Some new Canon XC10 footage

[tugela]

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. 

 

 

​I didn't say anything of the sort. Try reading my response again, you will find that it is accurate. Don't extrapolate to things that were not said.

[tugela]

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

​I would rather see it from actual users than promotional material which has been heavily altered.

Certainly if we look at the HD user footage of the XC10 that has been put out so far, it is pretty clear that resolution is an issue in that mode.

[Guest Ebrahim Saadawi]

​I didn't say anything of the sort. Try reading my response again, you will find that it is accurate. Don't extrapolate to things that were not said.

With all due respect no you did say that Sir. That's exactly what you said, that it will not match the C line (which makes it lose one of it's major intended uses) and your logic in the post I quoted was that is had a different size sensor, pixel count, sensor technology (unknown fact) and that it has a different processor model. Enlighten me what did I miss? 

My logic behind the counter argument: In the short film Trick shot it intercut perfectly with the 4K images out of the C300II (not even just C100/300), and the following facts: 

-They are from the same company, the same sensor manufacturer. 

-They have similar pixel count at 8mps (12mp in stills mode irrelevant as it's cropped in video mode to 8.3mp 16:9, identical to C100, C300, C100 MKII)

-They have the same colour science and Log Gamma, and WDR profile, meaning identical sharpening levels and sharpening algorithm, saturation, hue, contrast.

-They have XF-AVC codec at 4:2:2 and 305mbps which is closest to matching the C300II of any camera on the market, and HIGHER quality to matching the C100, C100 MKII and C300.

-It's 4:2:2 and higher than 50mbps for ability to be used for broadcast with the C300I, C300II with both having standard .MXF files

-It has the exact same DR of the C100, C100 MKII and C300 at 12 Stops with the exact same highlight/shadow distribution and the exact same ISO values 

-It has a higher resolution than the C100, C100 MKII, and C300 and lower than C300II but we've seen even those intercut perfectly. 

-It has the exact same downsampling method used in the C100, C300, C100II from 4K to HD (a properietry process that invloves no debayering and double green channel resolution) 

-It has similar grain and noise structure (extremely fine and small) but of course it has more of at higher ISOs above 3200 ISO (although it's no slouch it's 5D3 level with a 1" sensor) 

 

If you're into reading specs, it's clear the XC10 is the perfect C line match B camera, but I am not that much into reading specs, so I'll wait for side by side footage. 

 

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

 

Yes you can but let's wait for an identical side by side tests just to make pixel peepers happy and sure. 

 

The only thing that I am getting from the reaction to XC10 footage, is that viewers sadly are not familiar with how resolution differs from sharpness. They got used to internally tack-sharpened footage from Sony cameras and GH4 therefore see a high resolution non-sharpened image to be soft and sub-par. Look at 1DC 4K images in C-Log, absolutely no sharpness whatsoever because it adds zero internally, which is one of the reasons why that camera has a distinct filmic, non-video look. And while it looks softer than internally sharpened A7s 4K, when sharpened in post it shows the exact same sharpness and resolution detail. 

The XC10 has downsides but resolution is not one of them, it's very high, just non sharpened internally in C-Log. 

I think I am going to be sharpening the hell out of my footage for clients from now on since it's considered superior resolution. Really.

[Andrew Reid]

The only question that needs to be asked is why buy an XC10 for $2500 when you can get an RX10 M2 for half that?

Superior in more ways than just being more affordable:

Raw stills and much higher resolution
S-LOG 2 matches A7S in B-cam role
240fps at nearly 1080p and up to 1000fps in PAL for even more dramatic slow-mo
Built in EVF (XC10 has none)
Less reliant on touch screen for ergonomics
Less ergonomic design flaws (better menus, more direct physical control)
5x cheaper media and 3x more space efficient 4K codec
Likely very similar 4K codec quality and dynamic range
Constant F2.8 aperture and very similar zoom range
24mm at wide end (XC10 crops in 4K mode from 24mm to 28mm)
Considerably brighter long end at F2.8 vs F5.6

Everyone I know who has used the XC10 so far say it is a nightmare to use because of quirks.

[agolex]

But Andrew, it's a CANON!

[Andrew Reid]

Well I have nothing against Ebrahim's passionate defence of Canon and who knows maybe the XC10's image has a big x-factor over the RX10 M2, we'll just have to wait and see.

It's not a slight against Ebrahim's defence I just think Canon are almost bordering on indefensible.

The margin on the XC10 must be astronomical.

Let's look under the hood.

The RX10 M2 has DRAM mounted to the sensor, it is stacked, it is backside illuminated, it is just about every expensive innovative CMOS technology out there all in one chip and the readout is mega fast. It does a full 5K pixel readout for 4K video from a 20MP sensor where the XC10 only manages a crop of 8MP from 12MP and let's not mention the slow-mo!! 1080/240p vs 720/120p for a start.

ALL for cheaper, with that Zeiss F2.8 and EVF thrown in on top and Sony still manage a healthy margin... which gives you an idea to the extent that Canon are taking the p***.

[Sekhar]

The headline feature of XC10 is that it's 4K. Yet, footage after footage that's been posted to date has been soft, like it's a HD DSLR. Still, we have have ardent supporters ignoring both the specs and the results and vigorously defending it. It's either an overpowering brand loyalty or a contrarian attitude that simply wants to go against the majority view. Reminds me of an evolution debate where the creationist hears a five minute listing of facts supporting evolution and responds with "I don't believe it." Touche. Seems pointless to engage in XC10 discussions till we have much more footage/results/experiences.

[mercer]

The headline feature of XV10 is that it's 4K. Yet, footage after footage that's been posted to date has been soft, like it's a HD DSLR. Still, we have have ardent supporters ignoring both the specs and the results and vigorously defending it. It's either an overpowering brand loyalty or a contrarian attitude that simply wants to go against the majority view. Reminds me of an evolution debate where the creationist hears a five minute listing of facts supporting evolution and responds with "I don't believe it." Touche. Seems pointless to engage in XC10 discussions till we have much more footage/results/experiences.

I defend it because it's 4K looks more filmic to me. Most 4K footage, I have seen, looks very "videoey," to me.

[Mattias Burling]

I contemplated which to go for if buying the XC10 or RX10ii but no matter how I viewed it the RX10ii was to expensive. 

I just couldn't see myself not paying a fourth extra and get three times the bitrate, good ergonomics, loupe and C-Log with from what I've seen superior color/look.

This is of course based on what I've seen and could all change now when both are regularly available and more footage will surface.

I of course also go by earlier cameras. I mean it's pretty possible that the rx10ii will look kinda like other S-log cameras but with the smaller sensor.

The whole thing reminds me so much of the C100s reception.

[Oliver Daniel]

Well I have nothing against Ebrahim's passionate defence of Canon and who knows maybe the XC10's image has a big x-factor over the RX10 M2, we'll just have to wait and see.

It's not a slight against Ebrahim's defence I just think Canon are almost bordering on indefensible.

The margin on the XC10 must be astronomical.

Let's look under the hood.

The RX10 M2 has DRAM mounted to the sensor, it is stacked, it is backside illuminated, it is just about every expensive innovative CMOS technology out there all in one chip and the readout is mega fast. It does a full 5K pixel readout for 4K video from a 20MP sensor where the XC10 only manages a crop of 8MP from 12MP and let's not mention the slow-mo!! 1080/240p vs 720/120p for a start.

ALL for cheaper, with that Zeiss F2.8 and EVF thrown in on top and Sony still manage a healthy margin... which gives you an idea to the extent that Canon are taking the p***.

​

Before I say anything, I will be buying an RX10 II for low budget stuff and won't be buying an XC10. 

Yes, the RX10 II certainly is the better deal really, but consider that the XC10 is made by a camera manufacturer with a very reliable, high selling, high quality Cinema line. Buyers of this item will likely want one as a B or C cam for their Cinema EOS cameras. Add the value of having a smaller camera that perfectly matches your A-cam in a small package. These users will be able to afford it, and many will buy it. 

Then consider the organic film quality of Canon in 4k in C-log (championed on this site via the 1DC recently), and how it is quite unique given that many other consumer 4k cameras are over-sharpened, brittle, hyper-real and characteristically "video". Like the Arri Alexa is a benchmark and very premium, I'd think the quality from Cinema EOS is the reason why this is a premium over the consumer Sony's and Panasonic's. 

Also, Sony and Panasonic need to include more impressive features because they need more share of the market. Canon can sell on the name alone, because they have users who've invested heavily into their system and will stick with it. (not always). 

So I'll be buying an RX10 II to make the low budget stuff easier and more creative. It fits. It's good enough. I don't own any Canon stuff, so there you go!  No complaints. Life goes on. 

[Andrew Reid]

I'd suggest it is a bit of a stretch to compare the XC10's footage to other Cinema EOS cameras that shoot 4K like the 1D C I champion and the now available C300 Mk II...

Just because it has a Cinema EOS badge on it doesn't mean it is going to match up in post to the 1D C.

And certainly doesn't mean it will have a better image than the RX10 II...

Well, we will find out... today. Just bought a RX10 II.

[Oliver Daniel]

I'd suggest it is a bit of a stretch to compare the XC10's footage to other Cinema EOS cameras that shoot 4K like the 1D C I champion and the now available C300 Mk II...

Just because it has a Cinema EOS badge on it doesn't mean it is going to match up in post to the 1D C.

And certainly doesn't mean it will have a better image than the RX10 II...

Well, we will find out... today. Just bought a RX10 II.

It seems that's how Canon are trying to sell it (B cams to bigger brothers).  It's a good buy for current C-series owners, but a hard sell for everyone else. 

Looking forward to your thoughts on the RX10 II. It could be a right little cash cow for smaller projects, and a lovely artistic tool for personal stuff. 

We've heard a lot about the 240fps +..... I'm wondering about the 120fps mode. Nothing has been said about it. 

[tugela]

With all due respect no you did say that Sir. That's exactly what you said, that it will not match the C line (which makes it lose one of it's major intended uses) and your logic in the post I quoted was that is had a different size sensor, pixel count, sensor technology (unknown fact) and that it has a different processor model. Enlighten me what did I miss? 

My logic behind the counter argument: In the short film Trick shot it intercut perfectly with the 4K images out of the C300II (not even just C100/300), and the following facts: 

-They are from the same company, the same sensor manufacturer. 

-They have similar pixel count at 8mps (12mp in stills mode irrelevant as it's cropped in video mode to 8.3mp 16:9, identical to C100, C300, C100 MKII)

-They have the same colour science and Log Gamma, and WDR profile, meaning identical sharpening levels and sharpening algorithm, saturation, hue, contrast.

-They have XF-AVC codec at 4:2:2 and 305mbps which is closest to matching the C300II of any camera on the market, and HIGHER quality to matching the C100, C100 MKII and C300.

-It's 4:2:2 and higher than 50mbps for ability to be used for broadcast with the C300I, C300II with both having standard .MXF files

-It has the exact same DR of the C100, C100 MKII and C300 at 12 Stops with the exact same highlight/shadow distribution and the exact same ISO values 

-It has a higher resolution than the C100, C100 MKII, and C300 and lower than C300II but we've seen even those intercut perfectly. 

-It has the exact same downsampling method used in the C100, C300, C100II from 4K to HD (a properietry process that invloves no debayering and double green channel resolution) 

-It has similar grain and noise structure (extremely fine and small) but of course it has more of at higher ISOs above 3200 ISO (although it's no slouch it's 5D3 level with a 1" sensor) 

 

If you're into reading specs, it's clear the XC10 is the perfect C line match B camera, but I am not that much into reading specs, so I'll wait for side by side footage. 

 

 

Yes you can but let's wait for an identical side by side tests just to make pixel peepers happy and sure. 

 

The only thing that I am getting from the reaction to XC10 footage, is that viewers sadly are not familiar with how resolution differs from sharpness. They got used to internally tack-sharpened footage from Sony cameras and GH4 therefore see a high resolution non-sharpened image to be soft and sub-par. Look at 1DC 4K images in C-Log, absolutely no sharpness whatsoever because it adds zero internally, which is one of the reasons why that camera has a distinct filmic, non-video look. And while it looks softer than internally sharpened A7s 4K, when sharpened in post it shows the exact same sharpness and resolution detail. 

The XC10 has downsides but resolution is not one of them, it's very high, just non sharpened internally in C-Log. 

I think I am going to be sharpening the hell out of my footage for clients from now on since it's considered superior resolution. Really.

I said that the XC10 cannot match the C100/300 because the sensor is completely different, not any other of the extrapolations you are choosing to make. Mt statements to that effect were, are, and will remain true, irrespective of how you choose to twist it. It is a different sensor with different properties and characteristics dude.

FYI, an 8mp sensor inherently cannot resolve fully at 4K because of the effects of debeyering. At best it will have around 70% resolution. In order to maximise resolution you have to collect a larger pixel sample size, and none of these Canons can do that.

​I know the difference between resolution and sharpening, and trust me, there is no way in hell that most of that HD footage is going to look anything but soft, sharpening or no sharpening. The detail simply isn't there. Look at the foliage in the clips, not the large objects. Those fool you, because your eye locks onto the macro object rather than the detail. Foliage is the acid test. With the XC10 it is mostly just green blobs. No sharpening can recover from that. The camera apparently is inadequate or the operators don't know what they are doing.

[fuzzynormal]

a hard sell for everyone else.

​I have a client that sends me on international tourism shoots every once in awhile.  Cams like these with a small tripod are ideal for that assignment.  

It does seem like a very specific piece of gear that compliments a shooter's arsenal rather than defines it.  If it fits your needs, it's kinda a cool tool. 

So be it, but I really don't think it's not ever gonna be a hot seller.  

And truthfully, the IQ might be better or worse than other options, but that's splitting hairs for me and my overseas shoots.  I have to consider other stuff.  If the IQ is not a disaster, (which it ain't) other things take priority.

One positive, the form factor is just small enough and DSLR-like enough to allow it to fly under the "hey-look-at-me-I'm-a-pro-over-here!" profile.

Anyway, I'm curious enough to try it...

[Guest Ebrahim Saadawi]

So should we list again the spec advantages of the RX10II and the spec advantages of the XC10?

I guess not, they've been stated numerous times above. 

The only think we would benefit from to form an opinion on how these cameras compare, is to make a side by side image quality test, and a side by side usability test. 

I bet 10$ the XC10 will win the Image quality part by a good margin (DR, lowlight, colour, grain, codec robustness, ease of grade, skin tones, rolling shutter, aliasing, ), and the RX10II will win the usability part as in user interface (buttons, menus) how quick it is to change settings. Both will have a few features both ways and the sony we'll have more features as always with Canon having fewer but industry-important ones, 4:2:2 > 305 mbps broadcast codec is the most prominent one on the XC10 and brighter lens (shallower DOF) is the most prominent on the RX10II. 

But that's just speculation based on random footage and spec sheets,

we'll wait for your XC10 vs RX10II comparison Andrew if you could do one please? 

[fuzzynormal]

The camera apparently is inadequate or the operators don't know what they are doing.

​On the internet, I always ALWAYS assume the the latter until I prove it to myself otherwise.  That's a good rule of thumb, BTW.

[Guest Ebrahim Saadawi]

I said that the XC10 cannot match the C100/300 because the sensor is completely different, not any other of the extrapolations you are choosing to make. Mt statements to that effect were, are, and will remain true, irrespective of how you choose to twist it. It is a different sensor with different properties and characteristics dude.

Dude, you keep repeating you didn't say the images are not going to match well with the C-line, has different sensor tech and characteristics due to

1- different size sensor and pixel count and 2- processor model,

and I presented the counter argument of why they will likely match.

Instead of just keep saying that's not what you said, why don't you just say what you DID say ? Enlighten me perhaps I am getting too old to read.
 

​

FYI, an 8mp sensor inherently cannot resolve fully at 4K because of the effects of debeyering. At best it will have around 70% resolution. In order to maximise resolution you have to collect a larger pixel sample size, and none of these Canons can do that.

Yes of course. The Sony FS700, Fs7, F5, F55, Varicam 35, Cion, BMPC, Red one, Red MX, GH4, DVX200, Phantoms, LX100, FZ1000, A7s, AX100, X70, LS300,  are also not real 4K, low resolution 4K cameras like all the canon 4K offerings. We must look for 6K/8K from now on, that's where resolution is going to be high and enough. Maybe. 

 

Spreading false an unknown information about the camera not matching the C100/300, having different sensor tech (100% unknown) due to these two factors (in definitive ''it will not match'' words and not opinion words is something I am obligated to respond to and tell people that it's simply not a fact, just an opinion, and point out to viewers what you based it upon, then present what my counter opinion and what it is based upon. It's simply spreading unkown information on the boards as facts and making viewers make incorrect decisions. 

At the end of day, both of our words are merely speculation, opinions, based on spec sheets, and even if my argument is based on more logical points and doesn't mean anything, the camera might or might not match the C-line, we we will not have that fact until it's tested side by side, until then, let's please stick to spec comparisons and speculations, opinions.  

Since listing list of specs highlights vs rivals gets people this defensive and irritated, I withdraw from the XC10 discussion.

The XC10 the worst thing since the Syrian civil war. 

[jpfilmz]

The XC10 the worst thing since the Syrian civil war. 

Canon should knock off $1000 on the XC10. ​It's not a bad camera but I feel that it is too soft for an image @ 4K.  I don't think it looks bad....but it doesn't wow you like the detail and clarity of GH4 4k footage. 

[fuzzynormal]

The XC10 the worst thing since the Syrian civil war. 

The XC10 the worst thing since Chicago Deep Dish Pizza.

[gelaxstudio]

https://player.vimeo.com/video/132989951

RX10II:Let the show begin!Can wait to meet XC10 in battlefield