Canon XC10 4K camcorder

[tugela]

Well, for a start, no professional should be paying attention to reviews written on public boards, since they will probably be written by fanboys or amateurs, who might not notice things that are important to you

I work at a research lab. Before we buy any equipment we always get a demo unit in to test and evaluate first. This is pretty standard and manufacturers marketing groups do this routinely. Obviously in your line of work the manufacturer is not going to do that for you because of the low value of prosumer cameras (they likely will for real pro products however), so in that case rent or borrow one to test for yourself before buying. But never buy something cold because it may not be suitable for your needs.

[kidzrevil]

@tugela copy

[mat33]

I suspect no-one was troubled by the ghosting before because either a) no-one using it was using it as an A-cam for a paid, low light music/fashion video given the sensor size and the slow lens or b) any ghosting looked similar to motion blur and wasn't bothersome to most user/viewers.  My guess is that Canon wanted to have good NR on the XC10 for lowlight documentary/news gathering etc and accepted some ghosting as a reasonable compromise.  It may not be a compromise you are happy with but its not a critical flaw imo.  My other camera is a D16 with similar sensor size but absolutely no NR happening in camera.  With the D16 iso 800 is quite noisy but the noise is mainly luminance noise which I quite like -its very grain like.  To someone else, the noise may be a deal breaker especially if they are comparing it something like an A7S.  This doesn't mean the D16 has a critical flaw -its just one of the nuances of the camera that you either embrace and work with, or use a different camera.

I do agree that sensor size has become too big of a deal.  I think people often use sensor size as a way to show how pro you are rather than picking the sensor size for the aesthetic you want.  I guess it comes back to film days -where s16 was seen by some as what you used only if you didn't have the budget for s35.

[kidzrevil]

Sensor size is an aesthetic thing point blank period. If you've followed me on these forums you would know I've shot with everything from full frame to super 16mm. I prefer the rendering of super 16mm sensors at wide angles. Super 35mm is the max i'll go but lately aps-h has been catching my eye. Either way if the primary use was for documentary then imo that is even MORE critical than a fashion editorial. I can retake a shot in an editorial but I certainly can't redo a moment in time for a documentary. So that is no excuse for the performance of the sensor when we have a conparable super 16mm sensor from panasonic and sony with the rx line with no ghosting and better noise performance even with a smaller pixel density @mat33 

[mat33]

5 minutes ago, kidzrevil said:

Sensor size is an aesthetic thing point blank period. If you've followed me on these forums you would know I've shot with everything from full frame to super 16mm. I prefer the rendering of super 16mm sensors at wide angles. Super 35mm is the max i'll go but lately aps-h has been catching my eye. Either way if the primary use was for documentary then imo that is even MORE critical than a fashion editorial. I can retake a shot in an editorial but I certainly can't redo a moment in time for a documentary. So that is no excuse for the performance of the sensor when we have a conparable super 16mm sensor from panasonic and sony with the rx line with no ghosting and better noise performance even with a smaller pixel density @mat33 

Thats a fair point that other manufacturers have better sensor performance -but that is the case for a lot of Canons offerings.  While pure sensor performance may not be as good, colour science and ergonomics make up for the sensor shortcomings for some.

[mercer]

@kidzrevil everybody has different needs and different standards... I applaud your standards, but the one point that hurts your argument is that I think your XC10 work is your best looking footage to date. I'm sure part of it is the high bitrate 4K that comes out of the XC10, but even still... you owned the poop outta that camera. 

[hmcindie]

That NR thing happens with other cameras too, though the ISO cutoff can be quite different. The original A7s started to ghost after going over ISO 6400 / 12,800. The a6300 starts to exhibit ghosting going over iso 3200. It is there in lower ISOs too but way smaller. Just don't zoom in 100%.

[hyalinejim]

3 hours ago, hmcindie said:

That NR thing happens with other cameras too, though the ISO cutoff can be quite different. The original A7s started to ghost after going over ISO 6400 / 12,800. The a6300 starts to exhibit ghosting going over iso 3200. It is there in lower ISOs too but way smaller. Just don't zoom in 100%.

Interesting! I didn't know that other cameras showed the same problem. As many people have mentioned, the average viewer wouldn't spot it, but it seriously gets on my nerves every time I see it.

For anyone just popping into this thread who doesn't feel like trawling through pages of ghosting tests the bottom line is this:

To prevent ghosting, shoot in EOS Standard and don't go over 1250 ISO.

Explanation: the different camera profiles demonstrate differing amounts of ghosting. C-Log is the worst. EOS Standard is the best. But what about dynamic range? EOS Standard captures the same dynamic range as C-Log if you expose 1.66 ISO stops down (5 clicks). EOS Standard 160 = C-Log 500.

If you then want to get back to a C-Log gamma for whatever reason, just bring down your superwhites to below 100 IRE and use the attached lut. I'm kind of amazed that this works as I thought C-Log was some special voodoo. It's actually an evil voodoo as it's applying a hell of a lot of noise reduction which reduces image detail and increases temporal ghosting.

Every review I read said "Don't use EOS Standard - it's too contrasty!". I've learned a lesson about trusting the value of my own experience, based on my own tests.

 

XC10 EOS Standard to C-Log v02.cube

[hijodeibn]

10 hours ago, hmcindie said:

That NR thing happens with other cameras too, though the ISO cutoff can be quite different. The original A7s started to ghost after going over ISO 6400 / 12,800. The a6300 starts to exhibit ghosting going over iso 3200. It is there in lower ISOs too but way smaller. Just don't zoom in 100%.

Jesus!!!!...now you make me very nervous, I didn`t know these cameras also had ghosting, I am going to test the C100 during this weekend to see if I see some ghosting there, I hope not..... @kidzrevil what is the best test to show ghosting in a camera?

[hyalinejim]

Whack the ISO up to max and wave the camera around.

[Justin Bacle]

23 hours ago, mat33 said:

I do agree that sensor size has become too big of a deal.  I think people often use sensor size as a way to show how pro you are rather than picking the sensor size for the aesthetic you want.  I guess it comes back to film days -where s16 was seen by some as what you used only if you didn't have the budget for s35.

The number of BMPCC and BMMCC that have been sold show that some people are not onto the sensor size race too.
Full frame is great, but I prefer S35 or S16 myself, depending on what you shoot, but the clients seem to only care about shallow depth of field :s

[kidzrevil]

10 hours ago, hijodeibn said:

Jesus!!!!...now you make me very nervous, I didn`t know these cameras also had ghosting, I am going to test the C100 during this weekend to see if I see some ghosting there, I hope not..... @kidzrevil what is the best test to show ghosting in a camera?

Yup what @hyalinejim raise the iso and wave the camera around I usually start that test at 800 iso. When the ghosting appears mark the iso down then start testing other picture profiles and see which one shows it more

[Tim Sewell]

ICYMI I have my XC10 up for sale: 

 

[jgharding]

yeah the ghosting is a shame. it's still a useful camera though for just working as a quick, single unit.

Here's hoping the next version gets it right! Sigh...

[Novim]

What would be real-life uses of "raising the iso and waving the camera around" (apart from chasing the ghosts, obviously, and testing the limits of a camera, legitimely)? I find that the XC10 is a very dicent tool for what it has been made.

[hyalinejim]

The real life corollary is when you need to shoot something that moves significantly from frame to frame in low light.

In practice ghosting is a problem from 1250 ISO up. But aggressive noise reduction artifacts aren't limited to motion. Check out the image softening that occurs with static scenes going from 500 to 1000.

[hijodeibn]

1 hour ago, Novim said:

What would be real-life uses of "raising the iso and waving the camera around" (apart from chasing the ghosts, obviously, and testing the limits of a camera, legitimely)? I find that the XC10 is a very dicent tool for what it has been made.

Well, some real-life issues could be: you are working in a documentary and you are following your character during the night, you are following him in a forest, in a cave, he start running late in the day and you running behind…..etc….

[mat33]

3 hours ago, hijodeibn said:

Well, some real-life issues could be: you are working in a documentary and you are following your character during the night, you are following him in a forest, in a cave, he start running late in the day and you running behind…..etc….

I guess the counter real life argument is that because you are using the XC10 when your character starts running into the forest and cave, you are able to run to follow him/her as the form-factor and lens range mean you don't have a massive bag full of lenses, stabilisers and ND filters, and the great IS means your running shots are nice and stable.  You then think wow I'm glad I had an XC10 on this documentary as if I was using X camera + add-on gear I would still be puffing up that hill at the start of the forrest and would never have reached the cave in time to get that once in a lifetime amazing shot...

[hijodeibn]

42 minutes ago, mat33 said:

I guess the counter real life argument is that because you are using the XC10 when your character starts running into the forest and cave, you are able to run to follow him/her as the form-factor and lens range mean you don't have a massive bag full of lenses, stabilisers and ND filters, and the great IS means your running shots are nice and stable.  You then think wow I'm glad I had an XC10 on this documentary as if I was using X camera + add-on gear I would still be puffing up that hill at the start of the forrest and would never have reached the cave in time to get that once in a lifetime amazing shot...

Sorry mat33 but you can do everything perfectly right with a C100 or C300, the only issue is that the camera is much bigger, and I will have to go to the gym for some months before start the project, I agree if the ghosting was not there I would probably choose an XC10…..which certainly was my first option, luckily we have in our community a cinematographer with so high standards like @kidzrevil who showed us what everybody else missed before I pressed BUY bottom….. 

[mat33]

6 minutes ago, hijodeibn said:

Sorry mat33 but you can do everything perfectly right with a C100 or C300, the only issue is that the camera is much bigger, and I will have to go to the gym for some months before start the project, I agree if the ghosting was not there I would probably choose an XC10…..which certainly was my first option, luckily we have in our community a cinematographer with so high standards like @kidzrevil who showed us what everybody else missed before I pressed BUY bottom….. 

I'm just playing devils advocate (and I don't like having to go to the gym...) I agree a C100 or C300 would be a much better choice if you are expecting low light shooting albeit a bigger, heavy package but if the shot was mainly in daylight then the XC10 is just fine.