Canon XC15

[gatopardo]

10 hours ago, tugela said:

From what I read, the construction is somewhat flimsy. For example, the camera that The Camera Store used for their review apparently had it's lens fall off (they showed it in their annual year end summary video). So stuff like that would be remedied I expect. A "pro" camera should be able to take a certain amount of abuse and keep on ticking, and it is not clear if that is true of the XC10.

They might like a $2500 price point, but in reality the camera should be selling at around $1500, considering what it is. I expect their sales volume might be quite a bit better at that price point. I think they probably rationalized it in terms of it being a "pro" camera, when the market it should really be aiming at is the G40 crowd. With a XC15 they might structure it that way, with the old XC10 being priced in the mid 1K range, and a more "pro" version (the XC15) at the $2500 price point, much like they did with the G30/XA20/25 cameras (which were all basically the same camera, but with different levels of bells and whistles added to the shell).

It is also not consistent with their general consumer sales strategy, where they will include improvements as a motivation to buy the next model, rather than, say, do a firmware upgrade of existing products. Firmware upgrades only happen with the really high end stuff targeted at the true professional market, not the products intended for consumers.

It's no far from 1500$ http://cvp.com/index.php?t=product/canon_0565c011aa

[tugela]

10 hours ago, Lintelfilm said:

The XC10 is an out and out pro camera. It looks a bit consumer but that's part of its appeal. It's for ENG and doc work where small, light and inconspicuous is desirable. The images it delivers are for pro use, not just because of the broadcast approved codec but the superb IS, the log profile, the low noise, the good if not perfect AF, the ND, the colour space, the 10 bit output, etc, etc. None of that is consumer targeted.

Which explains why it is listed under the "Consumer and Home Office" tab as well on the Canon site. Clearly they did not get your memo.

As I have explained to people who use the NX1 on those boards, the camera was marketed as a "pro camera" to appeal to the sensibilities of advanced amateurs, because they are willing to spend a premium in the belief that they are using a "pro" product. But that is about where it ends for the most part. It is marketing hook line and sinker to lure in those susceptible to vanity. The XC10 marketing spin is no different. Most people who buy gear like this are advanced amateurs. That is who the marketing is really aimed at.

I doubt that too many real ENG crews use this camera, in spite of what the advertising would have you believe.

[Jimmy]

1 hour ago, tugela said:

The XC10 marketing spin is no different. Most people who buy gear like this are advanced amateurs. That is who the marketing is really aimed at.

Which explains why it is listed under the "Consumer and Home Office" tab as well on the Canon site.

Yea, like the guy who shot "trick shot", DP on House M.D?

It's part of the C range, it is a pro tool.

[Flynn]

15 hours ago, mercer said:

Idk, they did a mid line upgrade adding DPAF to the c100, so I could totally see the XC15 adding DPAF and as you said a few added buttons. I doubt it will be a heftier body because the body already is hefty, so unless they add weather sealing, I really don't see what more they could do. Maybe they could add the mjpeg 4K. I think any lens change would be part of mkii or xc20. I assume the xc10 has been selling better at $1999, but they like the $2500 price point, so the XC15 will add enough features for that price bracket. 

 

9 minutes ago, Jimmy said:

Yea, like the guy who shot "trick shot", DP on House M.D?

It's part of the C range, it is a pro tool.

So what if a DP who gets paid by Canon has used it? There are pros who make use of the BMPCC and any number of cameras out there- doesn't make them pro cameras. It produces great looking footage, but in terms of build and functionality, it's a toy compared to their higher end cameras/lenses.

[Jimmy]

Something can be pro and not a weather sealed beast.

Have you actually used one? I have and thought it was well built... I'd happily fly it on my drones.

[hmcindie]

9 minutes ago, Jimmy said:

Have you actually used one? I have and thought it was well built... I'd happily fly it on my drones.

tugela has actually not used any cameras. He is a bit like Ebrahim but on the other side of the spectrum.

[Jimmy]

13 minutes ago, hmcindie said:

tugela has actually not used any cameras. He is a bit like Ebrahim but on the other side of the spectrum.

It's an odd phenomenon of the internet. People fuming about cameras/phones/computers/cars etc etc that they have never even used or seen.

anyway, I look forward to any news. It's a form factor that really works for my type of work (that i make money from!)

[Andrew Reid]

The slow lens has it's advantages.

For a start F5.6 in daylight isn't a problem. And with a 1" sensor it is never going to be the camera you pick over an A7S II in low light. Sure, a constant F2.8 would have helped by a couple of stops but you STILL would not pick it in low light over a full frame camera with F1.4 prime.

So there's less point putting a faster lens on it than you might think - you just end up with a clunky big piece of glass on what should be a super-mini C300 Mk II.

The main point of the lens is the 10x zoom, it's very handy. Also it's a much sharper and higher contrast lens than the Zeiss F2.8 10x zoom on the RX10, so again the F5.6 long end has the advantage of stopping the image getting mushy.

The XC10 is the for me the ugly duckling that turned into a swan. It is one of the best daylight shot getting cameras I've ever used and has the best codec on the market under $2k and the best colour profiles... And no it isn't a RAW codec but RAW isn't always "the best codec" if you see what I mean (file sizes, workflow).

[mercer]

14 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

The slow lens has it's advantages.

For a start F5.6 in daylight isn't a problem. And with a 1" sensor it is never going to be the camera you pick over an A7S II in low light. Sure, a constant F2.8 would have helped by a couple of stops but you STILL would not pick it in low light over a full frame camera with F1.4 prime.

So there's less point putting a faster lens on it than you might think - you just end up with a clunky big piece of glass on what should be a super-mini C300 Mk II.

The main point of the lens is the 10x zoom, it's very handy. Also it's a much sharper and higher contrast lens than the Zeiss F2.8 10x zoom on the RX10, so again the F5.6 long end has the advantage of stopping the image getting mushy.

The XC10 is the for me the ugly duckling that turned into a swan. It is one of the best daylight shot getting cameras I've ever used and has the best codec on the market under $2k and the best colour profiles... And no it isn't a RAW codec but RAW isn't always "the best codec" if you see what I mean (file sizes, workflow).

I'd love a 2.8 lens but my biggest gripe with the camera, as noted in your review, is the focus ring, it really is abysmal. But I really utilize the push af feature. I am using it on a narrative short, so the manual ring in some ways forces me to slow down and compose my shots, the push af gives me a pseudo rack focus as I pan or tilt.

But the best feature of the camera, a feature its detractors could never discuss without using one, is the 5-Axis ibis in 1080p. It is. Simply. Amazing. It's like using a steadicam. So 5-Axis in 4K would be the one feature that would really make me consider upgrading to the XC15. 

[IronFilm]

5 hours ago, gatopardo said:

It's no far from 1500$ http://cvp.com/index.php?t=product/canon_0565c011aa

Wow, that is a lot cheaper tham B&H!

[Flynn]

5 hours ago, hmcindie said:

tugela has actually not used any cameras. He is a bit like Ebrahim but on the other side of the spectrum.

Why do you have to make it personal and take such a disgusting cheapshot?  You should apologize as should Jimmy for upvoting this comment. We're talking about a freaking camera. Why do you people lose your shit just because someone disagrees? IT'S A FREAKING CAMERA. Who cares. No need to start personally insulting someone.

[Jimmy]

2 hours ago, Flynn said:

Why do you have to make it personal and take such a disgusting cheapshot?  You should apologize as should Jimmy for upvoting this comment. We're talking about a freaking camera. Why do you people lose your shit just because someone disagrees? IT'S A FREAKING CAMERA. Who cares. No need to start personally insulting someone.

what is so disgusting and cheap about what he wrote?

Ebrahim talks positively about cameras he doesn't own.... Tugela, i strongly believe, talks negatively about cameras he doesn't own. Two ends of the same spectrum.

I'm not "losing my shit".... I just grow weary of people slating a camera they clearly (again, in my opinion) have never used... I don't even believe they have seen it, judging by the "not a professional build" comments.

[Django]

I've tried the XC10 briefly, it definitely has a cheapo feel to it imo. Nowhere near Cxxx / L glass build quality. I also believe it's not aimed at the same market. I kinda doubt ENG shooters use it with that form factor and no EVF. It does have some neat features, some only available on high-end C line gear (422 4K, the codec, C-log etc) but I was really disappointed with the hardware, specifically the slow fixed non-constant aperture lens paired to tiny sensor, unusable manual focus ring...  So for me it's kind of a flawed product, especially at such high price point. That being said i see how some shooters may enjoy it, especially as a B-cam for daylight action/drone shots. But I doubt Canon sold a lot, I know my local camera store has been trying to blow them out, unsuccesfuly. Small fixed lens cams are kind of a niche market anyways. All that being said XC15 might fair better if indeed they at the very least improve the lens and add DPAF.

[Andrew Reid]

It's not really designed to be used in full manual focus mode, the focus ring is actually more for whipping the AF to where you want it to be.

It responds to a very fast whip of the wrist rather than the usual style of slow and long travel

Agreed though, it's unusable for MF the traditional way. It should have an option in the menu to change it to a normal focus ring.

[tugela]

4 hours ago, Jimmy said:

what is so disgusting and cheap about what he wrote?

Ebrahim talks positively about cameras he doesn't own.... Tugela, i strongly believe, talks negatively about cameras he doesn't own. Two ends of the same spectrum.

I'm not "losing my shit".... I just grow weary of people slating a camera they clearly (again, in my opinion) have never used... I don't even believe they have seen it, judging by the "not a professional build" comments.

I am not "talking negatively about a camera I don't own". I am giving a realistic assessment which in my opinion is correct. This is a product aimed at enthusiasts, not professionals. Most ENG teams I have seen have real cameras, not this thing.

I don't have a big "issue" with the output. It is fine for HD work, the original video people were putting out was too soft for 4K but since then I have seen stuff that looks more appropriate. I put that down to either operators deliberately killing the resolution for some reason (people do that), or maybe just bad lenses on some of the early models.

Build quality...maybe it has been improved since release, but the early ones had issues based on reviews. Not unlike my G30, which was one of the first to be sold. Definitely stuff that did not fit all that great on that camera, but more recently I have played around with the same model in store that had none of the issues. I think that is a bit of a problem with Canon, you don't really want to be an early adopter with them because you get all the teething issues. In my opinion, any piece of professional equipment should be built like a tank. If it is not, then it is a consumer product, no matter what marketing spin is put on it.

[kidzrevil]

if they make this with a constant 2.8 aperture I would for sure by the xc15. These days I wish companies would make more high end bridge cameras cause they are soooo useful when you really need to grab shots & for documentaries (reason #1 why I bought an rx10). My dream would be an xc15 thats all manual ; No fly by wire focus & zoom for total control :-)

I have high hopes for this camera !

[mat33]

I think the big issue with the XC10 is that it looks like a small dSLR and so everyone expects it to handle the same way.  I think Andrew has nailed it -it is not a manual focus camera and the focus ring is to help direct the AF to the desired focal plane.  While the AF isn't super fast, it does act in a quite human fashion, which helps minimise the lack of speed.  I think if you work on accepting it as an AF with manual assist only then it all works a lot better.  For me the main thing I would like to see is being able to assign AE lock to a programmable button when in shutter priority mode.  Its never going to be a low light monster so I can live with the lens not being 2.8 at the long end, but is is nice being parfocal and its easy to get a nice s16 vibe going with the zoom.

[tomsemiterrific]

On August 21, 2016 at 8:58 AM, mercer said:

The XC15 moniker suggests it may be a small upgrade. If I had to guess, perhaps a constant f2.8 lens with a better focus ring or maybe 5-Axis in 4K. Of course, those are my only issues with the camera, so they would be a major upgrade in my mind. Otherwise maybe some higher frame rates in 4K and maybe some higher bitrates in 1080p. 

If they do announce soon, I hope they do it on the August 25th announcement date, because I can still return my XC10 I bought a little over 3 weeks ago, if the upgrades are big. 

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.  

[tomsemiterrific]

On August 22, 2016 at 5:12 PM, mercer said:

Here we go again...

Trust me the build quality is just fine. I have not seen the Camera Store review but I assume they had their hands on a preproduction model because the model I have is built pretty well.

And as far as I know, this camera is marketed as a professional camcorder.

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.

15 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

The XC10 is the for me the ugly duckling that turned into a swan. It is one of the best daylight shot getting cameras I've ever used and has the best codec on the market under $2k and the best colour profiles... And no it isn't a RAW codec but RAW isn't always "the best codec" if you see what I mean (file sizes, workflow).

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?

[tomsemiterrific]

On August 22, 2016 at 6:07 PM, Lintelfilm said:

The XC10 is an out and out pro camera. It looks a bit consumer but that's part of its appeal. It's for ENG and doc work where small, light and inconspicuous is desirable. The images it delivers are for pro use, not just because of the broadcast approved codec but the superb IS, the log profile, the low noise, the good if not perfect AF, the ND, the colour space, the 10 bit output, etc, etc. None of that is consumer targeted.

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.