with that)  Maybe they just like playing with new toys and want what they think is the best; not that they'd do anything terribly creative with it, but they got one, dangnabit!

God bless 'em though.  They're the ones keeping the market alive.

The hybrids are primarily for consumers who want a single camera that can do both jobs very well, and can switch from stills to video mode and back again at the press of a button. They are not really intended for professionals, even though marketing materials might portray them that way. The marketing is not aimed at professionals since they (we hope) know better, but is intended more for advanced amateurs who want to appear "professional". That is why you see Blackmagic cameras all decked out with giant rigs and professional lenses in their marketing materials for example. It is aimed at the wannabe amateurs and "I can barely make it" pros for the most part.

In order to be considered an adequate hybrid, a camera has to excel both in stills and in video, not just one while doing a shitty job in the other.

[tugela]

On ‎6‎/‎6‎/‎2016 at 9:03 AM, Clayton Moore said:

I understand Canon is saving the real video muscle for  "Cinema" line, at least as far as large single sensor interchangeable lens cameras.  But, I'd love to have a nice compact ENG style camera in my arsenal.  RIght now its either SONY or Panasonic in terms of new 1" and micro 4/3 sensors.  Canon has the nice color and good glass, they just need to decide to update their standard camcorders.  Could they be super competitive in the $3,000-$4,000 of course, if they actually wanted to.  All the XC10 does is make me wish they had a camera, they don't yet have.  A (4K) 13 stop, C-log, version of an XF-200.  

Yes. It is somewhat mystifying that they have not modernized their XF/XA lines. Even though they get occasional updates, they are still basically the same cameras from 3 years ago. Things have moved on a lot in the field in those three years however, so the low end pro camcorders are badly out of date now.

[kidzrevil]

2 hours ago, tugela said:

The hybrids are primarily for consumers who want a single camera that can do both jobs very well, and can switch from stills to video mode and back again at the press of a button. They are not really intended for professionals, even though marketing materials might portray them that way. The marketing is not aimed at professionals since they (we hope) know better, but is intended more for advanced amateurs who want to appear "professional". That is why you see Blackmagic cameras all decked out with giant rigs and professional lenses in their marketing materials for example. It is aimed at the wannabe amateurs and "I can barely make it" pros for the most part.

In order to be considered an adequate hybrid, a camera has to excel both in stills and in video, not just one while doing a shitty job in the other.

???

[fuzzynormal]

3 hours ago, tugela said:

 It is aimed at the wannabe amateurs and "I can barely make it" pros for the most part.

Perhaps.  But then again, I say as a documentarian, so what?  From the POV of my reality I think I disagree with your assertion.

I guess, by certain perception, I'm in the "I can barely make it" camp.  As it happens, I've never been beholden to the idea that certain gear is inherently not-good-enough simply because of the market it's being sold to.  I rent when I need to and I shoot with many of these contemptible "toys" when I need to.  My opinion is that a tool is a tool.  I'm not going to bring a "knife to a gun fight" nor am I going to do the opposite.

It's curious, I think, how some people perceive themselves as superior in an (supposedly) artistic medium simply because they have more expensive pro tools to do the craft.  Does anyone else find that odd?  Especially these days?  That sort of elitism was curious even a decade ago.  Now, it really doesn't make sense.  Anyone with $3K can access more than good enough IQ/audio/post for a production that, with skill, will look around 90%+ as good as anything.  That's NOT rhetoric.  I'm convinced it's just the truth. 

What am I to believe?  The defensive opinions of industry professionals threatened by the gear democratization, or my lying eyes when I see the work of Kendy Ty or a Ruslan Pelykh?  You tell me, because there are a lot of people out there kicking ass with cameras that wouldn't even cover the cost of a friggin' camera battery from a few decades ago.

What get delivered is what counts.*

But, as far as I'm concerned, if I artistically need to use an iPhone or an Alexa to cross a finish line, that's what's gonna happen.  And for what I'm doing, it's been leaning toward the former rather than the later for years now.

Finally, I'd even argue "amateurs" is exactly a pejorative.  If anything, by the original etymology of that word, it probably has more merit and artistic integrity these days than "professional."

* ( For reasons only they can justify, a lot of corporate work I do actually wants the allure of "real" gear around during the process. )