Canon XC10 4K camcorder

[k-robert]

I think, Canon's success with the C models and DSLR-s, especially in the rental-business, is due to the huge amount of quality Canon lenses being around.

Exactly this benefit is non-existent by this model, with the fixed lens.

Personally, I would only buy a fixed-lens camera, if the lens is very good, as it could never be changed.

In this "category" I am waiting/hoping for the RX20 with a 2,8 lens, capable 4K with a reasonable codec. 

 

 

[bertzie]

GH4: 100mbps 8bit 420

XC10: 305mbps 8bit 420

A7s: No internal 4k.

 

So the only real argument between the GH4 and the XC10 is better lens vs better codec.

[Andrew Reid]

I think that's greatly oversimplifying things.

The sensor in the GH4 is larger and the stills are better. The codec records to cheaper media with 3x smaller file sizes.

The XC10 is 4:2:2 internal I believe? Canon LOG is welcome.

I expect the Panasonic FZ1000 will give very close results for $799 with a better lens so the XC10 is a no-buy for me.

[Andrew Reid]

Either way you can't compare the look of a fixed zoom lens small chip camcorder to a DSLR or mirrorless camera.... you just can't.

The 1" chip with a video zoom lens will always have a whiff of 'video' about it as I find even with my FZ1000 and LX100.

It's not going to look like a GH4 or NX1 so for $2500 why spend that much?

[leeys]

Doesn't the Panasonic use the more efficient IPB compression method?

[leeys]

Either way you can't compare the look of a fixed zoom lens small chip camcorder to a DSLR or mirrorless camera.... you just can't.

The 1" chip with a video zoom lens will always have a whiff of 'video' about it as I find even with my FZ1000 and LX100.

It's not going to look like a GH4 or NX1 so for $2500 why spend that much?

​Because it says "Canon"? I've been trying to find out what's the USP of this for it to cost $2500, and I'm not getting much beyond the codec.

[Guest Ebrahim Saadawi]

XC10 vs AX100

-Broadcast approved codec. 4K 8bit 4:2:2 at 305mbps (vs 420 100mbps)
-Lower pixel count, newer sensor with probably better dynamic range (claimed 12 stops =c300) and better lowlight performance
-Lens is wider, but little shorter at the end. AX100 is half a stop brighter at the end of the range
-Canon Log Gamma, matches Cinema eos footage
-Cfast card slot + SD slot, Cfast allows for an entirely different league of codecs and internal recording options 
-HDMI outputs 4K 10bit 4:2:2
-Larger screen, EVF loup is probably much better than the ax100 pinhole
-Rotatable handgrip, and body design suitable for shooting stills 
-Smaller stripped down and lighter for drone use 
-Both 2000$ 

XC10 vs GH4

-Again internal approved > 50mbps 4:2:2 XF codec
-Rotatable grip 
-Internal ND filters
-Internal 4K 422 305mbps codec
-Canon Log, matches cinema eos
-Claimed higher DR at 12 stops 
-Versatile wide to telephoto lens with supposedly "L quality"
-C fast + SD slots
-Goes to 120p 
-Usable AF during video (confirmed to be very smooth)

What GH4 has:

-Larger sensor ( 2.7x crop vs 2.3x)
-Interchangeable lens mount 
-EVF separate from LCD

Vs FZ1000
- Wider lens (27 vs 34)
- probably better sensor (lower pixel count, higher DR, better lowlight)
-MUCH higher end codec, 4:2:2 305mbps 4K, and most importantly approved for broadcasters
-Rotatable grip, 
-Internal NDs
-Canon LOG (vs videoish low DR rec 709 on all fz1000 footage)
-4K 10bit 4:2:2 via HDMI
-Cfast + SD slots
-120p 
-Usable AF during video


Of course there's the whole Canon colours and image aesthetic thing but that's subjective (and pretty big deal)
_________________________________

It just seems that people don't understand what this camera is aimed for. This is not a camera to use vintage glass on, or a camera to get shallow DOF, the lens is fixed. This is an excellent broadcast camera for news, for weddings, for events, for nature, for bloggers, people who want to shoot fast, and deliver, not be creative with each shot with a different lens and time to prefocus, use and external recorder, mattebox, this is not a "film" camera, it's a video camera for a specific market and it has features and design nobody else is offering, and it comes at 2000$ for body + Lens

It's not for using your film lenses and creating pretty vintage shallow DOF shots, move on, this is not your camera. For that, Canon offers a C100 for 2999$. 

Just because a camera is not made for your shooting style or for your use it doesn't mean it's bad. No, it'll be perfect for many other users whose uses are different from you, this is not very hard to get.

But I do get the frustration of wanting a sub 2K Canon camera for "film" style shooting. This camera isn't it,

this however will be a huge success in broadcast, mark my words. Every single broadcast camera man shooting on the street will have an XC10 in his/her hand. This is what Canon is looking after.

In the Filmmaking/musicvideo large sensor style shooting, it won't be much of a success, those users would rather use an interchangeable lens mount and larger sensors and give up the few broadcast/video features they don't need in the XC10.
 

[IronFilm]

Currently there are more cameras than you can shake a stick at which can 95% beat the XC10 for much much less (RX10/LX100/FZ1000), or 200% beat it for a similar price. (GH4/A7s/NX1)

So you have to fit into a very weird tiny little niche, not to want either side of those two alternative options and instead want the XC10. 

And once the Sony RX20 is released I bet that camera will then beat the XC10 125% for half the price. Which will leave the XC10 with no niche whatsoever to fill, not even the little tiny weird one it might fill right now. 

Heck, it could be argued the Sony AX100 (with Sony XLR-K2M) and Sony PXW-X70 (which is getting the 4K update at the same time the XC10 is shipping) are already beating the XC10 by 125% for less/same.

[leeys]

this however will be a huge success in broadcast, mark my words. Every single broadcast camera man shooting on the street will have an XC10 in his/her hand. This is what Canon is looking after.

In other words, this will be based mostly on the strength of Canon's corporate sales team selling these to broadcasters then? I think you oversell it somewhat if you expect bloggers and YouTubers to get this - they're already doing well with other cameras, and I know for some of the things you mentioned the other cameras do just as well. US$2,500 gets a lot of camera otherwise.

The advantage is definitely in the codec but I'm not sure how big it is until the samples come out.

[BookMark]

slightly off-topic. we keep saying how good samsung NX1 is...but i still havent seen one in use out in the wild..... 

[bertzie]

I think that's greatly oversimplifying things.

The sensor in the GH4 is larger and the stills are better. The codec records to cheaper media with 3x smaller file sizes.

The XC10 is 4:2:2 internal I believe? Canon LOG is welcome.

I expect the Panasonic FZ1000 will give very close results for $799 with a better lens so the XC10 is a no-buy for me.

​The GH4 sensor is larger, but also higher resolution. The difference in actual pixel size isn't that extreme, the GH4 is maybe 20% larger pixels. And yes, the GH4 records to cheaper media with much smaller files. But it's also an inferior codec to record to. The XC100 is 8bit 422 internal at 305mbps. GH4 is 420 100mbps. That's a MASSIVE dump in compression.

$2500 for the XC10, or $1500 for the GH4 and another $1000 for a decent lens. Call it "oversimplifying" if you want, but it's the truth. At $2500, the GH4 has options for better lenses and a (marginally) larger sensor, but the XC10 has a substantially better codec.

In regards to the FZ1000, it may have a leica named lens, it might even be leica designed, but at that price point not a snowballs chance in hell it's leica manufactured. The FZ1000 also has smaller pixels and yet again, another inferior codec. It might get "close" to the XC10 if you have a very loose definition of the word close.

[dbp]

I wouldn't really compare it to a GH4. Seems like a different product to me. If I was in the market for a GH4, I wouldn't want this and vice versa.

For me, the biggest wildcard will be the look. I don't mind a smaller sensor with a deeper DOF personally. I still rely on a small chip camera for some of my work, and a larger sensor is actually a disadvantage in some cases.

On paper, this camera sounds useful to me but the proof will be in the footage. If it has the canon look with 12 actual stops of DR, I'd be very interested.

That said, the one test video didn't look very compelling. Here's hoping that was some weird operating error. 

[nowinaminute]

Didn't the Sony FS100 give better results with it's 24mbps avchd codec than the hacked GH2 with 150Mbps+ avchd codec? Just remember that bitrate alone isn't everything, even when comparing the same codec the implementation can be drastically different from one camera to the next.

It's for that reason I find the whole "broadcast quality" thing dubious, bitrate alone doesn't guarantee quality. It's reminds me of the old dpi myth with still images.

[Jimmy]

Amazed how many times I see the words "x camera beats this".... When no proper footage is out.

Is it just me that puts image quality at the top of my wish list?

[Guest Ebrahim Saadawi]

I want you all to take a deep long look at that 4:2:2 spec. Take a deep look on the XF 50mbps 4:2:2 1080p codec included. and why 4K is 4:2:2 >50mbps on this small camera, internally. 

CNN/BBC a European broadcasters infect the world. Remember I told you this in just a month. Canon are very clever at playing this specific game, from the days of the XF305, to C300, to XC10. 

 

 

 

[ntblowz]

All I see from the current sample it looks pretty bad, spec is meaningless if actual result can't back it up, so much for the "better codec"

[BenjaminJ]

​In regards to the FZ1000, it may have a leica named lens, it might even be leica designed, but at that price point not a snowballs chance in hell it's leica manufactured. The FZ1000 also has smaller pixels and yet again, another inferior codec. It might get "close" to the XC10 if you have a very loose definition of the word close.

​Of course not, but the same is true for similar (fixed) Zeiss lenses on Sony cameras, Scheider lenses on Samsung, etc. It's about their involvement in the optical design (which can be significant).

[mercer]

People love to hate Canon. I just get so surprised how loyal people are to the brand of camera they have. Is it because they just spent a butt load on a new camera, and then another brand comes out with a new camera that tops it, and they get pissed off? Or are people just so obsessed with their team that they have to knock every other camera in the world? I mean this is seriously funny. Is this canon the perfect low budget, micro budget, indie film camera... No. I don't think it was ever supposed to be. But it still looks like a pretty good camera when you read the specs and after further thought, they probably will sell some to journalists and to owners of the c100 who are looking for a good b-cam to hand to a crew members. I mean, people knock canon, a lot of times with good reason, but they usually make a pretty good product so I'm sure this will be one of them. And if they drop the price to between 1800 and 2200, I bet a lot of you guys will own one. If I had the money I would probably buy one for one of my more marketable movie ideas. I think where canon is really failing is their inability to recognize or support no budget filmmakers. But they've always done that. if they came out with a 1 inch or aps-c mirrorless between 1200 to 1500 rebel cinema camera with interchangeable lenses that shoots 2.7k, 1080 at high bitrates with good sound capabilities, and built in ml features they would own that market again and they obviously have the technology. I am actually interested in what they are going to bring to the action cam market. They may accidentally give some amazing features to compete with gopro. 

[jpb]

Julian wrote: The XC10 opinion article on dpreview is a joke...
Yes, a ridiculous one. Remember : 'editorials are becoming advertorials these days'...

The only thing I like on the XC10 is its detachable eyepiece accessory which transforms
the rear control screen into an EVF.
Unfortunately it seems you can't easily adjust its line of view to the much more
confortable -5° to -10° down earth offered by all pro cameras' viewfinders.

 

 

[Francesco Spiezia]

First off best article to date on this absolutely ridiculous camera. Thank you for essentially summing up how ignorant Canon is to its core user.

I love the 1DC and it is the only camera keeping me in the Canon family for now..... would have been happy to see its upgrade with the new clog and better record times and utilize the new CF standards. Sigh.