Canon struck raw, EVF and brighter zoom from XC10 “for cost reasons”

[Damphousse]

​You can't "opt out" of paying for the CFast card and reader. So the camera costs $2500, not $2100.

​

Not sure how many times I have to post this...

 

The XC10 is expected to go on sale worldwide in mid-June for about $1,999 or 1,999 euros, according to a Canon spokesman in Tokyo.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/2907452/canon-xc10-4k-camcorder-has-rotating-grip.html

[Damphousse]

​Canon can only provide 305 mbps because of the CFast slot, which was not realistically available at the time the AX100 came out, so obviously it couldn't support higher bit rates. The AX100 is last years model, not this years model. Why is that hard to wrap your head around?

 

​I explicitly stated that the AX100 came out last year so I think my head is wrapped around that point pretty well.

What you don't seem to get is this forum was full of people praising the AX100 and Sony last year and one year later when Canon puts out a camera that improves on the Sony model in several important areas FOR THE SAME PRICE it causes widespread visceral disgust.  That makes no sense.  Cognitive dissonance is a b-tch.

[Sekhar]

May be it will be down to $1,999, but that's per PC World citing an anonymous source. Till then we'll have to go with the Canon's official figure of $2,499, both from the press release (http://goo.gl/Asz6sI) and the XC10 product page (http://goo.gl/LC42Ym).

[Guest Ebrahim Saadawi]

I didn't mention the CFast 2 price inclusion to imply the camera's total price is lower than it is, no, if you want to buy and shoot with it it's 2500$, I just mentioned it because we were speaking of manufacturing cost and why the Canon is so expensive. It's just a point. Why the camera is that expensive is also partly 10% video EU Tax law for unlimited recording. We have no idea what's inside the camera vs the competetion to analyze the manufacturing cost, for all we know the lens elements and quality may cost 1500$ alone, it might be a huge step above the rx10 in optical performance, or not. Also compared to the rx10 is a camera that records an enormous amount of data to a CFast 2 card, it's an entire different level of hardware and processing, it even has vents and an internal fan. Westfall mentions the build material is as rugged as the 1Dx, this is all not cheap. 

Anyhow, until we get the camera, compare it to the others, and open it up to check the hardware cost, we know nothing. 

 

Specs tell you small things not that deep stuff. They tell you it will have a sharp image, gives you body size, the recording media and times, batteries, that it will not have a shallow DOF (which I think is the main reason for the negative reception here), but don't tell the important rest the make or break a camera. 

[crwn_schlr]

Lol drone usage at a FF equivalent FoV of roughly 35mm? 

 

Live event coverage at f5.6 on a 1" sensor? 

 

Oh but please gimme broadcast ready 50mb in a prosumer cam. 

 

[Damphousse]

I didn't mention the CFast 2 price inclusion to imply the camera's total price is lower than it is, no, if you want to buy and shoot with it it's 2500$, I just mentioned it because we were speaking of manufacturing cost and why the Canon is so expensive. It's just a point.

​Actually StenR has already confirmed that he's seen it advertised in Sweden unbundled for 20% off...

The XC10 will be sold in Sweden with a bundled 128GB CFast card and reader, this is comparable to the Sony PMW-X70 (before the expected discount when the 4k upgrade is available). There is also a version without the media bundle for 20% less.

​

Ebrahim, I hear you.  It's a moot point.  If most of us were to get the camera we would immediately go out and buy media and a reader.  So either way not something to go back and forth about.  I went down that rabbit hole because some people can't understand the concept of a bundle when Canon's name is attached.  Anyway thanks for pointing out the cost of the media and the reader.  I empathize with people who dismissed this camera.  I too dismissed it till I read your post and started thinking about other camcorders that had an announced price of $2,000.  When you look at it that way it is obvious Canon is right in line with the market.  Canon definitely gouges but I can't see how they are gouging any more than Sony was a year ago.

[douglaurent]

usually i only comment on this forum when i disagree with andrew, otherwise i am positive +1.  but reading a historically stupid canon executive statement like "we wanted to reduce weight and costs, so we added a non-detachable superzoom lens" makes me write about canon's future strategy.  clearly they want avoid to release one camera that includes all relevant features we need for as long as possible and make us use 2-3 cameras at the same time, and buy 2-5 more cameras in the next 3-10 years until we finally see a full frame body with 4k 60fps, swivel screen with focus peaking etc.  that's their good right.  unfortunately for canon this means a multi camera-setup that can do all from high video resolution, high frame rates, extreme lowlight, pro video features, high photo resolution, compact size might not include one single canon product:  this setup right now would be a red epic, a sony a7s, a panasonic gh4 and a nikon d810.  i fear that will not change until 2018, as canon will either make new products like a c300/c500 II far too expensive, or limit features like in the coming 5d4 products.  my personal next hopes are on a gh5 with 4k 60fps.

[Damphousse]

but reading a historically stupid canon executive statement like "we wanted to reduce weight and costs, so we added a non-detachable superzoom lens" makes me write about canon's future strategy.  clearly they want avoid to release one camera that includes all relevant features we need for as long as possible and make us use 2-3 cameras at the same time, and buy 2-5 more cameras in the next 3-10 years until we finally see a full frame body with 4k 60fps, swivel screen with focus peaking etc. .

​It's a camcorder just like the Sony AX100.  Where is your thread demanding a detachable lens and raw still capability from the AX100?

[Jimmy]

Why can't people wrap their head around the idea that their needs are not the same as others.

One of my needs is for a very light, high quality 4K camera that can fit on a small quad copter... hex at the most. Canon checked alot of my boxes,,, Though rolling shutter will need to be tested, The BM Micro is also very interesting to me, yet wont tick many boxes for you narrative guys, yet no tears about that.

Big cameras like the FS7 don't do it for me, as I travel and shoot as light as possible... I don't sit and moan about Sony though, just because it is not for me.

[Guest Ebrahim Saadawi]

Why can't people wrap their heads that their needs are different from others

Haha. That pretty much sums up all the forum arguments around the world. But hey, if people do get it, then the forums would be very boring places wouldn't they?

[Sekhar]

Why can't people wrap their head around the idea that their needs are not the same as others.

​A lot of the negative reaction IMO is coming from the way XC10 was introduced. E.g., through the DP Review "Why the Canon XC10 is a big deal" intro that extolled the mere ability to shoot both pictures and video, something cameras have been able to do for a while now. Then this (what I see as a puff piece) interview. Stuff like this ticked off a lot of people (me included) because it kind of insulted people's intelligence. Not because of the limitations of the camera itself (or even its price).

Then you have no clear indication from Canon on who is being targeted. Both their PR and product page position this as targeted at both creative folks (vocal folks hanging on forums like this, DP Review, etc. that make the most noise) as well as ENG pros. You also have Canon releasing shorts like Battle of the Ages and talking at NAB at behind the scenes stuff on shorts (I was there, it was clear they were attracting indie film makers). Naturally these creative folks, who are savvy and well versed with the latest tech and are value conscious (read: price sensitive) are going to compare with the FZ1000's of the world on the features they tend to care about.

Compound that with inconsistencies in the product features that have you scratching your head. E.g., on one hand Canon suggests drone use, but the lens is slow and not operable remotely; it's supposed to be for journalists, but it is low res and there's no RAW and it's not great in low light; it's meant to make things simple for shooters with only JPG, but then Canon tries differentiating with internal 4:2:2 and there are massive video files on XFast that demand expertise in post handing.

[douglaurent]

​It's a camcorder just like the Sony AX100.  Where is your thread demanding a detachable lens and raw still capability from the AX100?

​i indeed own the AX100 since day one and it is a nice side toy, which makes the XC10 even more useless.  canon does seem to present the XC10 to the dslr/cinema audience, not the camcorder world, which makes it look like an excuse for not adding 4k or other stuff like focus peaking in cheaper dslrs or cinema products.  canon is clearly not thinking about their customers and more about short term profits, while this might cost them longterm profits.  canon needs to realize that users are aware of that.  whoever likes and buys the XC10: congrats.  but you also could have bought the XC10 a year ago.

[douglaurent]

Why can't people wrap their head around the idea that their needs are not the same as others.

One of my needs is for a very light, high quality 4K camera that can fit on a small quad copter... hex at the most. Canon checked alot of my boxes,,, Though rolling shutter will need to be tested, The BM Micro is also very interesting to me, yet wont tick many boxes for you narrative guys, yet no tears about that.

Big cameras like the FS7 don't do it for me, as I travel and shoot as light as possible... I don't sit and moan about Sony though, just because it is not for me.

​as far as i can see it, a gopro 4 is still a much better 4k drone camera than the XC10, as it is really light, has wide angle and better remote features.  the size and weight of the XC10 are in a league where you need drones in the size that can already carry a stripped down epic.  a gh4 would be a much better drone choice as well.

[OliKMIA]

We all agree this camera is an overpriced piece of junk but I'm trying to understand what is the Canon logic behind this product development. What is the market target ? The vast majority of people use their cell phones for stills and video and people wiling to spend $2500 for a camera are educated enough to buy a GH4/NX1/A7S.

If that thing is doesn't turn out to be a commercial disaster I must admire the marketing efforts of Canon !

[Claudio Almeida]

2 years ago Canon raised camera prices... maybe they are buying the sensors from other company. And maybe that's why XC10 is too expensive. We know there are many Industrial secrets from these companies. Cosina makes some Zeiss lenses. Leica buy shutters and sensors for their cameras and maybe Canon buy some sensors for some cameras...

 

[Jimmy]

People talk some nonsense on here about stuff they clearly don't do.

I shoot drone footage... I shoot alot with the goPro in narrow mode to avoid the awful fisheye. It is roughly 30mm eqv, so the guy laughing about using a 35mm eqv is talking shite.... Especially when you realise the XC10 is actually 27mm eqv

Then the guy saying it would need a rig similar to that capable of holding an Epic. The XC10 is 2.3lb fully kitted, slightly heavier than a gh4 with lens. We have rigged up GH4s and BMPCC on a Droidworx 4 rotor many times.

Now whether the GH4 is better will be determined by V-log and rolling shutter tests... but impossible to say, at this point, that GH4 is better. 12 stops and 4:2:2 will take some beating... and I think the smaller sensor will help rolling shutter... time will tell.

[Guest Ebrahim Saadawi]

Well, compared to a GoPro, it might have a significantly better image, so it's very premature to announce the GoPro betfer in anywy other than cheaper and smaller. XC10 migh have a much larger sensor, resolution, better optics, higher DR and lowlight performance, finer grain structure, better highlight rolloff, more robust 4:2:2 305mbps C-Log files for heavy grading, plus a wider 24mm FF equivalent rectilinear lens for stills and 27mm for video (just the 16:9 crop), Colours matching Canon Cx00 line, you know the elements that make up an IMAGE, not the spec sheet. 

Plus when it's on land, it can be used a full handheld camcorder with a long versatile range a d a package that can be used as a real camera for news, eng, broadcast, film, weddings, commercials, documentariea, you know, a completely different concept from a GoPro. 

[douglaurent]

two or three years ago, this would have been a nice product.  one year after the AX100, GH4, FZ1000, LX100 etc and especially with clearer sight on canon's overall profit-oriented product strategy plus their own comments, it is simply disappointing.  whoever is choosing the XC10 as main drone camera clearly does not make the best decision. 

[Jimmy]

So Doug, you know my business better than I do?

I have never lost money from a camera decision, I don't see how this would buck the trend... Maybe you can enlighten me, as you are clearly a drone expert. I need the best quality 4K camera to fit on a small Droidworx.... Please name all these amazing cameras that have internal 4K with broadcast codec.

[hmcindie]

​as far as i can see it, a gopro 4 is still a much better 4k drone camera than the XC10, as it is really light, has wide angle and better remote features. 

Haven't used a gopro 4 but gopro 3 had a shitty image. If the 4 is the same, it won't compete with anything except size.

" gopro 4 is still a much better 4k drone camera than the XC10"

- That is just an insane thing to say (especially without using both) but I guess that's the trend.