Some new Canon XC10 footage

[DBounce]

Price kills this as a reasonable proposition. Too much else  out there and most of it sharper. The colors feel very Canon to me, and that's not a bad thing. But I would pass. The lack of a screen that can rotate kills this for self filming also. This feels like a good crash cam for the C300 mkii crowd. 

[tdonovic]

For exactly the same price, you can get the Sony x70 + 4k firmware upgrade: $2500. 

Both have a 1" sensor, although the sony is f2.8 constant aperture.

Sony has SDI and takes cheap SD cards.

I use the x70 at work, we bought two to replace and supplement our aging EX1. I can't help but think that the x70 would be a better pick in almost all cases compared to the xc10.

[Mattias Burling]

For exactly the same price, you can get the Sony x70 + 4k firmware upgrade: $2500. 

Both have a 1" sensor, although the sony is f2.8 constant aperture.

Sony has SDI and takes cheap SD cards.

I use the x70 at work, we bought two to replace and supplement our aging EX1. I can't help but think that the x70 would be a better pick in almost all cases compared to the xc10.

Problem with the X70 imo is its lowlight. Even has trouble keeping up with the tiny sensor in the xa20.

 

[Guest Ebrahim Saadawi]

The X70 is larger, so not suitable for a crash-cam/ Go-pro like/ Drone applications as the XC10. It has a hugely inferior codec, 100mbps 4:2:0 8bit UHD, vs 305mbps 4:2:2 8bit 4K. The XC10 has a higher dynamic range (around two stops higher) and a Log mode (C-Log), it has better lowlight performance (this is due to the older 20mp sensor in the X70 vs the video optimized 12mp sensor in the XC10) and most importantly the image simply looks better, much better. I haven't seen anything that looks filmic/cinematic out of the X70, all is artifically-sharpened look, with horrible highlight artefacting and low DR and a lot worse colours than I see from the XC10 and Canon C-log/WDR cameras. 

The X70 advantages are the stronger NDs, the 1080p 10bit option, and the larger body with easier control over settings and overal A camera ergonomics (EVF, LCD, Buttons, Size), F2.8 to 4.5 vs F2.8 to 5.6, but the XC10 starts at 27mm vs 30mm in 4K mode and 24mm in stills mode (but that's all we have for now about the two lenses, their F numbers, we know nothing about their optical quality and how they compare), SDI output and XLR input. 

Both have their uses. 

 

Onto the XC10, I like it a lot from what I've seen (the body design and image sensor, image overall and ProRes-league codec).

The only annoying downsides for me I see are  

-Lack of an ISO button which is really something one would use a lot and I like to change it quickly as I would do on a DSLR, I would happily assign the AF button to ISO if they allowed it, not a deal breaker however but annoying, I expect a firmware update to be able to fix that easily.

-Price, if it were at the 1500$ it would be a real competitor for the RX10II. 

Downsides for other people: 

-Variable aperture, it's an annoyance for those who like to zoom during recording, but not an issue for me as I never do that and especially since lowlight performance seems phenomenal

-Perhaps lack of XLR microphones support. But the 3.5mm jack is said to deliver high quality audio, and has a headphone jack for monitoring and manual control over levels. 

I can see this camera 

1- B camera for 4K cinema cameras (especially C line) due to C-log and high-end codec. 

2- Crash camera for 4K cinema productions (again for LOG and codec) 

3- A GoPro replacement for applications where GoPro fisheye quality is not an option, and where high-end cinema drone quality is wanted, 

3- A camera for a street/news broadcast (50mbps 4:2:2 broadcast approved codec and size) 

4- A camera for stock travel videography 

-Weddings, narrative, music videos? No. I believe better options are out there as the codec and DR advantage here is not so visible for these applications where lens options and slowmotion are king. 

 

[tugela]

It isn't a second camera for a C300/500 since the image quality is dramatically inferior. That pretty much destroys it's supposed main advantage.

Shooting in HD limits you to 50 mbps at 60p, and 35 mbps at 30p. Something like the NX1 can shoot HD at 80mbps at 60p, and 60 mbps at 30p, using a more efficient codec. Some of the bandwidth of the XC10 will be sacrificed to support 10 bits and 4:2:2 as well, so relatively speaking even more resolution information is lost. The Canon codec isn't "broadcast approved" either, it is simply a format that can be readily transcoded, that is all. But so can all of the other codecs out there.

[mercer]

It isn't a second camera for a C300/500 since the image quality is dramatically inferior. That pretty much destroys it's supposed main advantage.

Shooting in HD limits you to 50 mbps at 60p, and 35 mbps at 30p. Something like the NX1 can shoot HD at 80mbps at 60p, and 60 mbps at 30p, using a more efficient codec. Some of the bandwidth of the XC10 will be sacrificed to support 10 bits and 4:2:2 as well, so relatively speaking even more resolution information is lost. The Canon codec isn't "broadcast approved" either, it is simply a format that can be readily transcoded, that is all. But so can all of the other codecs out there.

Why are you so angry at this camera?

[Guest Ebrahim Saadawi]

-Codec is broadcast approved as in it's 4:2:2 (the pre-requisite for broadcast acquisition, and 50mbps and higher (up to 305mbps). NX1, RX10, RX10II, FZ1000, RX100IV, GH4, A7s, A7r, Nikons, all are 4:2:0 h.264 and therefore will never be used by broadcasters. This is a major selling point and Canon thought this out carefully when they gave it a 4:2:2 codec that's higher than 50mbps, it opens an entirely different market for the camera, 

Also remember the XF-AVC codec is currently supported everywhere, it's a normal .MXF file that imports natively Premiere, Final cut, Vegas, Avid, everything. It's not a new unsupported codec that needs transcoding as many seem to think. 

-About C100/300 compatibility, I highly believe this is wrong, it does match the C line perfectly from what I've seen so far, haven't seen side by sides yet (which will determine . but the resolution is the same (higher than C100/C300 MKI/C100 MKII and close to C300 MKII), the colour science is exactly the same as well as the gamma curve in C-Log, the codec is the higher than the C100 MK & II and perfectly matching the C300II (XF-AVC), it lacks aliasing/moire, has similar low rolling shutter, lowlight performance is great up to 6400 ISO with the same grain structure, it has the exact same Dynamic range at 12 stops and and the same highlight/shadow distribution at 800 ISO, The camera even uses the exact same way of downsampling 4K to 1080p as in the C100/300 (no de-bayering, what they call super-green sampling). It's clear it was specifically designed to match the C100/300. It's most probable this is the closest you will get to matching the C100/300. 

Let's wait for the side by sides with the C cameras though before drawing conclusions. 

 

[Guest Ebrahim Saadawi]

Nope sorry. About the same. The finer grain and overall codec (50mbps XAVC-S) shadow performance will allow you to get a bit higher DR by pushing up the shadows, something that can't be done on the nex-7 (with all the blocky colour blotches introduced by the older 24mbps AVCHD codec)

[Guest Ebrahim Saadawi]

*Sorry wrong thread

[TheRenaissanceMan]

Problem with the X70 imo is its lowlight. Even has trouble keeping up with the tiny sensor in the xa20.

 

​But neither one's really a low-light camera, is it? It's a good image in decent light, but that 1-inch sensor and slow lens aren't helping the XC10. I think the 10-bit 1080p from the X70 makes it more compelling from a narrative/corporate standpoint, but that's just me. 

[tugela]

Why are you so angry at this camera?

​I am not angry at it. I am disappointed because of what it signifies. Although I had no intention of buying one because of the form factor, the implementation reinforces the idea that Canon simply do not take consumer/prosumer video seriously. The DIGIC in the camera is the next generation of processors that are going to be used in all Canon consumer products for the next 2 years. In other words every consumer camera that Canon releases in the next 2 years is going to have the same soft crappy video they are so famous for.

That makes me sad. It should make you sad as well.

[tugela]

-Codec is broadcast approved as in it's 4:2:2 (the pre-requisite for broadcast acquisition, and 50mbps and higher (up to 305mbps). NX1, RX10, RX10II, FZ1000, RX100IV, GH4, A7s, A7r, Nikons, all are 4:2:0 h.264 and therefore will never be used by broadcasters. This is a major selling point and Canon thought this out carefully when they gave it a 4:2:2 codec that's higher than 50mbps, it opens an entirely different market for the camera, 

Also remember the XF-AVC codec is currently supported everywhere, it's a normal .MXF file that imports natively Premiere, Final cut, Vegas, Avid, everything. It's not a new unsupported codec that needs transcoding as many seem to think. 

-About C100/300 compatibility, I highly believe this is wrong, it does match the C line perfectly from what I've seen so far, haven't seen side by sides yet (which will determine . but the resolution is the same (higher than C100/C300 MKI/C100 MKII and close to C300 MKII), the colour science is exactly the same as well as the gamma curve in C-Log, the codec is the higher than the C100 MK & II and perfectly matching the C300II (XF-AVC), it lacks aliasing/moire, has similar low rolling shutter, lowlight performance is great up to 6400 ISO with the same grain structure, it has the exact same Dynamic range at 12 stops and and the same highlight/shadow distribution at 800 ISO, The camera even uses the exact same way of downsampling 4K to 1080p as in the C100/300 (no de-bayering, what they call super-green sampling). It's clear it was specifically designed to match the C100/300. It's most probable this is the closest you will get to matching the C100/300. 

Let's wait for the side by sides with the C cameras though before drawing conclusions. 

 

​You can output 4:2:0 as 4:2:2 if you want to. After all, this is what pretty much every camera that has a HDMI output does. There is nothing special about it. What it does do is give you more latitude when grading since there is more color information, but if you are not doing that then 4:2:0 is fine. This camera is being marketed as a portable news camera, and that sort of footage is used as is after transcoding.

XF-AVC isn't supported everywhere. Some people have to transcode it until their NLEs support it. Maybe that will happen soon but apparently it hasn't happened yet in some cases.

I am not that familiar with C100/300 footage, but if the resolution is as bad as the first clips from the XC10 are, then I would be very surprised.

There is no way that it has the same performance as the senior cameras, since it is a different sensor size and pixel pitch. The only thing the same between the cameras is the codec, and I don't consider that to be "compatibility".

[TheRenaissanceMan]

​There is no way that it has the same performance as the senior cameras, since it is a different sensor size and pixel pitch. The only thing the same between the cameras is the codec, and I don't consider that to be "compatibility".

​No, but having the exact same gamma, color, processing, CFA, and sensor tech means it'll intercut pretty well with its bigger brothers. I don't have the link on hand, but the C300 II launch film had a couple XC10 shots in it that looked just fine. It'll stick out less than GoPro footage in Hollywood flicks--I couldn't believe the pov shots in the second Hobbit flick actually made the cut.

I still don't think the XC10 has a lot of appeal for people in our price bracket, but YMMV.

[Guest Ebrahim Saadawi]

​ but if the resolution is as bad as the first clips from the XC10 are,

Have you really seen any XC10 samples in 4K? Tack sharp, yes sharper than any 1080p Camera including the C100/300 MKI. ​

[Sekhar]

Have you really seen any XC10 samples in 4K? Tack sharp, yes sharper than any 1080p Camera including the C100/300 MKI. ​

​Yes, sharper than 1080p, but we're talking 4K here: it's supposed to be 4x the resolution, you need to raise your bar a bit. 4K out of say NX1 puts this to shame. Going by the footage jpfilmz posted, it almost looks like there's a diffusion filter (it has the soft, misty look even if more detailed than 1080p)...unless the jpfilmz crew actually slapped on a filter of some sort. Or it's just the usual Canon soft look.

[Cinegain]

Some truth to that. Haven't really seen any footage that had tons of detail/sharpness either. Usually with smaller sensor cameras footage tends to look painfully sharp (nothing to do with detail, actually that's a thing that they're usually kinda lacking). But what I've seen from the XC10 does look very Canoney, which means a little soft/mushy. The highlight clipping looks pretty bad on it too. The only thing I can applaud them for is the lowlight, it seems they've done a great job getting a good lowlight performance out of a 1" sensor.

'Yeah, but it makes for an awesome crash/drone/action cam?', people keep saying. No more fishy GoPro footage. Eh. To me it doesn't look like the most ideal thing for that to be honest. We have the ImagineVision Z and the Blackmagic Micro Studio Camera for example. Or hey, rent an ARRI Mini . Ok, maybe you're not one of those looking for that in camera. You're just a regular shooter appreciating high quality footage in a small package? Eh, the new RX10M2 seems like it will be pretty cool... f/2.8 throughout, 4K as well, XAVCS, peaking, dope slowmo features! I know what I would go for, but then again, I must be out of the select target audience...

Anyways. I will be the last person to complain about having an abundence of camera choice and it's always nice to have different approaches to shooting going on. That way these companies 'lend' from eachother whatever works and it will only lead to better cameras and healthy competition (and more affordable options). Personally, I wouldn't get it even if it was availlable at half the current price. But people will have their reasons to go with it. It's like with religion, You believe in one thing, I believe in another. No need to fight over who's right. It's all good.

[tugela]

​No, but having the exact same gamma, color, processing, CFA, and sensor tech means it'll intercut pretty well with its bigger brothers. I don't have the link on hand, but the C300 II launch film had a couple XC10 shots in it that looked just fine. It'll stick out less than GoPro footage in Hollywood flicks--I couldn't believe the pov shots in the second Hobbit flick actually made the cut.

I still don't think the XC10 has a lot of appeal for people in our price bracket, but YMMV.

​It doesn't have the same sensor tech as the C100/300. Those have a larger sensor and lower pixel count than the one on the XC10 (I am guessing that the C300/100M2 use the same sensor). They also have DPAF, and there is no mention of that in the XC10, so it probably doesn't. The sensor performance and characteristics of the two will be completely different.

Also, the XC10 has a single DV5 processor, whereas the C300 has dual DV5 processors. That means it will have superior processing capability, which has to affect the IQ otherwise there would be no point in the C300 having dual processors. The C100 uses a single DV4 processor (which is the older generation) running at a different bit rate and codec. So it is different from the other two in that respect as well.

[Mattias Burling]

One person says,

"Look at this result"

The other says.

"Can't be, because of specs"

[Guest Ebrahim Saadawi]

So you've concluded the XC10 will not be a matching B camera for the C100/300 images as it has a:

1 -Different sensor size and pixel count therefore different sensor technology (which is 100% unknown to anybody outside Canon Semiconductors)

2- Different processor model? 

Okay. 

Instead of listing the hundred things they do have in common I'll say we wait to see actual side by sides to know whether it will work as a B camera for the C line or not. 

 

 

[TheRenaissanceMan]

So you've concluded the XC10 will not be a matching B camera for the C100/300 images as it has a:

1 -Different sensor size and pixel count therefore different sensor technology (which is 100% unknown to anybody outside Canon Semiconductors)

2- Different processor model? 

Okay. 

Instead of listing the hundred things they do have in common I'll say we wait to see actual side by sides to know whether it will work as a B camera for the C line or not. 

But we can say, because we've already seen it in the C300 II launch film!