Canon XC10 to Get Major Firmware Update for NAB? [CR1]

[ahsanford]

The best thing about users casually mocking the XC10, is that I know who to immediately write off as clueless posers.

Forum threads read so much quicker when you can auto skip a number of user names right away.

Things like the FCPX launch and a little camera like the XC10 says a lot about humanity in general and internet culture more specifically.

Don't let me stop you—carry on doing what you know best.

Most folks are pretty careful in the line they walk here. I personally never mock people, but I do (from time to time) mock questionable product decisions by Canon -- a company I usually defend far far far more than I shake my fist at.

And yes, I am 100% a clueless poser on the video front. I've been painfully up front about that.

That does not mean that I don't have a fair point to make, so as for carrying on... [cracks knuckles] ...don't mind if I do.

You are correct that most people here aren't knocking the XC10 for the product on its own merits. Folks around here just wanted an interchangeable lens 4K setup in something less pricey than the 1D line. Canon didn't offer it, and people got angry -- so understand that this XC10 product is the very symbol of that decision, so it should be no surprise that every time we hear news of it, it lands about as well as the failure sound on 'Price is Right'.

- A

 

[AndreeOnline]

Folks around here just wanted an interchangeable lens 4K setup in something less pricey than the 1D line.

Of course they do. Because people basically want a C300 mkII for $1495. I see it every day on DVXuser.

Regardless of that, the XC10 remains a very unique product:

• light, adjustable design with rotating grip and tilting LCD touch screen. Excellent on gimbals.
• 4k Canon Log in Canon's best codec. Essentially the C300 mkII codec, but in 8bit. Intra frame 422 at 305Mbps. I can only assume that lots of people complaining about this camera don't really understand what this means.
• Auto focus with face tracking.
• ND filter—even if it's too weak to cover all scenarios.
• 27-75mm f2.8-4, that keeps going to 270mm, with EXCELLENT image stabilisation.
• Automatic, easy to use time-lapse mode that produces great 4k movies in-camera.
• A number of programmable buttons (there could be more of course)
• Available for around what.... $1500?

If you look at that list and summarise it as Canon's "worst product ever"… well, I think it says more about 'you' than the XC10.

And if this camera can get a substantial firmware upgrade—I'd be all over that.

 

[mkabi]

The best thing about users casually mocking the XC10, is that I know who to immediately write off as clueless posers.

Forum threads read so much quicker when you can auto skip a number of user names right away.

Things like the FCPX launch and a little camera like the XC10 says a lot about humanity in general and internet culture more specifically.

Don't let me stop you—carry on doing what you know best.

Given the fact, that I was one of the few that was mocking the XC10... I couldn't help but feel like I was categorized in the "clueless posers" department.

I didn't mind that very much, but you questioning humanity... really???
You are defending materials.... materials such as the XC10 and Final Cut Pro X, as if you made them, and then calling people (humans) on forums "clueless posers" - do you not see the irony in that???

Unlike ahsanford, I have plenty of video experience... some paid work and some not... not saying I'm a professional. May be a semi-professional, still learning (always learning)... but I have a few videos that I'm fairly confident enough to show off (not saying that it is AMAZING work).

Sample 1 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ecMWKRe11Y

Sample 2 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHolMRaQpjA

So, fellow videographer, now that I have shown you my work... lets see your body of work... yes... I'm calling you out AndreeOnline... if you're going to call people "posers" and "clueless" I want to see the work of a non-poser...

Despite all of that, I feel that I have enough experience and know-how to make comments about technology without having to call people names.

BTW, just so you know... the following is false...

• 24-75mm f2.8-4, that keeps going to 270mm, with EXCELLENT image stabilisation.
• Available for around what.... $1500?

It is 8.9-89mm f2.8-5.6 & $2000
Is that useable to you?
How about if I told you that it is on a 1 inch sensor?
Do you know what the crop factor of a 1 inch sensor is?
The crop factor on a 1 inch sensor is 2.7
In fact, thats only photo mode.... the crop factor is 3.067 in video mode....

Proof is in the pudding, so here is the source:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1134581-REG/canon_0565c013_xc10.html

Just look at the specs section.
If you multiply 3.067 into 8.9-89mm, you get 27.3-273mm
But don't forget that you have to multiply the crop factor into the f-stop too.
So you have f8.58 to 17.17. Still think its useable? May be during the day - nothing indoors or during the dark without having to crank up that ISO and noise levels.

Good zoom range 27.3-273mm, but its variable f-stop from 8.58 to 17.17... and the key word is variable
So as you are zooming from 27.3 to 273, f-stop is automatically increasing and you are wondering why your scene is getting darker.

 

[AndreeOnline]

You are quoting the package deal where you get a CFast card and a reader. I'm talking about the price of the camera only. I bought mine for $1200.

But to question humanity... really???

When FCPX was released on the Mac AppStore, within the first 24 hours the store was flooded with bad reviews. And this wasn't from beta testers with prior experience. A completely new approach to editing. I could never have read the manual in that time. Much less gained any meaningful experience. And yet... here the reviews were. Fascinating.

I'm talking about this compulsive urge some users have (in a larger context—humanity—since it's a recognisable pattern in many situations) to express opinion about something they know nothing about. In an overwhelming majority it's negative comments.

Anyway... putting the specs aside (I do know them by the way), let's get to the meat of it: so you don't like the camera. OK, fine. For how long have you had it? What are you unhappy with?

 

[Bernard]

But don't forget that you have to multiply the crop factor into the f-stop too.
So you have f8.58 to 17.17. Still think its useable? May be during the day - nothing indoors or during the dark without having to crank up that ISO and noise levels.

That's not how that works. The zoom is still 2.8-5.6, even though it's on a 1 inch sensor (for us older shooters, that's roughly the same size as Super 16). You don't need to "crank up that ISO" anymore than you would on any other lens or format.

What people are talking about when they (wrongly) state that it's f8.58 to 17.17 is depth of field, not exposure. Except they fail to take into account magnification. A Super16 sensor is approximately half the size of a Super35 sensor (linear measurement), so the image is magnified twice as much, which means your calculations are off by two stops.

On top of that, having a little more depth of field is a good thing in most situations.

 

[mkabi]

When FCPX was released on the Mac AppStore, within the first 24 hours the store was flooded with bad reviews. And this wasn't from beta testers with prior experience. A completely new approach to editing. I could never have read the manual in that time. Much less gained any meaningful experience. And yet... here the reviews were. Fascinating.

There is a valid reason for that...
I was one of those that didn't like FCPX after 10 min. of using it. Although, I wasn't one of those that wrote a negative review the day after it was released.

But you know why I didn't like it? (and I am assuming that others didn't like it for the same reason)
Its that singular timeline...

FCP7 had multiple timelines (so I imagine people coming from FCP7 background would hate it), and you couldn't even turn on/off the singular/multiple timeline. I like layering video... but FCPX didn't allow that.

I know why Apple went that route too... because iMovie had a singular timeline. So if you are an iMovie user (like my cousin), FCPX is a no brainer. But if you are coming from a program like Sony Vegas Pro, Adobe Premier, FCP7, etc. FCPX will iritate you.

I'm talking about this compulsive urge some users have (in a larger context—humanity—since it's a recognisable pattern in many situations) to express opinion about something they know nothing about. In an overwhelming majority it's negative comments

Anyway... putting the specs aside (I do know them by the way), let's get to the meat of it: so you don't like the camera. OK, fine. For how long have you had it? What are you unhappy with?

It doesn't have to be online. Next time you go into work, grocery store, where-ever... look around... someone is complaining about something. I'm sure, you have complained about something... even if its about humans complaining...

I didn't know you had to be an owner and you had to have used it to complain about it. What if everyone did that and then Canon said no refunds. You'd be out of $1200 way too often...

Going back to the XC10, look brother... if you like it... good for you.

 

[mkabi]

But don't forget that you have to multiply the crop factor into the f-stop too.
So you have f8.58 to 17.17. Still think its useable? May be during the day - nothing indoors or during the dark without having to crank up that ISO and noise levels.

That's not how that works. The zoom is still 2.8-5.6, even though it's on a 1 inch sensor (for us older shooters, that's roughly the same size as Super 16). You don't need to "crank up that ISO" anymore than you would on any other lens or format.

What people are talking about when they (wrongly) state that it's f8.58 to 17.17 is depth of field, not exposure. Except they fail to take into account magnification. A Super16 sensor is approximately half the size of a Super35 sensor (linear measurement), so the image is magnified twice as much, which means your calculations are off by two stops.

On top of that, having a little more depth of field is a good thing in most situations.

Thats how it works. Don't argue. Just accept it.
I don't want to pull out the sources. Too lazy for it, google it.

Even better. I'm sure you have an APS-C or FF since you are on this forum correct?
You can do the comparison on your own.
Here is XC10 low light footage:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Q79cTZjMwE

You can do the same with your APS-C or FF.
Shoot with 50mm at f/1.8 on APS-C
Or
Shoot 27mm at f/2.8 on FF for a more accurate comparison.

Note video is always in 27mm and ISO 3400-4000... see if you can do better in terms of ISO
BTW, first scene is a sunset, in front of a parking lot, easy to replicate.

 

[AndreeOnline]

Thats how it works. Don't argue. Just accept it.

Tread lightly. While focal lengths often gets 'converted' to 35mm FF equivalence, actual f-stop, shutter and ISO correspond to a certain EV—exposure value.

Obviously, if I meter a scene with a light meter and put my XC10 in manual mode, I will enter the absolute values. There's no conversion there.

But I tried to skip all that. It's no pissing contest and not about prestige. In daily use—what do you think the weaknesses with this camera are?

 

[AndreeOnline]

There is a valid reason for that...
I was one of those that didn't like FCPX after 10 min. of using it. Although, I wasn't one of those that wrote a negative review the day after it was released.

But you know why I didn't like it? (and I am assuming that others didn't like it for the same reason)
Its that singular timeline...

FCP7 had multiple timelines (so I imagine people coming from FCP7 background would hate it), and you couldn't even turn on/off the singular/multiple timeline. I like layering video... but FCPX didn't allow that.

I know why Apple went that route too... because iMovie had a singular timeline. So if you are an iMovie user (like my cousin), FCPX is a no brainer. But if you are coming from a program like Sony Vegas Pro, Adobe Premier, FCP7, etc. FCPX will iritate you.

You're just proving my point exactly.

Like this:

??

It's called connected timelines. Since day 1.

I think we're done here. Good talk.

 

[mkabi]

Thats how it works. Don't argue. Just accept it.

Tread lightly. While focal lengths often gets 'converted' to 35mm FF equivalence, actual f-stop, shutter and ISO correspond to a certain EV—exposure value.

Obviously, if I meter a scene with a light meter and put my XC10 in manual mode, I will enter the absolute values. There's no conversion there.

But I tried to skip all that. It's no pissing contest and not about prestige.

Obviously, your camera will always say 2.8 to 5.6 and above.

*sigh* Honestly, I didn't want to get into
the FF vs other sensor argument.
But without sourcing, I'm sure this is common sense... FF is larger sensor correct?
So it obviously has larger surface area than APS-C, Micro4/3, 1inch, etc.?
More light hits it.... so it will obviously affect f-stop, shutter and ISO...

I really don't want to... source this guy, but for this one case:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5zN6NVx-hY

Just watch the entire video, and then tell me different.

In daily use—what do you think the weaknesses with this camera are?

Really, its the sensor and lens.
Everything else is fine. Canon could've easily put a APS-C sensor in this and made it interchangeable EF/EF-S mount, and it would've been the perfect camera. I would've easily paid an addition $1500 on top of that $2000.

In the world of photography, there are many principles and techniques that translates extremely well into the world of videography. Video is just moving pictures. Thats it. Don't make it too complicated.

There is a reason why the 85mm is the best portrait lens (some prefer 135mm).
You obviously want a good wide angle lens to see the subject in its environment.
You want a macro lens for those really really close, or showcasing moments.
You want a telephoto for places you just can't reach.

You just can't do that with 1 lens.

 

[AndreeOnline]

*sigh* Honestly, I didn't want to get into
the FF vs other sensor argument.
But without sourcing, I'm sure this is common sense... FF is larger sensor correct?
So it obviously has larger surface area than APS-C, Micro4/3, 1inch, etc.?
More light hits it.... so it will obviously affect f-stop, shutter and ISO...

Thought experiment:

Point a flashlight to the palm of your hand. Let's say it's a spotlight with no falloff. Notice the illumination of your hand.

Now move the light so that only one half of your hand is lit. Is the half that is still lit by the same light only half as bright now? No.

Now imagine two sensors, one FF and one 1 inch, both placed under a large cone of the same light source. The exposure value to expose them correctly are the same for both—the illuminance is the same.

 

[syder]

There is a reason why the 85mm is the best portrait lens (some prefer 135mm).
You obviously want a good wide angle lens to see the subject in its environment.
You want a macro lens for those really really close, or showcasing moments.
You want a telephoto for places you just can't reach.

You just can't do that with 1 lens.

Shit dude, you may have to go out there and enlighten most news and documentary shooters. They've clearly been doing it all wrong for decades and should bow to your superior knowledge.

There absolutely are legitimate uses for cameras with an attached lens with a decent zoom range. It isn't Hollywood or high end TV drama, but they aren't the only usages for a videocamera.

Please stop embarrassing yourself.

...and AndreeOnline, you may have despaired for humanity over FCPX rage at launch, but it was mainly justified. Apple discontinued FCP7 and FCPServer with no prior notice, and replaced it with a piece of software which wasn't compatible with their older system (and people had been spending large amounts on FCPServer facilities just beforehand) and wouldn't speak properly to their Protools/Resolve/Baselight systems because Apple had turned a professional product into a more advanced version of iMovie. You don't need to use the product to know that you've been screwed in that situation.

Since then, and in response to user outrage they've fixed a lot of those issues, but every post facility I know runs Avid or Premiere nowadays, whereas a fair few were running FCP7/Server back in the day. I do hear it's popular with kids who want something cheap and don't have to work with other people though.

 

[mkabi]

Please stop embarrassing yourself.

What was that AndreeOnline said earlier? Something along the lines of "Clueless Posers"?
Well... I'm seeing a few right now.

I've posted my sample footage.
I don't see either AndreeOnlines stuff or Syders stuff.
All talk... No walk.

Syder, if you're a news shooter and/or documentary shooter, and you like the XC10... go and buy it. Who is stopping you? I'm not... he asked me "what do you think the weaknesses with this camera are?"
So I answered it from my standpoint, I can give a rats arse what a news shooter or documentary shooter wants...

Thought experiment:

Point a flashlight to the palm of your hand. Let's say it's a spotlight with no falloff. Notice the illumination of your hand.

Now move the light so that only one half of your hand is lit. Is the half that is still lit by the same light only half as bright now? No.

Now imagine two sensors, one FF and one 1 inch, both placed under a large cone of the same light source. The exposure value to expose them correctly are the same for both—the illuminance is the same.

Light doesn't behave like your thought experiment.
How much water can your hand hold, and how much water can a bath tub hold?

 

[AndreeOnline]

Light doesn't behave like your thought experiment.
How much water can your hand hold, and how much water can a bath tub hold?

What you should be thinking is more like:

Measure the temperature of the ocean. Use any thermometer you like. Bring a small glass and scoop some of that water up. Now measure the temperature in the glass.

I'm trying to take the higher road here, but I think this is the last post. It was about the XC10. And this is exactly the reason I stick to forums where most people are professionals.

Take a photo with your smart phone and check the meta data. That sensor is really small. When you look at the exposure information the EV will match up with any other camera. The f-stop, shutter and ISO is a universal measure of incident light.

EDIT: By the way, that video from Tony that you link to shows exactly what I'm talking about. At 6:19 he shows you that the two formats FF/m34 gives you the same exposure value for the same settings, despite sensor size differences.

1/180, 5.6, ISO800 = 1/180, 2.8, ISO200 = EV 9.463

Is this forum important to you? Take a moment to reflect if you want to continue this discussion on its current trajectory.

On another note: you shouldn't "call people out". Let the relevant arguments live and die on their own merit. I would never criticise your, or anyone else's work unless they specifically asked for it.

I do commercial corporate photography and videography for the air navigation service provider in Switzerland. The nature of the footage is such that I deliver to them directly to use in their marketing. I don't put it up on YouTube or Vimeo. Apparently, it's been good enough to finance my other camera, the 1Dc many times over. My homepage is pixla.ch

If you really want to go on doing this, I strongly suggest keeping to the actual subject. Do you actually own the XC10? If now, how many projects have you shot with it?

 

[Bernard]

*sigh* Honestly, I didn't want to get into
the FF vs other sensor argument.
But without sourcing, I'm sure this is common sense... FF is larger sensor correct?
So it obviously has larger surface area than APS-C, Micro4/3, 1inch, etc.?
More light hits it.... so it will obviously affect f-stop, shutter and ISO...

Mkabi,

Try these experiments.

1- Take a picture with a full frame camera.
Open it in your favorite photo editor and check the EXIF. Note the shutter speed, aperture and ISO.
Now crop away half the picture (or cover it with a piece of paper) and check the EXIF. Note the shutter speed, aperture and ISO. Tell me if the picture looks noticeably brighter or darker than it did previously.
Now crop away half the picture again and check the EXIF. Note the shutter speed, aperture and ISO. Tell me if the picture looks noticeably brighter or darker than it did previously.

2- Take a picture with a wide angle lens. Note the shutter speed, aperture and ISO.
Don't move the camera and take another picture in the same light with a telephoto lens. Set the shutter speed, aperture and ISO so that they are the same as the first picture.
Look at both pictures. Is one much brighter or darker than the other? We aren't looking for tiny difference here, just big steps.

You now have all of the information you need to figure this out on your own.

 

[mkabi]

EDIT: By the way, that video from Tony that you link to shows exactly what I'm talking about. At 6:19 he shows you that the two formats FF/m34 gives you the same exposure value for the same settings, despite sensor size differences.

1/180, 5.6, ISO800 = 1/180, 2.8, ISO200 = EV 9.463

So you are saying that the GH3 and the Lumix 12-35 f/2.8
is equal to and/or better than the 5D3 with the 24-70 f/2.8?

Except ofcourse for DOF... but in terms of low light... that micro4/3 is going to perform equally or better than the FF.

Mkabi,

Try these experiments.

1- Take a picture with a full frame camera.
Open it in your favorite photo editor and check the EXIF. Note the shutter speed, aperture and ISO.
Now crop away half the picture (or cover it with a piece of paper) and check the EXIF. Note the shutter speed, aperture and ISO. Tell me if the picture looks noticeably brighter or darker than it did previously.
Now crop away half the picture again and check the EXIF. Note the shutter speed, aperture and ISO. Tell me if the picture looks noticeably brighter or darker than it did previously.

2- Take a picture with a wide angle lens. Note the shutter speed, aperture and ISO.
Don't move the camera and take another picture in the same light with a telephoto lens. Set the shutter speed, aperture and ISO so that they are the same as the first picture.
Look at both pictures. Is one much brighter or darker than the other? We aren't looking for tiny difference here, just big steps.

You now have all of the information you need to figure this out on your own.

I can't help you bros.
Each experiment that you are telling me to conduct... the sensor size isn't changing so obviously the brightness and/or EXIF has no change.

Thats like taking the picture, printing it... then literally cutting the picture with regular scissors to crop it (without seeing scale changes, like you do when you crop on your computer) then asking if exposure changes. Of course it doesn't.

 

[Bernard]

Thats like taking the picture, printing it... then literally cutting the picture with regular scissors to crop it (without seeing scale changes, like you do when you crop on your computer) then asking if exposure changes. Of course it doesn't.

I think you've had a breakthrough! You are exactly right: there's no magical transformation when you use a bigger or smaller sensor. You still use the same f-stops, your exposure is the same. F:2.8 doesn't become "f8.58", forcing you to "crank up that ISO," as you previously claimed.
If your exposure is f:4.0 at 1/48 and ISO 800 on full frame, it will be exactly the same on any other size of sensor.

You will get more depth of field with a smaller sensor, and that means that you can hold a wider stop (and lower ISO) while keeping your subject within the range of focus. That's the next lesson, I will let this one sink-in first.

 

[mkabi]

I think you've had a breakthrough! You are exactly right: there's no magical transformation when you use a bigger or smaller sensor. You still use the same f-stops, your exposure is the same. F:2.8 doesn't become "f8.58", forcing you to "crank up that ISO," as you previously claimed.
If your exposure is f:4.0 at 1/48 and ISO 800 on full frame, it will be exactly the same on any other size of sensor.

You will get more depth of field with a smaller sensor, and that means that you can hold a wider stop (and lower ISO) while keeping your subject within the range of focus. That's the next lesson, I will let this one sink-in first.

No... there is no breakthrough. You're just not seeing my point of view.
Here watch this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5zN6NVx-hY

Then you can be apart of this conversation too:

EDIT: By the way, that video from Tony that you link to shows exactly what I'm talking about. At 6:19 he shows you that the two formats FF/m34 gives you the same exposure value for the same settings, despite sensor size differences.

1/180, 5.6, ISO800 = 1/180, 2.8, ISO200 = EV 9.463

So you are saying that the GH3 and the Lumix 12-35 f/2.8
is equal to and/or better than the 5D3 with the 24-70 f/2.8?

Except ofcourse for DOF... but in terms of low light... that micro4/3 is going to perform equally or better than the FF.

But let me reword that. Suppose you took a picture with the GH3 with the Lumix 12-35 f/2.8 & the 5D3 with the 24-70 f/2.8. You can have the GH3/Lumix set to 12 mm & f/2.8 and the 5D3 set to 24mm & f/2.8... lets just say ISO 200 & shutter 1/180 (on both cameras) like how Tony has it in that room and same time of day. Which picture will be brighter? What do you have to do to make the GH3 to be same as the 5D3, why?

Bernard don't answer that until you have watched that video.

 

[unfocused]

These crop factor discussion come up periodically on this forum. I really hate them because there is so much misinformation bandied about.

The Northrup video is not wrong, but his explanation is not always very good.

He is discussing crop factor, depth of field and image quality. He's certainly correct that a 2X crop factor means that a 100mm lens will have approximately the same field of view as a 200mm lens on a full frame camera. And it is true that the depth of field will be different.

But, his discussion of exposure is confusing at best. He does clearly state (around the 6:51 mark) that crop factor does not affect exposure. Which is absolutely correct – f5.6 at 1/60th of a second at ISO 400 will yield the same exposure on every camera (assuming the lens, image sensor and shutter have all been properly calibrated).

But, then he muddies he water by saying that you can get the same image quality (noise) by cranking down the ISO of a crop frame camera. That's not exactly wrong, but it is not exactly right either. I get the point he was trying to make. If you shoot a small sensor at lower ISOs it will compare very favorably to a large sensor at higher ISOs.

But, when he brings this up he doesn't really offer much of an explanation, which only compounds the problem.

We all know that ISO performance is not linear. A sensor isn't four times as good at ISO 100 as it is at ISO 400. And, at higher ISOs, we all know that image quality can degrade very rapidly when you go up a stop. That's what he is referencing when he talks about exposure, he just didn't explain it very well.

As I said, I really hate these crop factor discussions.They tend to rely on gross generalizations that seldom have much real world value.

 

[Niki]

how is the image on this camera compared to the c300 and the c300 mk2???