CarlMillerPhoto said:
Feel free to link to any work of yours that required the 305mbps.
The first thing is that the XC-10 codec is intra frame and not Long GOP. This is a technical advantage that makes it very robust even with lots of movement in the frame. Things that typically break in Long GOP like foliage in the wind, water or similar scenarios hold up much better. The 305Mbps bitrate makes sure that even at UHD resolution with deep DOF and images with fine detail don't get smeary or blocky. These benefits apply to every frame of every clip regardless if it's of family trips or commercial gimbal shots.
Whether you shoot scenes that demand this level of precision, whether you are a connoisseur that simply enjoy them, or whether you run a business that you position in a way that you need to shoot at this level is up to you.
UHD resolution, Canon's color science, Canon Log and this professional codec are objective, technical specs of the XC-10.
There is no cheaper camera that offers this, and the next step up that checks all the boxes is the C300 mkII for $12000+
The real question becomes this: how come so many people who don't appreciate this specific subset of features need to voice their… I don't know… bitter? spiteful? ignorant? ridiculing? opinion about this camera?
You compared it to the FZ1000 and called the XC-10 a rip-off. What is it about it that makes it a rip-off?
At the same time you request a lesser, more consumer oriented codec. Is that the real problem? You want a cheaper consumer model of the XC-10 with less professional features? Perhaps the problem lies with Canon's marketing. Still, it IS being marketed as a PROFESSIONAL camera.
CarlMillerPhoto said:
This is my favorite. If 96% of the feedback is counter to your position, Canon would be very wise to ignore your opinion.
Too late for that. Since I got my XC-10 a couple of months back, I've been in contact with Canon USA's technical advisor over a period of time. We've been discussing the XC-10, but also my Canon 1Dc and my 1Dx mkII and what the future might hold in terms of firmware there. The fruit of our discussions have now been passed on to Canon for further processing. Sorry.