gatopardo Posted August 27, 2016 Author Share Posted August 27, 2016 @Andrew Reid Will you show us your XC10 footage made this summer? or even a re-review? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrgl Posted August 28, 2016 Share Posted August 28, 2016 I really hope Canon adds weather sealing and goes with an interchangeable EF-M mount. They could release the 24-240mm as a "L" EF-M lens. Can you imagine how beastly that would be? 10-bit with an external recorder and your choice of EF lenses. It would make for the ultimate mini C-100/camcorder. Oh wait no. That all makes too much sense. Canon fucked their hybrid 5D4. No way they want to make any worthwhile improvements to the XC or EOS-M line. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thpriest Posted August 28, 2016 Share Posted August 28, 2016 Does anyone know if Canon has indicated that the XC15 rumours might be true? And what differences it might have to the XC10? 3 stage ND filter, 24-100 f1.8-4 with the same stabilisation and better lowlight and I'm in Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flynn Posted August 28, 2016 Share Posted August 28, 2016 3 hours ago, Thpriest said: Does anyone know if Canon has indicated that the XC15 rumours might be true? And what differences it might have to the XC10? 3 stage ND filter, 24-100 f1.8-4 with the same stabilisation and better lowlight and I'm in If they reduce the lens to 24-100, surely they can do better than 1.8-4. I would guess they should be able to do something like a constant f2. The G7x is 24-100 and is 1.8-2.8 and the lens is tiny compared to the xc10. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Andrew Reid Posted August 28, 2016 Administrators Share Posted August 28, 2016 On 27 August 2016 at 0:11 PM, gatopardo said: @Andrew Reid Will you show us your XC10 footage made this summer? or even a re-review? It's in the edit suite Italy was fantastic. Lintelfilm and kaylee 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philip Lipetz Posted August 28, 2016 Share Posted August 28, 2016 As someone pointed out earlier in this thread, when Canon adds a "5" to the end of a X series model number it means only the addition of a SDI output, and sometimes timecode. This happened with the XA10/15, XA20/25.XA30/35. XF100/105, and XF300/305. I would be shocked if it was any different with the XC10/15. Andrew Reid 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Andrew Reid Posted August 28, 2016 Administrators Share Posted August 28, 2016 Really, quite a strong precedence then So where is the camera? Are they hiding it? If they go to the effort of putting SDI on there, but not Dual Pixel AF, I might hand Canon some kind of end of 2016 award for being Best Troll Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thpriest Posted August 29, 2016 Share Posted August 29, 2016 17 hours ago, Flynn said: If they reduce the lens to 24-100, surely they can do better than 1.8-4. I would guess they should be able to do something like a constant f2. The G7x is 24-100 and is 1.8-2.8 and the lens is tiny compared to the xc10. Even better with a lens like that! Does the XC10 really need an SDI? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Members Mattias Burling Posted August 29, 2016 Super Members Share Posted August 29, 2016 I hope they don't cut the zoom range in half. Not Worth it for the extra stops. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flynn Posted August 29, 2016 Share Posted August 29, 2016 2 hours ago, Mattias Burling said: I hope they don't cut the zoom range in half. Not Worth it for the extra stops. You were the first positive review I can recall seeing for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Members Mattias Burling Posted August 29, 2016 Super Members Share Posted August 29, 2016 12 minutes ago, Flynn said: You were the first positive review I can recall seeing for it. Yeah I liked it from day one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thpriest Posted August 29, 2016 Share Posted August 29, 2016 Mattias, has the latest firmware improved the lowlight as it was supposed to? Thanks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philip Lipetz Posted August 30, 2016 Share Posted August 30, 2016 i tested the new firmware with high ISO HD. was not not happy with results. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
photographer-at-large Posted August 30, 2016 Share Posted August 30, 2016 Pictures of XC15 [which replaces XC10] according to: http://photorumors.com/2016/08/29/first-images-of-the-upcoming-canon-xc15-4k-camcorder/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronFilm Posted August 30, 2016 Share Posted August 30, 2016 So maybe it has gained one XLR input. Otherwise I can't see any other big changes with the body. The lens still slows down to f5.6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Members Mattias Burling Posted August 30, 2016 Super Members Share Posted August 30, 2016 Cool, an XLR is very welcomed imo. Another button or two would have been lovely though. And a stronger ND. The lens was always alraight imo so no prob there. 12 hours ago, Thpriest said: Mattias, has the latest firmware improved the lowlight as it was supposed to? Thanks No I haven't. But I was super impressed and totally happy with the old firmwares iso performance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flynn Posted August 30, 2016 Share Posted August 30, 2016 37 minutes ago, Mattias Burling said: Cool, an XLR is very welcomed imo. Another button or two would have been lovely though. And a stronger ND. The lens was always alraight imo so no prob there. No I haven't. But I was super impressed and totally happy with the old firmwares iso performance. Come on Mattias, you're just trolling. You know that slow lens tended to be the first complaint people mentioned with it. Given how big it is, they should have done something like a constant f2.8. There is no way you're gonna convince me that wasn't possible. It was a joke that Canon constantly hyped that lens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Members Mattias Burling Posted August 30, 2016 Super Members Share Posted August 30, 2016 11 minutes ago, Flynn said: Come on Mattias, you're just trolling. You know that slow lens tended to be the first complaint people mentioned with it. Given how big it is, they should have done something like a constant f2.8. There is no way you're gonna convince me that wasn't possible. It was a joke that Canon constantly hyped that lens. I liked it a lot. Never had any issues with the lens and would not trade the reach, stabilization or size for only 2 stops at the far end and nothing at the wide. Raising the ISO took care of any lowlight issues. The lens is a 5 axis stabilized, parfocal and constant aperture 24-70/4, 24-240/5.6 and a 24/2.8. All built in to one small lens. I surely hope they don't get rid of that for 2 lousy stops at the far end of a lens sitting in front of a 1" sensor. Would make no sense at all imo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flynn Posted August 30, 2016 Share Posted August 30, 2016 I suspect most people would much rather have a constant aperture and have it be something like f2.8 24-200. 2 lousy stops are huge, even with a 1" sensor. I do give you credit for being the first positive review of the camera I saw, when it seemed like everyone else was slamming it. IronFilm 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Members Mattias Burling Posted August 30, 2016 Super Members Share Posted August 30, 2016 17 minutes ago, Flynn said: I suspect most people would much rather have a constant aperture and have it be something like f2.8 24-200. 2 lousy stops are huge, even with a 1" sensor. I do give you credit for being the first positive review of the camera I saw, when it seemed like everyone else was slamming it. Sure they would. I know I would. I would love a 10-2000mm f0.95 small as a coffey mug But I wouldn't trade a constant aperture and parfocal 24-70/4, 24-240/5.6 and 24/2.8 all in one for a 24-200/2.8 if it meant loosing not only the reach. But also the 5 axis stabilization, loosing the parfocalness and being twice or three times the size rendering the camera unbalanced? And probably way more expensive as well. There is a reason I don't run-n-gun with a 18-35/1.8 and 24-70/2.8 IS as much as I would with the 24-105/4 IS (or 24-120/4 VR if its on a Nikon). I would skip the extra stop if it gave me a smaller, lighter, cheaper, constant aperture, parfocal lens with better IS. Specially on a camera like this which is truly meant for run-n-gun. IMO, Indy filmmakers, porno, blocked shots is different. But that's not what we are talking about here. Super shallow depth of field, extreme lowlight and so on is not at all relevant when discussing the XC10/15. For those type of things there are way way better cameras. This is more for news gathering type of situations. Most one man band news crews I see and hang out with use the XF100 or XA20. Those are the cameras I compare to. mat33 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.