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

[Guest Ebrahim Saadawi]

I completely disagree with the article and comments here.

Neither of us have used the camera not to mention tested it, so my word is as good as you, as in both are completely based upon a spec sheet. 

What I take from that sheet are the following points missed here:

-The XC10 has a completely new 1" sensor with 12mp resolution and 12 stops of DR (C300 level claimed by Canon), this is a sensor developed from the ground up for videp performance at 1:1 4K readout, meaning much larger photo-sites and better lowlight performance and better DR than the old 20MP photo sensor that downscales to 1080p, this sensor alone if delivers what its specs imply, would be alone worth the premium over the so called alternatives (RX10/FZ1000/X70/AX100). It could simply have a significantly better image quality when tested, but we haven't done that yet, just going by the specs it will. 

-The colour performance of the XC10 is not touched by the competetion mentioned earlier, this means Canon's famous Colour science AND the amount of colour information stored, it's 305mbps 4:2:2 4K and 4:2:2 10bit. While the competetion mentioned are 24mbps 4:2:0 8bit AVCHD codecs. 

-This codec difference puts it in an entirely different market and entirely different use base, as in it's the only one of these cameras that is approved by broadcasters for Full HD aqusition, and has a dedicated 4:2:2 50mbps 1080p mode for that in an MXF wrapper, in other words, this camera has a broadcast market non of the other cameras will ever touch. 

-The 2500$ price includes a 500$ 64GB CFast2 Card and Cfast reader, so the camera body is actually closer to 1900$, not that much higher than the 1100$ RX10. 

These are the broad important points not mentioned in the article. Let's get into the smaller advantages the XC10 has:

-Rotatable grip, 

-Flipping VF and larger LCD 

-Canon Log matching CX00 gamma 

-HDMI 4K 10bit 4:2:2 uncompressed output

-Video sensor with 12mp vs the 20mp one, 1:1 4K video, 12 stops, better lowlight, less aliasing 

-Broadcast approved codec off the cards

-Both Slots one for Cfast and SD 

-1dx build quality standard as claimed by Westfall

-305mbps 4K 4:2:2 internal XFAVC codec

-Continuous recording non limited to 29mins 

-It uses the same codec, the same bit rate, the same colour science, the same recording media, resolution, the same LOG gamma as the C300 mkII, making it specifically perfect as a B cam to intercut with)

-Usabe AF system

(and a few others)

Non of the competetive cameras has any of these.

Are these worth the price premium of the body (1900 camera body + high end CFast card + reader)? hell yes for many. 

These are what it has over the RX10/FZ1000/x70/AX100, there are of course the points these cameras have over the XC 10, which your article only mentions, disregarding what the XC10 has over then, making it completely uninformative and incomplete. For all we know the new sensor and the new lens optical performance and Log gamma + codec could blow away the rx10/fz1000 image quality off the water, but we don't know yet. So please stop bashing cameras and giving negative comments before knowing what it's capable of AT ALL, not even reading the spec sheet fully. 

 

[Daniel Acuña]

For 2500$? I think It's normal people get upset...

But you are right let's wait and see...

[nowinaminute]

I found it somewhat depressing that the person who posted the negative opinion that got the most "likes" on the latest dpreview article was promptly threatened with being banned by one of the staff, it was quite obvious his opinion was a popular one.

Don't get me wrong he was commenting a lot but he wasn't being unpleasant or offensive to anyone, I would be incredibly surprised if someone got the same threat for being enthusiastic with positive comments.

[Jimmy]

I've said it before, but get this baby on a drone and you have something pretty special. Lightweight enough to go on a 4 rotor drone like a droidworx.... 4K, 12 stops DR, IS, AF. Drone work rarely requires shallow DOF, I always shoot at f8 or above. You want infinity focus, generally.

The minute someone make a gimbal for this, it will flyoff the shelves... and straight onto my drone

Anyone moaning is just looking at it in a narrative/studio setting.

It is a gopro on steroids. That is the target market, imho.

[QMedia]

Best forget about great lowlight performance on this one. I saw it side by side a C300 Mark II in a special darkened room at the Canon NAB booth. It absolutely sucked. So if you have visions of intercutting material with the C300 Mark II, you better keep the lights blazing...

[jpfilmz]

I completely disagree with the article and comments here.

Neither of us have used the camera not to mention tested it, so my word is as good as you, as in both are completely based upon a spec sheet. 

What I take from that sheet are the following points missed here:

-The XC10 has a completely new 1" sensor with 12mp resolution and 12 stops of DR (C300 level claimed by Canon), this is a sensor developed from the ground up for videp performance at 1:1 4K readout, meaning much larger photo-sites and better lowlight performance and better DR than the old 20MP photo sensor that downscales to 1080p, this sensor alone if delivers what its specs imply, would be alone worth the premium over the so called alternatives (RX10/FZ1000/X70/AX100). It could simply have a significantly better image quality when tested, but we haven't done that yet, just going by the specs it will. 

-The colour performance of the XC10 is not touched by the competetion mentioned earlier, this means Canon's famous Colour science AND the amount of colour information stored, it's 305mbps 4:2:2 4K and 4:2:2 10bit. While the competetion mentioned are 24mbps 4:2:0 8bit AVCHD codecs. 

-This codec difference puts it in an entirely different market and entirely different use base, as in it's the only one of these cameras that is approved by broadcasters for Full HD aqusition, and has a dedicated 4:2:2 50mbps 1080p mode for that in an MXF wrapper, in other words, this camera has a broadcast market non of the other cameras will ever touch. 

-The 2500$ price includes a 500$ 64GB CFast2 Card and Cfast reader, so the camera body is actually closer to 1900$, not that much higher than the 1100$ RX10. 

These are the broad important points not mentioned in the article. Let's get into the smaller advantages the XC10 has:

-Rotatable grip, 

-Flipping VF and larger LCD 

-Canon Log matching CX00 gamma 

-HDMI 4K 10bit 4:2:2 uncompressed output

-Video sensor with 12mp vs the 20mp one, 1:1 4K video, 12 stops, better lowlight, less aliasing 

-Broadcast approved codec off the cards

-Both Slots one for Cfast and SD 

-1dx build quality standard as claimed by Westfall

-305mbps 4K 4:2:2 internal XFAVC codec

-Continuous recording non limited to 29mins 

-It uses the same codec, the same bit rate, the same colour science, the same recording media, resolution, the same LOG gamma as the C300 mkII, making it specifically perfect as a B cam to intercut with)

-Usabe AF system

(and a few others)

Non of the competetive cameras has any of these.

Are these worth the price premium of the body (1900 camera body + high end CFast card + reader)? hell yes for many. 

These are what it has over the RX10/FZ1000/x70/AX100, there are of course the points these cameras have over the XC 10, which your article only mentions, disregarding what the XC10 has over then, making it completely uninformative and incomplete. For all we know the new sensor and the new lens optical performance and Log gamma + codec could blow away the rx10/fz1000 image quality off the water, but we don't know yet. So please stop bashing cameras and giving negative comments before knowing what it's capable of AT ALL, not even reading the spec sheet fully. 

 

Agreed.  I think people will be surprise at how well this camera preforms.  I remember when the C100 came out and everyone trashed it's image.  I'm definitely going to pick one up vs Frankensteining a blackmagic 4k micro...which after you add the cost of out lens, monitor/recorder....is pretty close to the XC10's price point, not as compact, and needs longer setup time to shoot.

https://vimeo.com/124969658​

 

I think alot of people will be surprised at how good this camera is.  It hits all the check marks for a specialty cam i'm looking for and I don't think the price is to much for what it offers.  I'm not looking for another interchangeable lens camera....
 

[Damphousse]

 

-The 2500$ price includes a 500$ 64GB CFast2 Card and Cfast reader, so the camera body is actually closer to 1900$, not that much higher than the 1100$ RX10. 

I didn't know that.  Although here in the US I think a CFast2 card and reader can be had for $400 total.  Still $2,100 is not bad when you consider the Sony FDR-AX100 4K was announced at $2,000.  Kind of puts things in perspective.  If people were taking the Ax100 seriously at $2,000 I don't see how this is a total joke at $2,100.  I realize it isn't what most of us want but neither was the AX100.  And presumably this camera won't have the comical rolling shutter feature of the AX100.  The AX100 is selling for $1700.  So it is not inconceivable that the XC10 could sell for $1,800 a year after launch.  So $200 more than a BMPCC and EF speedbooster.

[tugela]

​It records until the card is full?   Is this the first Canon to do this?   I believe everyone else figured this out a half dozen years ago. 

​Well, it won't take long to fill the card at 305 mbps.

[tugela]

I didn't know that.  Although here in the US I think a CFast2 card and reader can be had for $400 total.  Still $2,100 is not bad when you consider the Sony FDR-AX100 4K was announced at $2,000.  Kind of puts things in perspective.  If people were taking the Ax100 seriously at $2,000 I don't see how this is a total joke at $2,100.  I realize it isn't what most of us want but neither was the AX100.  And presumably this camera won't have the comical rolling shutter feature of the AX100.  The AX100 is selling for $1700.  So it is not inconceivable that the XC10 could sell for $1,800 a year after launch.  So $200 more than a BMPCC and EF speedbooster.

​But if you shoot 4K you are probably going to need more than one card since 64GB is going to disappear fast at that bit rate. That will pile the cost on pretty quickly. And the HD records to the regular SD slot, which means the CFast card is wasted if that is all you shoot at.

The Sony and Panasonic video MILCs/MFLCs will probably undergo their next technology upgrade in early 2016, so the lifetime of the Canon camera as a competitive product is going to be really short. The XC10 is going to be well outclassed by sub 1K$ cameras in a year from now, so there is no way that $1800 new will be a reasonable price for it then.

Remember, for a fixed lens camera you are not bound by your glass, so product loyalty is much less of a factor in that particular market, it is all about performance.

[rrc1967]

this article actually isn't what Westfall stated at all.. which is a little sad.

canon / chuck stated with respects to the lens. if you increase the aperture/speed of the lens, you arguably increase either the cost, the size or the weight.  of course this happens.  does anyone actually doubt that?  you do have to always strike a balance between cost, size and weight when it comes to optics.

Of course, everyone would always like a wider aperture lens! But the minute you commit to that you’re back to talking about size, cost, and weight. However you want to arrange those three, it’s definitely going to affect the design. We anticipated that for this camera to be successful it would have to have the right balance of price, features, and also size.

the EVF no mention if it being a cost related omission.

On this camera we felt that the accessory viewfinder was a lot more practical. The idea of including a built in eye level finder would have added a whole extra layer in terms of having another device to build into the camera. This method allows us to provide users with a big, bright view of the image using the LCD that’s already there. It also allows the viewfinder to tilt with the screen as well.

the only aspect that they thought wasn't cost effective for the firmware development was the RAW entry. and who knows.. does canon have a video camera that can output a raw stills?

 

 

[Damphousse]

​But if you shoot 4K you are probably going to need more than one card since 64GB is going to disappear fast at that bit rate. That will pile the cost on pretty quickly.

​That doesn't matter.  You can't compare apples to oranges.  If you want to compare the price of two cameras that is fine.  But you can't include in one the price of media and a card reader and ignore it in a different camera.  I mean that is just the basics of comparing two products.  Honestly I didn't even realize it needed to be stated.  Is this controversial?

And who cares about the cost of the media?  One big knock against the AX100 was the codec.  Well guess what?  This is the solution.  You can't have it both ways.  You can't ask for a better codec and then complain about the cost of the media that codec demands or start doing voodoo math when comparing the cameras.

​The Sony and Panasonic video MILCs/MFLCs will probably undergo their next technology upgrade in early 2016, so the lifetime of the Canon camera as a competitive product is going to be really short. The XC10 is going to be well outclassed by sub 1K$ cameras in a year from now, so there is no way that $1800 new will be a reasonable price for it then.

​I'm going to bookmark this thread and come back in a year.  I will be very interested to see these sub $1,000 Sony Handicams that shoot 4:2:2 8-bit color at bit rates up to 305Mbps in 4K internally.

I don't know why it is so hard for people to accept reality when Canon's name is involved.  People were gushing a year ago when the Sony AX100 was announced for $2,000.  Can anyone honestly say the XC10 is an inferior product?  It only costs $100 more and improves on several key shortcomings of the AX100.  I'm just trying to figure out why there is such a swing in reactions.  I mean if someone last year said the AX100 was rubbish and Sony is full of it then fine.  Dump on Canon.  But if you were gushing about the AX100 at $2,000 you need to be having some words of praise for Canon today...  or at least don't say this camera is a complete joke.  Be consistent.

[tugela]

​That doesn't matter.  You can't compare apples to oranges.  If you want to compare the price of two cameras that is fine.  But you can't include in one the price of media and a card reader and ignore it in a different camera.  I mean that is just the basics of comparing two products.  Honestly I didn't even realize it needed to be stated.  Is this controversial?

And who cares about the cost of the media?  One big knock against the AX100 was the codec.  Well guess what?  This is the solution.  You can't have it both ways.  You can't ask for a better codec and then complain about the cost of the media that codec demands or start doing voodoo math when comparing the cameras.

​I'm going to bookmark this thread and come back in a year.  I will be very interested to see these sub $1,000 Sony Handicams that shoot 4:2:2 8-bit color at bit rates up to 305Mbps in 4K internally.

I don't know why it is so hard for people to accept reality when Canon's name is involved.  People were gushing a year ago when the Sony AX100 was announced for $2,000.  Can anyone honestly say the XC10 is an inferior product?  It only costs $100 more and improves on several key shortcomings of the AX100.  I'm just trying to figure out why there is such a swing in reactions.  I mean if someone last year said the AX100 was rubbish and Sony is full of it then fine.  Dump on Canon.  But if you were gushing about the AX100 at $2,000 you need to be having some words of praise for Canon today...  or at least don't say this camera is a complete joke.  Be consistent.

The XC10 doesn't "cost $100 more". It costs $600 more.​ People were gushing about the AX100 because at the time it was the only dog in town, not because it was superior to the later 4K options that became available. I think it is a safe bet that an AX100 mark 2 will appear early in 2016 with an updated sensor and vastly improved processor, and will probably shoot 4k60p at higher bit rates, perhaps with H.265 encoding for efficiency. There will also likely be a RX10 mark II appearing pretty soon I imagine, which will shoot 4k30P at high bit rates, and be a superior camera compared to the XC10 both physically and optically. And it will cost half as much.

You don't get an option with the bit rate at 4K in the XC10, you have to shoot at 305 mbps. There is no other setting according to the specs. That will give you about 30 minutes of recording time on the CFast card, then you have to stop shooting or put a new one in. That means you will need quite a few of these cards on your person, which will pop the price for the system up considerably.

And you can't say that the cost of the card is included in the overall price tag and "subtract" that, because if you want to shoot HD you don't get that option - you have to pay for the CFast card whether you use it or not.

One more thing, the sort of people who would use a camera like this generally don't give a rats ass about such a high bit rate. It will be used mostly for event coverage of one form or another, and that sort of footage is generally used as is with little modification.

[hmcindie]

Why do people have different sets of rules for different manufacturers?

The RX10 does not shoot 4k. It shoots a shitty Sony image (tm). Claiming that Sony will come out with a 4k model at some point (what the f?) will suddenly make the comparison ok? Well maybe Canon comes out with a mark II in two years? The media costs are more for the XC10? Yeah, it does shoot a bigger and better image (duh).

Why are you comparing like children? This is like reading a ps4 vs xbox one fanpage for christs sake.

When Sony comes out with a shitty camera (sony fs100, ax100) people go "WOW look at that shit" just because it's first in the market. Yay?

Even funnier considering none of you have used the XC10 (or probably even the Sony variants).

[Damphousse]

The XC10 doesn't "cost $100 more". It costs $600 more.​

​Hmmm... Maybe I wasn't clear.  Let me try again.  The XC10 AND a 64 GB CFast 2 card AND a card reader cost $2,500 at announcement.  Back out the cost of the CFast card and the card reader and you have the price of just the camera... $2,100.  The AX100's announcement price a year ago was $2,000.  $2,100-2,000=$100.  Even if you want to lump in the price of the media and the media reader it is still less than a $600 difference.  I just don't know where you are getting that number.

One more thing, the sort of people who would use a camera like this generally don't give a rats ass about such a high bit rate. It will be used mostly for event coverage of one form or another, and that sort of footage is generally used as is with little modification.

​That's irrelevant.  Go back and read all those AX100 threads.  What was one complaint that came up over and over again?  People wanted a more robust codec.  Well Canon delivered and...  time to move the goalposts.

 

Neither of those cameras is for me.  But let's be consistent when we are talking about them.

[StenR]

Yes, Canon marketing did say a lot of stupid things at NAB, some executive must have decided it might find a bigger market. Why didn't they just call it the C50, a B/C-cam to the C300 with imagery made for blending in with its bigger brother, that's what they used it for in the C300 demo short. The price and the lack of XLR input wouldn't matter in that context and having the same media would be an advantage. Still, the slow lens is a weakness but probably won't matter in a controlled environment. Lets hope the price will drop on the C100 Mk II instead, that model is much more in line what I want to use as I still own a lot of Canon glass after doing semi-pro work with a number of Canon DSLRs.

[StenR]

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.

[tugela]

Why do people have different sets of rules for different manufacturers?

The RX10 does not shoot 4k. It shoots a shitty Sony image (tm). Claiming that Sony will come out with a 4k model at some point (what the f?) will suddenly make the comparison ok? Well maybe Canon comes out with a mark II in two years? The media costs are more for the XC10? Yeah, it does shoot a bigger and better image (duh).

Why are you comparing like children? This is like reading a ps4 vs xbox one fanpage for christs sake.

When Sony comes out with a shitty camera (sony fs100, ax100) people go "WOW look at that shit" just because it's first in the market. Yay?

Even funnier considering none of you have used the XC10 (or probably even the Sony variants).

​I have a Sony RX100M3, which uses the same sensor and processor and codec. It is not "shitty" as you call it.

The image quality from that little camera blows my Canon HF-G30 out of the water.

[Damphousse]

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.

​Sounds about right.

 

I just saw 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

 

Hopefully that puts an end to people saying the camera body costs $2,500.  I really didn't think the concept of a bundle was that hard to understand.

[tugela]

​Hmmm... Maybe I wasn't clear.  Let me try again.  The XC10 AND a 64 GB CFast 2 card AND a card reader cost $2,500 at announcement.  Back out the cost of the CFast card and the card reader and you have the price of just the camera... $2,100.  The AX100's announcement price a year ago was $2,000.  $2,100-2,000=$100.  Even if you want to lump in the price of the media and the media reader it is still less than a $600 difference.  I just don't know where you are getting that number.

​That's irrelevant.  Go back and read all those AX100 threads.  What was one complaint that came up over and over again?  People wanted a more robust codec.  Well Canon delivered and...  time to move the goalposts.

 

Neither of those cameras is for me.  But let's be consistent when we are talking about them.

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

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? The next iteration of the AX100 will likely arrive in early 2016 and it will have higher speed interfaces that allow higher bit rates. H.265 will start to be more widely adopted around then as well, which will allow more efficient storage. I have an NX1, which records H.265 at 80 mbps. Transcoding to H.264 (the same as Canon's codec) at similar quality produces files at *drumroll* ~300 mbps. Number sound familiar?

High performance storage in 2016 may not require a CFast card at all.

 

[QMedia]

The XC10 is a dog with fleas in low light. Not speculating here, I have seen it. All the bitrate in the world will not fix it. 10 bit 422 will not fix it. The problem is twofold, small sensor and slow glass, neither of which you can do anything about. A 1" sensor is 12.80 x 9.60 mm or 122.88 square mm. A MFT is 17.30 x 13.00 mm or 224.90 square mm. An APS-C is 23.60 x 15.60 mm or 368.95 square mm. The APS-C sensor is THREE bloody times the size of a 1" sensor. The MFT sensor is almost twice as large.

If you don't care about low light performance, go for it, if that floats your boat. It does not float mine.