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

[Bernard]

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.

Here's a practical example.
You have a shot of a character in a coffee shop. You want the character and her mug of coffee to be in focus. This means stopping-down your 35 mm lens to f:5.6 on your trusty 5Dm3 (this is a Canon forum, after all). Let's say you are shooting at ISO 800, 24 fps (1/48 shutter speed). If you decide to do this shot with a smaller sensor, like a 7Dm2 (keeping it in the Canon family), you get the same framing with a 24 mm. Now you need f:4.0 to get the same depth of field (approximately). You need to keep shooting at 1/48, because that's the look you've established, so you decrease the ISO to 400.

In other words, shooting with a smaller sensor allows you to use a lower ISO, while keeping depth of field the same.

Obviously, some times your project requires having the smallest amount of depth of field. For instance if you want the "short film about a barista shot by a first time director in 2011" look, then you may need to go full frame and use the fastest lenses you can find, beg, borrow, and steal. If that's the case, get a bunch of ND filters and have fun with it, it's all good.

 

[AndreeOnline]

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.

No, I'm not saying that at all. Generally, a larger sensor will have larger sensels/pixel arrangement that in turn present a larger target for incoming photons, thereby collecting more light.

Canon's 4.500.000 ISO camera has sensels of 19 microns, or pixels 7.6x the size of the 1Dx.

The discussion was regarding the XC10 f2.8-5.6 lens. You wanted to apply the crop factor to the aperture in an effort to "explain" how poor this cameras light gathering ability is. But the XC10 will produce the same EV at a certain combination of f-stop, shutter and ISO—same as every other camera.

This also answers your question that came later. A GH3 and a 5D mkIII will expose a gray card the same/correctly at the same settings. I'm not taking small variations into account where one manufacturer's ISO400 might be another manufacturer's ISO460 (if light levels were calculated in absolute numbers).

 

[et31]

I am not impressed with the XC10, regardless of the UHD recording capability.
It is a crippled camera (camcorder) that is overpriced. The firmware needs to
be significant to justify the cost and limitations in features.

If you are on a tight budget and need professionalism, then for a little more money (exactly $1K),
the C100 Mark I is still the best for versatility, functionality, ergonomics (small footprint like a DSLR),
and of course, the most important part: quality.
Entry level professional cine-camera all the way!

I shoot with the C300, and having tried the C100, it is almost the same given that it has the same sensor (super 35mm / APS-C), which makes it a fantastic A/B-roll given the output. The C300 has some clear advantages, but, again, when on a tighter budget, the C100 is perfectly coupled with other higher end cameras for professional work at a fraction of the cost.

Fantastic 0.25 lux @ 24p, and ISO performance up to 80,000, EF mount for ANY Canon or 3rd party lens you want, 4K downscale to 1080p for easy editing, 3 ND filters, rolling shutter is practically non-existent, Wide DR gamma, Canon Log, Cine profiles (download them all from AbleCine), great LCD screen quality, XLR audio, Dual Pixel AF, focus lock, etc., etc.

It still has one of the highest ratings out there compared to all the other entry level video cameras (i.e. the awkward and limited Blackmagic Design 2K/4K camera, and Sony's new FS5, which is not doing so well as of late with its reported internal blunders).

Don't take my word for it. Go to vimeo.com and check out 100's of beautifully made professional videos with the C100.

 

[AndreeOnline]

I am not impressed with the XC10, regardless of the UHD recording capability.
It is a crippled camera (camcorder) that is overpriced

…

I shoot with the C300.

You certainly don't have to be impressed with it—after all, that's very subjective. But how do you feel that it's crippled and overpriced?

The next camera up that does Canon Log in UHD with auto focus costs $16000. This camera is 1/10th of the price.

It should be pretty obvious that the XC10 isn't an alternative to the C100-300 cameras. Maybe it can be in some situations, but I feel it's much stronger as a complement. I use it on a gimbal to intercut with my 1Dc. You could to the same with a C300 or C100.

I'd be happy to use the XC10 as an 'A camera' for family stuff. When hunting kids—or just general doc type shooting—the smaller sensor can be just as appropriate as inappropriate. I find it especially advantageous to have both a large sensor camera and a small one that intercuts well. If anyone is going for their first camera, I'd definitely also recommend reaching for the C100 line. Hopefully the mkIII is out soon.

XC10 isn't perfect. I'd much rather see Canon reduce the focal length to something like 24-150 and max out the optical quality. They have to knowhow to make a good f2.8 for a 1 inch sensor. At least f2.8-4. And if it has a dedicated stills mode via switch: please make those stills raw (but that might need another chip on the inside and then it won't happen).

Of course, the community—especially those not using the camera—has made sure that will never happen. Why would Canon invest resources into a camera everyone gripes about? It's too bad, as it's one of the most promising designs. Building large, clunky cameras isn't that hard at all. Building small competent ones just might be.

 

[et31]

I am not impressed with the XC10, regardless of the UHD recording capability.
It is a crippled camera (camcorder) that is overpriced

…

I shoot with the C300.

You certainly don't have to be impressed with it—after all, that's very subjective. But how do you feel that it's crippled and overpriced?

The next camera up that does Canon Log in UHD with auto focus costs $16000. This camera is 1/10th of the price.

It should be pretty obvious that the XC10 isn't an alternative to the C100-300 cameras. Maybe it can be in some situations, but I feel it's much stronger as a complement. I use it on a gimbal to intercut with my 1Dc. You could to the same with a C300 or C100.

I'd be happy to use the XC10 as an 'A camera' for family stuff. When hunting kids—or just general doc type shooting—the smaller sensor can be just as appropriate as inappropriate. I find it especially advantageous to have both a large sensor camera and a small one that intercuts well. If anyone is going for their first camera, I'd definitely also recommend reaching for the C100 line. Hopefully the mkIII is out soon.

XC10 isn't perfect. I'd much rather see Canon reduce the focal length to something like 24-150 and max out the optical quality. They have to knowhow to make a good f2.8 for a 1 inch sensor. At least f2.8-4. And if it has a dedicated stills mode via switch: please make those stills raw (but that might need another chip on the inside and then it won't happen).

Of course, the community—especially those not using the camera—has made sure that will never happen. Why would Canon invest resources into a camera everyone gripes about? It's too bad, as it's one of the most promising designs. Building large, clunky cameras isn't that hard at all. Building small competent ones just might be.

Exactly, to each his own, but having already tried an array of different cameras that took several months to compare and determine which one was the best (including the XC10), I had to go with the C100 as my B-roll, as the others were not going to cut it; so I am not ashamed to say that "I shoot with the C300" for my A-roll. I wanted to save money by having a less expensive B-roll that had very comparable features to arrive close to the workflow that I need, but the XC10 could not do it (as I describe in the list below). It does not make me biased as you have to professionally try other cameras (like Blackmagic, Sony, JVC, and Panasonic) before settling with the best one and subsequently critique them to understand what are the problems with each one. Obviously, Canon did not want the XC10 to take away from C100 sales, and so they limited its capabilities.

Crippled and overpriced (by several hundred dollars in comparison with other models) in the fact that:
*It was originally $2,500 (those sneaks!)*

1. it has a nice sensor, but the optical elements are dark and not as professional as the Zeiss optics that even Sony puts on their camcorders (JVC has one that starts at f/1.2 and ends at 3.5, and x24 optical zoom from f/2.8-4.5 on the Sony X70 with a 1" sensor for the same price). Optics are what you would find on an entry level lens in a rebel series camera.
2. ND filter issues (ex. Sony x70 has 3 physical ones) when other camcorders like JVC and Panasonic offer them as well but have a better effect. For outdoor work, it is not the best and having to shoot at f/11 in full sunlight is not ideal.
3. you cannot switch between PAL and NTSC within the same unit (Sony, JVC, and Panasonic can do this for the same price).
4. it does not have XLR audio (Sony, JVC, and Panasonic can do this for the same price).
5. it has a very slow AF system. No Dual Pixel AF. Ouch! This makes my DSLR look good, and that should not be the case here. (Again, other companies have optimized AF speed on their camcorders).
6. has CODEC issues for a lot of people with different software. Obviously, this needs to be addressed for quick workflows. Soy, JVC, and Panasonic are readily accessible.
7. UHD "4K" is already inherent in Sony, JVC, and Panasonic with 4:2:2 color for less money.
8. distorted image through make-shift viewfinder.
9. CFast cards add to the high price, so bring the camera price down. JVC GY-HM170 can do UHD @ 150Mbps with SDXC cards for $1,295.00.

I don't know what happened to Canon. They were amazing when they had all of those pro camcorders, like the XF305. They need to bring that series back online for the new generation of sensors. Sony is already several years ahead with their Z100, Z150, etc.

If the XC10 was $1,299.99, then it would make more sense and there would be a better competition for sales compared to other brands featuring very similar features.

I like your argument, and also agree with your statement "building small competent ones [might be hard]", and so Canon did something that no other company did back 5 years ago. Take a look at the C100, C100 MII, C300, C300 MII, C500, etc.
Perfect size! Not even Sony's FS7 or FS5 are this nice! Now, they just need to work on bringing down their prices. Seriously? $16K for a C300 MII when RED and Sony can do the same and more for $8-12K?

 

[AndreeOnline]

Let me put it this way:

I don't read up on other brands, so I don't know what's out there. I'm familiar with Canon and RED and somewhat familiar with BMD and Sony.

What is the XC10's nearest competitor that delivers:

• UHD+ resolution
• intra frame codec
• 422
• equivalent bitrate (305Mbps)
• a log picture profile

You're not allowed to cherry pick here. This is what the XC10 has and your competitor needs to check all boxes. Don't mention cameras that don't.

I would be delighted if you could create a long list. But consider this:

The C100 and C300 don't qualify. Not the Sony FS5.
RED cameras, the 1Dc and the C300 mkII do. The URSA does as well. Sony FS7 too (and F55, F5 and F65).

Anyway. I really like to see the list of cameras that make the XC10 look bad.

 

[et31]

Let me put it this way:

I don't read up on other brands, so I don't know what's out there. I'm familiar with Canon and RED and somewhat familiar with BMD and Sony.

What is the XC10's nearest competitor that delivers:

• UHD+ resolution
• intra frame codec
• 422
• equivalent bitrate (305Mbps)
• a log picture profile

You're not allowed to cherry pick here. This is what the XC10 has and your competitor needs to check all boxes. Don't mention cameras that don't.

I would be delighted if you could create a long list. But consider this:

The C100 and C300 don't qualify. Not the Sony FS5.
RED cameras, the 1Dc and the C300 mkII do. The URSA does as well. Sony FS7 too (and F55, F5 and F65).

Anyway. I really like to see the list of cameras that make the XC10 look bad.

Here is a great contender! The Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH4 Mirrorless Micro Four Thirds Digital Camera for $1497. Interchangeable lens mount. Raw stills and all! UHD and true 4k on SDXC cards - not expensive CFast, 4:2:2, 10-bit output via HDMI, 100-200Mbps (305Mbps is a gimmick - description below), same codec w/others provided, V-Log, 2 cine-like gamma profiles, video flicker reduction, video continuous AF, focus peaking, time code, zebra, manual blacks - shadows - highlights adjustment, xlr audio attachment unit w/ two 3G-SDI ports, 25,000 ISO, articulated high resolution touch screen, and more options.
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
....oh, and this thing is DSLR small! 8)

Finally! Beautiful low light performance on an affordable budget with the lens that you want!
https://vimeo.com/100097834

In general:
1. UHD vs 4k downscaled to 1080p is negligible (in a decade when 4k broadcast is accepted as standard, and the availability of 120GB Blu-Ray discs is readily available in mass quantities and more affordable, then there will be an entire new array of cameras and hardware that blow the current selection away). Downscaled 4K on a 1080p monitor looks amazing, plus, the world is not exactly ready to render 4K video with the required computing and hardware overhaul just yet. Subjective, but still a reality. Hollywood and those with the "budgets" can afford to enjoy this market for now.
2. Intra frame codec is debatable in terms of advantage. It is still compressed regardless of a technical theoretical advantage, and the only clear advantage is RAW. Export encoding will still compress your frames further when working with traditional codecs that are compatible across all platforms (+ rendering time and cost of hardware will be another further expense). Poor optics on top of that will make any high end codec look like junk.
3. 4:2:2.....you mean "4:4:4" should be the new improvement of standard, since 4:2:2 is already standard everywhere in many different models of camcorders and pro-equipment for equivalent and less price.
4. Again, bit rates over 50Mbps with a good internal codec and sensor is negligible when exporting to H.264, MP4 codecs, etc. Sony's Z100 had 660Mbps, but it still looked poor when working with it. Again, quality degradation come into play here when you are working with poor glass. I mean, it is a HUGE success story that multi-million dollar movies like Her, Blue Ribbon, Rush, and Iron Man 3 used the C300 for many sequences @ 50Mbps, and the results were broadcasted happily around the world with great results (plus quite a few TV show series and documentaries shot at 50Mbps with no complaints).
-------> C300 definitely qualifies! ;D, and so does the C100 w/the same 4k sensor as the C300.

As a side note: 8-bit will cripple your editing workflow when trying to grade or correct beyond its limits, so even a 220Mbps Apple ProRes on an Atomos from an 8-bit source will still look terrible if the source is compromised (compressed HDMI output as opposed to a clean 3G-SDI port). I would like to see more of a 10-bit standard on top of the 4:4:4. It's about time!

5. Log picture profile: that one I can agree with! More cameras should have it these days.

In general, the XC10 cripples itself with its design flaws. Canon had the chance to blow the market away, but instead, they played traditional politics on marketing. Their C100 Mark I/II baby is something they are not willing to give up. Overall, the optics are not that great and there is a clarity issue (an average joe may not have a problem with it, but a professional will).

Let's look forward to Canon's XC20. Hopefully then, it will justify a "$2,499" price tag!
The sales and positive reviews were not there several months ago until they knocked off $500 off the original price. I see where Canon's mentality is at. Nice try, but no cigar!

I'm done with this topic. Thanks for the debate!

 

[AndreeOnline]

Here is a great contender! The Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH4 Mirrorless Micro Four Thirds Digital Camera

UHD+: check
Intra frame: fail
422: check
equiv bitrate: fail (100Mbps)
Log: check

Result: FAIL.

With all due respect, if you don't recognise the benefit of the listed specs—that is fine with me. You should always buy the cheapest camera that meets your needs. Instead of writing how things 'are', make a habit of referring to yourself instead:

"To me, UHD to HD is negligible…"
"I find intra frame coded advantages to be debatable…"
"I haven't noticed a difference in quality going above 50Mbps…"

These are examples that would have cleaned your previous post up quite a bit.

I've really had it with "schooling" in this thread. Either step up and deliver, or step down and hold your peace. I'm asking a very simple question here. The XC10 gets beaten around by people who don't even seem to understand what they're looking at. Canon rightly promotes the camera as 'professional' exactly because of what those specs represent. Maybe the specs make it a niche camera. Nothing wrong with that. We're drowning in consumer cameras that can't reach some of those technical aspects.

Now… ANYONE else who wants to comment on my previous post… just answer the question. I'm not saying there are no alternatives. Let's find out how many there are—and what the price of those might be.

 

[KrisK]

Here is a great contender! The Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH4 Mirrorless Micro Four Thirds Digital Camera

UHD+: check
Intra frame: fail
422: check
equiv bitrate: fail (100Mbps)
Log: check

Result: FAIL.

With all due respect, if you don't recognise the benefit of the listed specs—that is fine with me. You should always buy the cheapest camera that meets your needs. Instead of writing how things 'are', make a habit of referring to yourself instead:

"To me, UHD to HD is negligible…"
"I find intra frame coded advantages to be debatable…"
"I haven't noticed a difference in quality going above 50Mbps…"

These are examples that would have cleaned your previous post up quite a bit.

I've really had it with "schooling" in this thread. Either step up and deliver, or step down and hold your peace. I'm asking a very simple question here. The XC10 gets beaten around by people who don't even seem to understand what they're looking at. Canon rightly promotes the camera as 'professional' exactly because of what those specs represent. Maybe the specs make it a niche camera. Nothing wrong with that. We're drowning in consumer cameras that can't reach some of those technical aspects.

Now… ANYONE else who wants to comment on my previous post… just answer the question. I'm not saying there are no alternatives. Let's find out how many there are—and what the price of those might be.

Well, I'd actually add a few XC10 'positives' to your list, based on the competitors that are usually tossed my way:

-has an exhaust-port to manage heat
-mic in AND headphone out
-quality audio pre-amps (compared with DSLRs)
-unlimited run-time without needing an external recorder (I like the simplicity)
-great color, with very little work in post (footage I've downloaded plays well with Edius)
-good low-light performance (seems very good up to the point NR kicks in)
-great in-camera HD in an efficient, quality codec (which, for the most part, is still more important to me than 4K, though I DO want 4K)
-non-horrific looking rolling-shutter

I'm waiting to see what this firmware entails before buying. But even as it stands, none of what's been proposed here and elsewhere measures up.

 

[Ebrahim Saadawi]

Holy Lord discussing video on a photo community.

Have you guys ever heard of image quality?

It's a magical term used to describe how the images look, based on a few factors: Resolution, dynamic range, compression, colour reproduction, digital artefacts (aliasing, rolling shutter), motion cadence, among a few other things,

And, you know why the GH4 is considered lower end vs the XC10? priced higher?

simple, image quality.

Compared to the GH4, the XC10 produces images with markedly

-higher dynamic range in Canon Log, and
-much better colour reproduction and skin tones, with
-MUCH lower rolling shutter,
-MUCH MUCH less compression, and
-no digital sharpening artefacts, and
-vastly superior lowlight performance.

Do these show up in the spec sheets? no.

What does show?

Does any other camera on the market produce
4:2:2 305mbps images? Any are approved for Teir One Broadcast aqcuisition by the EBU?
any of them have Autofocus?
As good of an image stabilization?
as good of an image quality?
unlimited recording time?
Zero overheating/battery drain issues?

Please, just stop. The XC10 has some shortcomings but no other camera on the market can do what it does, please stop reviewing specs and shoot with the damn camera or at least get some knowledge on what makes a video camera good or bad.