Canon XC20 Coming Soon? The First Specification List Appears

[rrcphoto]

How I see this series of cameras:

Potential Customer
"I'd like a inexpensive DSLR, something under $2000 that does decent 4K recording."

Canon
"How about this camera with a 1" sensor and non-removable lens?"

Potential Customer
"Um..."

Right, because that's really the market this camera is aiming at. :

Then tell us who the market is for this.

run and gun ENG work. you DO realize this has canon's C300 codecs right?

Even eoshd admits this is a great and fun camera package for run and gun work, and they have been highly critical of Canon lately.

I know complaining about canon and video is what you do here, and not much else; but perhaps you need to educate yourself just a smidgen then

https://www.eoshd.com/2016/06/canon-xc10-versus-sony-rx10-iii-the-canon-is-underrated/

 

[BillB]

How I see this series of cameras:

Potential Customer
"I'd like a inexpensive DSLR, something under $2000 that does decent 4K recording."

Canon
"How about this camera with a 1" sensor and non-removable lens?"

Potential Customer
"Um..."

Right, because that's really the market this camera is aiming at. :

Then tell us who the market is for this.

xc10 and xc15 owners obviously....

Not exactly shooting for the stars here, are they?

Well, no they are not shooting for the stars. What is your point?

 

[bhf3737]

With a Metabones XL, the GH5s will produce a 4K 60p image with a crop factor equal to or less than the 1DXII. Just to clarify for everyone.

I am afraid that is not correct. The crop factor of MFT sensor is 2 and it cannot grow larger to something like 1.3 because it is limited by the physical size of the sensor that is 1/4 of a full frame 35mm sensor. It can only further be cropped to something smaller.
With a speed-booster like Metabones, you can get 1 to 1.3 stops more light into the MFT sensor, that will improve the noise performance at the expense of some hit on image quality. Also you get a slight narrower field of view, between 1.28 and 1.42, depending on the speed-booster version, i.e. 100mm FF lens will have field of view equivalent to 128-142mm.
Please see http://www.red.com/learn/red-101/sensor-crop-factors for reference.

 

[Talys]

Is that the go-to phrase in these photography forums, if you don't understand something? Cause its really clichéd.


In any case, I'm not claiming to know better.... but you are.... so I say that you take it up with Panasonic Engineers. Go argue with them that they aren't obeying "the laws of physics, light gathering and noise levels..." boo hoo hoo...

No, it's not a go-to phrase to say that bigger lenses ==> bigger sensor ==> more light onto sensor ==> better SNR.

People who don't agree with that should join the flat earth society.

There is nothing wrong with smaller sensors + higher density = smaller camera. If you choose that route, and those are your priority, good for you; I'm happy for you!

Just keep in mind that there are plenty of photography and broadcast video professionals that rank size and weight near the bottom of what's important. Like NBC covering the 2018 Olympics with Canon gear and filling up those shelves with 200-400+1.4TC, 1DX2's and whatever model of camcorder that is they have that I'll never be able to afford.

In the more mortal realm, Equivalent Zoom is only really meaningful on telephoto. At the wide end, there is nothing equivalent about zoom and crop factors, and it can really mess you up if you think about it that way. A 10mm rectilinear lens is a 10 mm rectilinear lens whether you're looking at a center crop or a full frame crop. One is just the middle cut out.

In other words, with more megapixels at telephoto, you can mimic (hence equivalent) reach. But on wide angle, if you have things that are both near and far, you can't mimic a full frame by just using a wider angle lens on crop, because going wider will dramatically change the perspective of the shot, if you have stuff both near and far from you.

Ofcourse, Canon has a larger lens lineup, but the question is... why do you care if Canon has a larger lens lineup? Are you going to buy every single one? Just the important ones right? Just the ones you can afford right?

If all you're going to buy are the common trinity zooms or all you want to shoot are weddings, then guess what? Any system will have stuff you can use.

If you want something that is not the most popular, bread-and-butter lenses, then yes, it matters a lot. Different people want different things. And sometimes, you grow to become interested in something, so you end up buying a lens that wasn't useful to you before. Plus, often, Canon has a very good low-price alternatives high value stuff, if you want "pretty good, but on a budget".

 

[9VIII]

Because, they created these lenses (not me):

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1304868-REG/panasonic_h_hsa12035_lumix_g_x_vario.html

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1304869-REG/panasonic_h_hsa35100_lumix_g_x_vario.html

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1023336-REG/panasonic_leica_dg_nocticron_42_5mm.html/?gclid=Cj0KCQiAh_DTBRCTARIsABlT9MYUqDgO64up3DRnZqNj6JDlJrMjGD6to8nDajcTMlsP8bHLP6oHpJEaAkJDEALw_wcB

Editted to add: The link for Panasonic's 42.5mm is for the 1.2 not the 1.7 (they have one of those too). And, thats their 85mm - FF equivalent lens (btw, equivalency is also outlined in the links). Ofcourse, Canon has a larger lens lineup, but the question is... why do you care if Canon has a larger lens lineup? Are you going to buy every single one? Just the important ones right? Just the ones you can afford right?

It’s hilarious how many people bought the snake oil M4/3 is selling.
Those zooms are f5.6 equivalent due to the small sensor, and the f1.2 lens will barely outperfrom the Nifty Fifty on a Rebel.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1226781-REG/mitakon_zhongyi_mtk35m95m2fx_speedmaster_35mm_f_0_95_mark.html
Now this is value for money.
The fact that it’s manual focus is a downside, but this is glass for a crop sensor that’s about as good as any Full Frame lens of equivalent price.

 

[mkabi]

No, it's not a go-to phrase to say that bigger lenses ==> bigger sensor ==> more light onto sensor ==> better SNR.

People who don't agree with that should join the flat earth society.

Bwahahahaha.... alright...

However, if I can prove you wrong, will you join me in joining the flat earth society?

Okay... Lets not think about any other camera company (forget the whole mft segment)... lets strictly look at Canon and their cameras.

Rhetorical questions:

Which is better in terms of SNR (same lens & same sensor size) - 1dx mark 2 or the 5DSR?

Which is better in terms of SNR (same lens & same sensor size) - 1dx mark 2 or the 1DS mark 3?

Which is better in terms of SNR (same lens & same sensor size) - 80D or the 50D?

Which is better in terms of SNR (same lens & same sensor size) - 80D or the 7D?

Which is better in terms of SNR (same lens & different sensor size) - 80D or the 1dx mark 2? (This is the only time it will work in your favor - in terms of defining your logic above)

Which is better in terms of SNR (same lens & different sensor size) - 80D or Original 5D?

See... now.... you don't need to share your answers.... and I'm sure you've reached your own conclusions... but just to make sure your conclusions are similar to mine, is it really sensor size or the technology built within the sensor as well as behind the sensor that effects SNR?

Now, I know you are biased, as am I... as everyone... especially if you have invested so much time and money in that company. In this case, I strongly believe, without a doubt, that no matter what I say.... you're only going believe in what you believe in... and if you believe in Canon, then thats that....

But, nonetheless, lets see if you can be unbiased here...

I'm only assuming that you do not have any stakes in either Pentax or Olympus... thus making you a third party, unbiased judge of their technology.

Is it so hard to believe that Olympus has better technology than Pentax?

With that same reasoning, is it so hard to think that another company has better technology than Canon?

Lastly, read this:

https://petapixel.com/2017/03/24/battle-micro-43-camera-outsold-full-frame-dslr/

After reading that, ask yourself this... sure... bigger sensor might be better (and I am really thinking about medium format and large format tbh)... but if you can't hack it with a smaller sensor, then may be its time for you to partake in another career/hobby?

If all you're going to buy are the common trinity zooms or all you want to shoot are weddings, then guess what? Any system will have stuff you can use.

If you want something that is not the most popular, bread-and-butter lenses, then yes, it matters a lot. Different people want different things. And sometimes, you grow to become interested in something, so you end up buying a lens that wasn't useful to you before. Plus, often, Canon has a very good low-price alternatives high value stuff, if you want "pretty good, but on a budget".

Can you please tell me and/or list those less popular, and/or bread-and-butter lenses? It will save us a lot of time if you can.... then tell me the price of them.

It’s hilarious how many people bought the snake oil M4/3 is selling.
Those zooms are f5.6 equivalent due to the small sensor, and the f1.2 lens will barely outperfrom the Nifty Fifty on a Rebel.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1226781-REG/mitakon_zhongyi_mtk35m95m2fx_speedmaster_35mm_f_0_95_mark.html
Now this is value for money.
The fact that it’s manual focus is a downside, but this is glass for a crop sensor that’s about as good as any Full Frame lens of equivalent price.

This brings up a good question...
FOV changes due to sensor size is obvious and relatively quantifiable.
But does speed of a lens change due to sensor size?
So, if I see f/2.8 on a lens.... thats how much I would expect it to let in light.... wide open its going to be f/2.8. The barrel of the lens does not automatically change shape to let in more light for a Full-frame as opposed to mft????

Lastly, you too should read this:
https://petapixel.com/2017/03/24/battle-micro-43-camera-outsold-full-frame-dslr/

 

[bhf3737]

No, it's not a go-to phrase to say that bigger lenses ==> bigger sensor ==> more light onto sensor ==> better SNR.

People who don't agree with that should join the flat earth society.

Bwahahahaha.... alright...

However, if I can prove you wrong, will you join me in joining the flat earth society?

Okay... Lets not think about any other camera company (forget the whole mft segment)... lets strictly look at Canon and their cameras.

Rhetorical questions:

Which is better in terms of SNR (same lens & same sensor size) - 1dx mark 2 or the 5DSR?

Which is better in terms of SNR (same lens & same sensor size) - 1dx mark 2 or the 1DS mark 3?

Which is better in terms of SNR (same lens & same sensor size) - 80D or the 50D?

Which is better in terms of SNR (same lens & same sensor size) - 80D or the 7D?

Which is better in terms of SNR (same lens & different sensor size) - 80D or the 1dx mark 2? (This is the only time it will work in your favor - in terms of defining your logic above)

Which is better in terms of SNR (same lens & different sensor size) - 80D or Original 5D?

See... now.... you don't need to share your answers.... and I'm sure you've reached your own conclusions... but just to make sure your conclusions are similar to mine, is it really sensor size or the technology built within the sensor as well as behind the sensor that effects SNR?

Now, I know you are biased, as am I... as everyone... especially if you have invested so much time and money in that company. In this case, I strongly believe, without a doubt, that no matter what I say.... you're only going believe in what you believe in... and if you believe in Canon, then thats that....

But, nonetheless, lets see if you can be unbiased here...

I'm only assuming that you do not have any stakes in either Pentax or Olympus... thus making you a third party, unbiased judge of their technology.

Is it so hard to believe that Olympus has better technology than Pentax?

With that same reasoning, is it so hard to think that another company has better technology than Canon?

Lastly, read this:

https://petapixel.com/2017/03/24/battle-micro-43-camera-outsold-full-frame-dslr/

After reading that, ask yourself this... sure... bigger sensor might be better (and I am really thinking about medium format and large format tbh)... but if you can't hack it with a smaller sensor, then may be its time for you to partake in another career/hobby?

If all you're going to buy are the common trinity zooms or all you want to shoot are weddings, then guess what? Any system will have stuff you can use.

If you want something that is not the most popular, bread-and-butter lenses, then yes, it matters a lot. Different people want different things. And sometimes, you grow to become interested in something, so you end up buying a lens that wasn't useful to you before. Plus, often, Canon has a very good low-price alternatives high value stuff, if you want "pretty good, but on a budget".

Can you please tell me and/or list those less popular, and/or bread-and-butter lenses? It will save us a lot of time if you can.... then tell me the price of them.

It’s hilarious how many people bought the snake oil M4/3 is selling.
Those zooms are f5.6 equivalent due to the small sensor, and the f1.2 lens will barely outperfrom the Nifty Fifty on a Rebel.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1226781-REG/mitakon_zhongyi_mtk35m95m2fx_speedmaster_35mm_f_0_95_mark.html
Now this is value for money.
The fact that it’s manual focus is a downside, but this is glass for a crop sensor that’s about as good as any Full Frame lens of equivalent price.

This brings up a good question...
FOV changes due to sensor size is obvious and relatively quantifiable.
But does speed of a lens change due to sensor size?
So, if I see f/2.8 on a lens.... thats how much I would expect it to let in light.... wide open its going to be f/2.8. The barrel of the lens does not automatically change shape to let in more light for a Full-frame as opposed to mft????

Lastly, you too should read this:
https://petapixel.com/2017/03/24/battle-micro-43-camera-outsold-full-frame-dslr/

Just a comment on your scientific inquiry method:
I think in is imprecise, speculative and misleading, because you are testing a hypothesis that:
"Technology (better SNR?) + smaller sensor size DOES surpass technology (weaker SNR?) + larger sensor size in terms of light gathering capability."

But your evidences are not clearly provided, you do not give any verifiable information, you do not have the data/chart to back up your claim and your reference is a mumble jumble from PetaPixels!
The flat-earth guys were doing very similar to Galileo Galilei and the scientists of their time.

 

[scyrene]

2) Just because no one is doing it does not mean no one SHOULD do it. This is against Canon’s conservative mentality, but it would be a great way to create a buzz around their video products again (at least, on the consumer / prosumer end).

What is the point of 'buzz' if not to generate sales? If they are selling to their own satisfaction, why bother with buzz? (Especially if it requires a greater outlay).

And to some others here: the previous versions clearly sold well, or else they wouldn't be putting out newer versions. *Canon knows how to make money* So they aren't selling to you, big whoop. They have cracked a market all the same.

 

[Don Haines]

Just keep in mind that there are plenty of photography and broadcast video professionals that rank size and weight near the bottom of what's important. Like NBC covering the 2018 Olympics with Canon gear and filling up those shelves with 200-400+1.4TC, 1DX2's and whatever model of camcorder that is they have that I'll never be able to afford.

Size does matter when shooting video, but not in the way most people think....

I loved those ENG video cameras that rested on the shoulder, a support back to your waist battery belt, and the eye piece off to the side. That was perfect ergonomics for shooting video. You could see the video and where you were walking/ standing, and it was very stable. None of those tiny consumer models ever came close.

 

[mkabi]

No, it's not a go-to phrase to say that bigger lenses ==> bigger sensor ==> more light onto sensor ==> better SNR.

People who don't agree with that should join the flat earth society.

Bwahahahaha.... alright...

However, if I can prove you wrong, will you join me in joining the flat earth society?

Okay... Lets not think about any other camera company (forget the whole mft segment)... lets strictly look at Canon and their cameras.

Rhetorical questions:

Which is better in terms of SNR (same lens & same sensor size) - 1dx mark 2 or the 5DSR?

Which is better in terms of SNR (same lens & same sensor size) - 1dx mark 2 or the 1DS mark 3?

Which is better in terms of SNR (same lens & same sensor size) - 80D or the 50D?

Which is better in terms of SNR (same lens & same sensor size) - 80D or the 7D?

Which is better in terms of SNR (same lens & different sensor size) - 80D or the 1dx mark 2? (This is the only time it will work in your favor - in terms of defining your logic above)

Which is better in terms of SNR (same lens & different sensor size) - 80D or Original 5D?

See... now.... you don't need to share your answers.... and I'm sure you've reached your own conclusions... but just to make sure your conclusions are similar to mine, is it really sensor size or the technology built within the sensor as well as behind the sensor that effects SNR?

Now, I know you are biased, as am I... as everyone... especially if you have invested so much time and money in that company. In this case, I strongly believe, without a doubt, that no matter what I say.... you're only going believe in what you believe in... and if you believe in Canon, then thats that....

But, nonetheless, lets see if you can be unbiased here...

I'm only assuming that you do not have any stakes in either Pentax or Olympus... thus making you a third party, unbiased judge of their technology.

Is it so hard to believe that Olympus has better technology than Pentax?

With that same reasoning, is it so hard to think that another company has better technology than Canon?

Lastly, read this:

https://petapixel.com/2017/03/24/battle-micro-43-camera-outsold-full-frame-dslr/

After reading that, ask yourself this... sure... bigger sensor might be better (and I am really thinking about medium format and large format tbh)... but if you can't hack it with a smaller sensor, then may be its time for you to partake in another career/hobby?

If all you're going to buy are the common trinity zooms or all you want to shoot are weddings, then guess what? Any system will have stuff you can use.

If you want something that is not the most popular, bread-and-butter lenses, then yes, it matters a lot. Different people want different things. And sometimes, you grow to become interested in something, so you end up buying a lens that wasn't useful to you before. Plus, often, Canon has a very good low-price alternatives high value stuff, if you want "pretty good, but on a budget".

Can you please tell me and/or list those less popular, and/or bread-and-butter lenses? It will save us a lot of time if you can.... then tell me the price of them.

It’s hilarious how many people bought the snake oil M4/3 is selling.
Those zooms are f5.6 equivalent due to the small sensor, and the f1.2 lens will barely outperfrom the Nifty Fifty on a Rebel.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1226781-REG/mitakon_zhongyi_mtk35m95m2fx_speedmaster_35mm_f_0_95_mark.html
Now this is value for money.
The fact that it’s manual focus is a downside, but this is glass for a crop sensor that’s about as good as any Full Frame lens of equivalent price.

This brings up a good question...
FOV changes due to sensor size is obvious and relatively quantifiable.
But does speed of a lens change due to sensor size?
So, if I see f/2.8 on a lens.... thats how much I would expect it to let in light.... wide open its going to be f/2.8. The barrel of the lens does not automatically change shape to let in more light for a Full-frame as opposed to mft????

Lastly, you too should read this:
https://petapixel.com/2017/03/24/battle-micro-43-camera-outsold-full-frame-dslr/

Just a comment on your scientific inquiry method:
I think in is imprecise, speculative and misleading, because you are testing a hypothesis that:
"Technology (better SNR?) + smaller sensor size DOES surpass technology (weaker SNR?) + larger sensor size in terms of light gathering capability."

But your evidences are not clearly provided, you do not give any verifiable information, you do not have the data/chart to back up your claim and your reference is a mumble jumble from PetaPixels!
The flat-earth guys were doing very similar to Galileo Galilei and the scientists of their time.

Scientific method????

Not that I do not know what that is... but when did I say that I was using a scientific method?

Do you know what "Rhetorical" means? Whether you know or don't know what that means (if you don't know, I'm sure you can google the meaning), but don't you think that because I'm using "Rhetorical" questions that this whole thing is purely subjective - no objective findings here, thus scientific method is not being used?

Just for the record, the above highlighted in red is completely inferred, I never actually said that in those words.

If I were to use scientific method, first I would deduce a hypothesis.
"Does a small sensor with newer and better technology have better Signal-to-noise ratio than a large sensor with old and outdated technology"

I would generate a bunch of pictures using the questions asked above (e.g. 1dx mark 2 vs 5DSR... 80D vs 5D) with a tool similar to https://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM

Then I would create a survey that would ask 100 random people around my neighborhood (no one from this forum cause then its not random). Using the results, I will tally the results, perform statistical analysis so that I am within 5% error and then come to conclusions that appropriately fits the results (not the hypothesis).

I don't have time or money to undertake this venture, willing to provide a grant that will allow me to do this?

With that said, I'm only assuming that you agree with the hypothesis that "bigger lenses ==> bigger sensor ==> more light onto sensor ==> better SNR."

Obviously, you can keep "Bigger lenses" as constant, non-changing factor.... so where is your scientific proof that "bigger sensor ==> more light onto sensor ==> better SNR"?

Please use a 5D classic and compare it to the 80D.... please tell me how that supports that theory???

 

[bhf3737]

Scientific method????

Not that I do not know what that is... but when did I say that I was using a scientific method?

Do you know what "Rhetorical" means? Whether you know or don't know what that means (if you don't know, I'm sure you can google the meaning), but don't you think that because I'm using "Rhetorical" questions that this whole thing is purely subjective - no objective findings here, thus scientific method is not being used?

Just for the record, the above highlighted in red is completely inferred, I never actually said that in those words.

If I were to use scientific method, first I would deduce a hypothesis.
"Does a small sensor with newer and better technology have better Signal-to-noise ratio than a large sensor with old and outdated technology"

I would generate a bunch of pictures using the questions asked above (e.g. 1dx mark 2 vs 5DSR... 80D vs 5D) with a tool similar to https://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM

Then I would create a survey that would ask 100 random people around my neighborhood (no one from this forum cause then its not random). Using the results, I will tally the results, perform statistical analysis so that I am within 5% error and then come to conclusions that appropriately fits the results (not the hypothesis).

I don't have time or money to undertake this venture, willing to provide a grant that will allow me to do this?

With that said, I'm only assuming that you agree with the hypothesis that "bigger lenses ==> bigger sensor ==> more light onto sensor ==> better SNR."

Obviously, you can keep "Bigger lenses" as constant, non-changing factor.... so where is your scientific proof that "bigger sensor ==> more light onto sensor ==> better SNR"?

Please use a 5D classic and compare it to the 80D.... please tell me how that supports that theory???

Obviously, besides the scientific method of inquiry, you don't know how to engage in a logical (deductive) and constructive argument.
Sorry to take your time.

 

[9VIII]

It’s hilarious how many people bought the snake oil M4/3 is selling.
Those zooms are f5.6 equivalent due to the small sensor, and the f1.2 lens will barely outperfrom the Nifty Fifty on a Rebel.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1226781-REG/mitakon_zhongyi_mtk35m95m2fx_speedmaster_35mm_f_0_95_mark.html
Now this is value for money.
The fact that it’s manual focus is a downside, but this is glass for a crop sensor that’s about as good as any Full Frame lens of equivalent price.

This brings up a good question...
FOV changes due to sensor size is obvious and relatively quantifiable.
But does speed of a lens change due to sensor size?
So, if I see f/2.8 on a lens.... thats how much I would expect it to let in light.... wide open its going to be f/2.8. The barrel of the lens does not automatically change shape to let in more light for a Full-frame as opposed to mft????

Lastly, you too should read this:
https://petapixel.com/2017/03/24/battle-micro-43-camera-outsold-full-frame-dslr/

Noise is directly proportional to size, ISO 3,200 on M4/3 is the same as ISO 12,800 on 35mm.

And of course cheap cameras outsell expensive ones. I just bought a Fuji X-E2S for $420 because it’s probably the best value on the market right now.
People buying M4/3 are generally wasting their money (not that most people actually care about sensor noise).

At the same time I can say that I am interested in the Panasonic G9 because it has the highest pixel density of any camera on the market, I was equally interested in the Nikon 1 series, but again, I don’t expect Panasonic to escape that fate.
And APS-C will lose popularity as soon as someone decides to start making an entry level Full Frame body.

 

[transpo1]

With a Metabones XL, the GH5s will produce a 4K 60p image with a crop factor equal to or less than the 1DXII. Just to clarify for everyone.

I am afraid that is not correct. The crop factor of MFT sensor is 2 and it cannot grow larger to something like 1.3 because it is limited by the physical size of the sensor that is 1/4 of a full frame 35mm sensor. It can only further be cropped to something smaller.
With a speed-booster like Metabones, you can get 1 to 1.3 stops more light into the MFT sensor, that will improve the noise performance at the expense of some hit on image quality. Also you get a slight narrower field of view, between 1.28 and 1.42, depending on the speed-booster version, i.e. 100mm FF lens will have field of view equivalent to 128-142mm.
Please see http://www.red.com/learn/red-101/sensor-crop-factors for reference.

With a GH5 and Metabones XL, you will get a crop factor equivalent to about 1.3x FF. Better?

 

[transpo1]

How I see this series of cameras:

Potential Customer
"I'd like a inexpensive DSLR, something under $2000 that does decent 4K recording."

Canon
"How about this camera with a 1" sensor and non-removable lens?"

Potential Customer
"Um..."

Right, because that's really the market this camera is aiming at. :

Then tell us who the market is for this.

Apparently Canon intended the camera to be sold to journalists
that need a quick work turnaround with news agencies that requiere 4K video.

Other that that, it's used as a crash cam and maybe for some
run and gun productions (documentaries).

Thank you, that was a good answer.

 

[transpo1]

How I see this series of cameras:

Potential Customer
"I'd like a inexpensive DSLR, something under $2000 that does decent 4K recording."

Canon
"How about this camera with a 1" sensor and non-removable lens?"

Potential Customer
"Um..."

Right, because that's really the market this camera is aiming at. :

Then tell us who the market is for this.

run and gun ENG work. you DO realize this has canon's C300 codecs right?

Even eoshd admits this is a great and fun camera package for run and gun work, and they have been highly critical of Canon lately.

I know complaining about canon and video is what you do here, and not much else; but perhaps you need to educate yourself just a smidgen then

https://www.eoshd.com/2016/06/canon-xc10-versus-sony-rx10-iii-the-canon-is-underrated/

That’s what the camera does, that’s not who it’s for. Another poster gave a better answer by saying journalists / news agencies with quick 4K turnarounds. I’m sure the demographic is bigger than that, but that’s a piece of it, for sure.

I happen to like the camera, and the form factor, which is why Canon could sell more of them if they did something bold like make an ILC APS-C version. The C100-300 series is too big for journalists to throw into their bag, especially if they have a good stills camera in there, as well (because they might need both).

Which —>

Brings us back to the real issue- Canon needs a great and useable 4K codec in their stills lineup, with a decent crop factor and competitive specs. Put THAT in their DSLR and ILC lineup and price it right and they can really sell a ton of cameras to the above demographic.

And those poor journalists will not have to carry so much in their bags.

Hopefully, via the latest on the Canon M50 having 4K video, this is about to start happening.

 

[bhf3737]

With a Metabones XL, the GH5s will produce a 4K 60p image with a crop factor equal to or less than the 1DXII. Just to clarify for everyone.

I am afraid that is not correct. The crop factor of MFT sensor is 2 and it cannot grow larger to something like 1.3 because it is limited by the physical size of the sensor that is 1/4 of a full frame 35mm sensor. It can only further be cropped to something smaller.
With a speed-booster like Metabones, you can get 1 to 1.3 stops more light into the MFT sensor, that will improve the noise performance at the expense of some hit on image quality. Also you get a slight narrower field of view, between 1.28 and 1.42, depending on the speed-booster version, i.e. 100mm FF lens will have field of view equivalent to 128-142mm.
Please see http://www.red.com/learn/red-101/sensor-crop-factors for reference.

With a GH5 and Metabones XL, you will get a crop factor equivalent to about 1.3x FF. Better?

No. Still wrong.
Crop factor in video is a measure of portion of the physical sensor which is read to produce the 4096x2160 pixels for 4k video.
Some cameras read all sensor (i.e. do not crop: take full image from the sensor) and convert it to 4k pixels needed. Some read a smaller portion (i.e. crop: read portion of the image from the sensor) and convert it to 4k pixels needed.
Panasonic GH5 reads all MFT sensor. Compared to full frame sensor, the read area in equivalent to 1/4 of the full frame sensor, therefore, from FF perspective, it is crop 2 area.
Using speed boosters, you still get the read out from full MFT sensor which is crop 2.
What speed boosters do affects focal length and maximum aperture which are properties of the "lens" and do not care whether a full frame, APS-C or m4/3 sensor sits behind the lens. Speed boosters reduce focal length and increases maximum aperture (smaller f-number) of the lens. They have nothing to do with the sensor read area of the camera which is crop 2 for GH5.
See http://www.metabones.com/article/of/faq for reference.

 

[privatebydesign]

With a Metabones XL, the GH5s will produce a 4K 60p image with a crop factor equal to or less than the 1DXII. Just to clarify for everyone.

I am afraid that is not correct. The crop factor of MFT sensor is 2 and it cannot grow larger to something like 1.3 because it is limited by the physical size of the sensor that is 1/4 of a full frame 35mm sensor. It can only further be cropped to something smaller.
With a speed-booster like Metabones, you can get 1 to 1.3 stops more light into the MFT sensor, that will improve the noise performance at the expense of some hit on image quality. Also you get a slight narrower field of view, between 1.28 and 1.42, depending on the speed-booster version, i.e. 100mm FF lens will have field of view equivalent to 128-142mm.
Please see http://www.red.com/learn/red-101/sensor-crop-factors for reference.

With a GH5 and Metabones XL, you will get a crop factor equivalent to about 1.3x FF. Better?

No. Still wrong.
Crop factor in video is a measure of portion of the physical sensor which is read to produce the 4096x2160 pixels for 4k video.
Some cameras read all sensor (i.e. do not crop: take full image from the sensor) and convert it to 4k pixels needed. Some read a smaller portion (i.e. crop: read portion of the image from the sensor) and convert it to 4k pixels needed.
Panasonic GH5 reads all MFT sensor. Compared to full frame sensor, the read area in equivalent to 1/4 of the full frame sensor, therefore, from FF perspective, it is crop 2 area.
Using speed boosters, you still get the read out from full MFT sensor which is crop 2.
What speed boosters do affects focal length and maximum aperture which are properties of the "lens" and do not care whether a full frame, APS-C or m4/3 sensor sits behind the lens. Speed boosters reduce focal length and increases maximum aperture (smaller f-number) of the lens. They have nothing to do with the sensor read area of the camera which is crop 2 for GH5.
See http://www.metabones.com/article/of/faq for reference.

The GH5/ 5s does not read the full sensor for any video format, it is a 4:3 sensor only 4:3 stills have the basic 2x crop factor from the 'ff' 135 format sized sensor.

Here are the crop factor ratios for the GH5s ¹, the GH5 and GH4 are all heavier crops as the sensor is physically smaller than the GH5s sensor.
3680 pixel long in 4/3 = 2x crop factor in 4/3 still mode
3840 pixel long in 3/2 = 1,91x crop factor in 3/2 still mode
4016 pixel long in 16/9 = 1,832x crop factor in 16/9 still mode
4096 pixel long in 17/9 = 1.796x crop factor in 17/9 (DCI 4K) video mode
3840 pixel long in 3/2 = 1,91x crop factor in 16/9 4K UHD video mode.
35mm means 3680×3680 = 7360 pixel long or 1x crop factor
If you add a Speed Booster Ultra to the GH5s you get in DCI 4K a crop factor of 1,275x with 135 format lenses.
If you add a Speed Booster XL to the GH5s you get in DCI 4K a crop factor of 1,149x with 135 format lenses.

¹ https://www.43rumors.com/exact-crop-factors-caluclated-new-gh5s-multiaspect-sensor/

 

[mistaspeedy]

Lol. So for shallow depth of field in video, forget full frame Canon cameras.. get a micro four thirds camera!