The Canon XC10 is Now Shipping

[LetTheRightLensIn]

The Sony has dismal battery life,

How much does a pocket of the little Sony batteries weigh or cost?

needs an external recorder to get full video quality,

And yet, the internal recording appears as if it will beat the XC10 anyway.

doesn't have much native lens support,

LOL. The XC10 has a single, fixed slow lens!
The SOny array of lenses alone is way better, plus you can always adapt Canon or various old MF lenses (or new like some of the side Zeiss) or mount.

is very hard to rig,

The XC10 doesn't sound easy either, some early talk is about a very nasty focus ring system.

and the large sensor makes it hard to do anything other than "look what I can do" shots (clients and your audience usually want to see the story you are telling rather than your trite shallow focus).

Yeah, the horrible Super35 size that only 98% of all movies are shot at.... you don't have to use the FF mode for everyting and, in fact, it's optimized for tops quality for Super35 shooting where it oversamples and scales down for moire/aliasing reduction while still keeping max detail and not losing too much SNR (not as good as FF but as APS-C SNR).

I understand how stills shooters would find the Sony appealing, based on specs alone, but an integrated and well thought-out video solution will always be better in the field.

Probably so, but if you are that serious about it, not sure the XC10 would necessarily be the ticket.

 

[crazyrunner33]

...
Video wise, that F2.8-5.6 is not
completely irrational)
...

Please elaborate on that statement. I shoot video since 1986, and worked over two decades by now in feature film film production, but you are the first one who can see an advantage in it. I'm really interested where you see a positive aspect of it. I have obviously missed it so far. Thanks. (I hope I do not sound like a Forum Troll here, if so sorry, not my intention)

Of course, my friend. I'll speak for myself here because of the type of work that I do and and that I like to watch. The basic advantage of using a videocamera versus a DSLR is the combination of a smallish sensor and a lens that behaves properly within a considerable zoom range. That seems to be the case with the XC10.

Generally, you'll get deep DOF with that combo with the added benefit of portability. A F1.4 lens that's soft wide open serves no function, FOR ME, even if it lets in a lot of light into my videocamera. I find DSLRs notoriously difficult to work with because most of them were not designed with video as their priority. Since Canon's 5D Mark II, of course, DSLRs have a special "video allure" that's only justified if you really know how to properly use them. I would much rather work with a solid parfocal system.

That's what I meant with my statement. I'd gladly pay for the XC10 if Canon delivered a 4K video-centric product that made my ENG easier and be somewhat affordable. Canon ergonomics are welcome.

I'm afraid you misunderstood drs's question. We understand the advantage of small sensors and convenient to use ENG bodies. However, we have issues with the lens itself. This camera is marketed as a professional video camera that is affordable, convenient and ergonomic. However, we are presented with a camera that barely meets the requirements for a professional camera and it's not convenient. For what it has to offer, it is not affordable when compared to the competition.

Before I go any further, I'd like to point out that I'm actually in the market for cameras like these. Like drs, I work in the industry and make a living off of it. I feel that I am a potential target for this camera since I'm looking to upgrade cameras soon. I'll be purchasing a camera in the 3-6K range that would match well with a larger camera that I would rent when needed. I'll also go for a camera that is similar to the description of the XC10, however, I don't feel that the XC10 lives up to its description.

The first issue is that lens! A lot of the arguments that people are making is that this is great for run and gun. But a lens that will change the aperture from 2.8 to 5.6 when zooming in would be a nightmare when getting into lower light situations, especially with that small of a sensor. Combine with it not being that wide and permanent, it is a total buzz kill. This is a terrible lens for run and gun work. There's also reviews saying that the lens will sometimes zoom in when tilted down on a drone while the drone is gaining elevation and lack of lens control, there's better options out there for drone work. It also lack XLR audio and the headphone jack is in an odd spot.

A lot of people are pointing out that it has 4:2:2. I don't see the huge advantage of 4:2:2 when it's still 8 bit H.264, it didn't make a noticeable difference on the 5D Mark III and the difference won't be nearly as noticeable at 4K. The bigger issue is the media. I have no complaints about using CFast 2.0, but it's necessary for the 8 bit H.264 issue. The big problem is that you cannot shoot 4K on the SD card. However an even bigger problem is the fact that you can't record 1080 from the camera to save space without having an SD card, both cards are required if you want flexibility during run and gun.

I will compromise something here and there for stunning looking images or for the ability to be compact and portable. The 5D Mark III with ML Raw is a perfect example, I recorded audio externally for the awesome image when needed. But this camera is full of compromise after compromise after compromise. It doesn't make my job easier and doesn't allow me to be more creative. The RX10 MK2, GH4 and NX1 are currently at the top of the list for my smaller camera, not this one. My 5D Mark III replacement is so far looking like the A7R 2, I'll wait until the 5D Mark IV and A7S 2 to make a decision.

 

[Bernard]

Probably so, but if you are that serious about it, not sure the XC10 would necessarily be the ticket.

I think I see where the misunderstanding is. You are thinking in terms of single-camera narrative shoots, in which case you need maximum versatility and don't mind some inconvenience such as frequent battery changes and lens adapters.

I see this camera as a convenient way to get additional coverage for non-scripted events (weddings obviously, but also corporate and documentary). Put it on a tripod somewhere (the long zoom range gives you lots of flex), hit record, and grab it when you wrap. It's self-contained (no external recorder, external battery pack, lens adapter, cage, etc), you can crop the 4K to tweak you framing, you get a decent audio guide track, and you can grab it for some hand-held inserts without re-rigging. Most of all, you've now got a lot more coverage for editing.

For instance, if you are shooting a corporate presentation (we don't always work on Hollywood blockbusters!), you can set this up at the back of the hall for your master shot, and operate a different camera for your close-ups. Having a small, light, uncomplicated B-Cam is a godsend when your are running a show single-handed.

 

[EduPortas]

...
Video wise, that F2.8-5.6 is not
completely irrational)
...

Please elaborate on that statement. I shoot video since 1986, and worked over two decades by now in feature film film production, but you are the first one who can see an advantage in it. I'm really interested where you see a positive aspect of it. I have obviously missed it so far. Thanks. (I hope I do not sound like a Forum Troll here, if so sorry, not my intention)

Of course, my friend. I'll speak for myself here because of the type of work that I do and and that I like to watch. The basic advantage of using a videocamera versus a DSLR is the combination of a smallish sensor and a lens that behaves properly within a considerable zoom range. That seems to be the case with the XC10.

Generally, you'll get deep DOF with that combo with the added benefit of portability. A F1.4 lens that's soft wide open serves no function, FOR ME, even if it lets in a lot of light into my videocamera. I find DSLRs notoriously difficult to work with because most of them were not designed with video as their priority. Since Canon's 5D Mark II, of course, DSLRs have a special "video allure" that's only justified if you really know how to properly use them. I would much rather work with a solid parfocal system.

That's what I meant with my statement. I'd gladly pay for the XC10 if Canon delivered a 4K video-centric product that made my ENG easier and be somewhat affordable. Canon ergonomics are welcome.

I'm afraid you misunderstood drs's question. We understand the advantage of small sensors and convenient to use ENG bodies. However, we have issues with the lens itself. This camera is marketed as a professional video camera that is affordable, convenient and ergonomic. However, we are presented with a camera that barely meets the requirements for a professional camera and it's not convenient. For what it has to offer, it is not affordable when compared to the competition.

Before I go any further, I'd like to point out that I'm actually in the market for cameras like these. Like drs, I work in the industry and make a living off of it. I feel that I am a potential target for this camera since I'm looking to upgrade cameras soon. I'll be purchasing a camera in the 3-6K range that would match well with a larger camera that I would rent when needed. I'll also go for a camera that is similar to the description of the XC10, however, I don't feel that the XC10 lives up to its description.

The first issue is that lens! A lot of the arguments that people are making is that this is great for run and gun. But a lens that will change the aperture from 2.8 to 5.6 when zooming in would be a nightmare when getting into lower light situations, especially with that small of a sensor. Combine with it not being that wide and permanent, it is a total buzz kill. This is a terrible lens for run and gun work. There's also reviews saying that the lens will sometimes zoom in when tilted down on a drone while the drone is gaining elevation and lack of lens control, there's better options out there for drone work. It also lack XLR audio and the headphone jack is in an odd spot.

A lot of people are pointing out that it has 4:2:2. I don't see the huge advantage of 4:2:2 when it's still 8 bit H.264, it didn't make a noticeable difference on the 5D Mark III and the difference won't be nearly as noticeable at 4K. The bigger issue is the media. I have no complaints about using CFast 2.0, but it's necessary for the 8 bit H.264 issue. The big problem is that you cannot shoot 4K on the SD card. However an even bigger problem is the fact that you can't record 1080 from the camera to save space without having an SD card, both cards are required if you want flexibility during run and gun.

I will compromise something here and there for stunning looking images or for the ability to be compact and portable. The 5D Mark III with ML Raw is a perfect example, I recorded audio externally for the awesome image when needed. But this camera is full of compromise after compromise after compromise. It doesn't make my job easier and doesn't allow me to be more creative. The RX10 MK2, GH4 and NX1 are currently at the top of the list for my smaller camera, not this one. My 5D Mark III replacement is so far looking like the A7R 2, I'll wait until the 5D Mark IV and A7S 2 to make a decision.

Yes, I agree with practically everything you said. I'm with you here.

The lens is of course a compromise, but so is every bright zoom mounted on the DLSRs we use for our work. They are big and heavy.

Since I generally shoot between F5.6 and F8 I think the XC10 would not be wholly unreasonable for my purposes.

I'm really over the "shallow as paper" look. I enjoy deep DOF and enjoy when I see it in big productions

from the past and present. It just seems nicer to me.

 

[unfocused]

I never understand the complaining whenever Canon introduces a product that isn't exactly what fits individual needs. If it isn't the camera for you, then just move on. Why try to argue it isn't useful or appropriate for anyone?

I'm intrigued by this camera. I'll wait for reviews, for the price to drop and to see if the video side of my business takes off. But I'm not seeing anything that would be a deal killer for me and I'm seeing a lot to like.

 

[CanoSony]

I never understand the complaining whenever Canon introduces a product that isn't exactly what fits individual needs. If it isn't the camera for you, then just move on. Why try to argue it isn't useful or appropriate for anyone?

I'm intrigued by this camera. I'll wait for reviews, for the price to drop and to see if the video side of my business takes off. But I'm not seeing anything that would be a deal killer for me and I'm seeing a lot to like.

how about the Sony RX10 II at $1300?

4k

jello free video

face track AF

oh did I not mention $1000 LESS?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hiP01WoxVIw

Eye AF of the rx100 m4, same internals, just different lens.

 

[Bernard]

how about the Sony RX10 II at $1300?

Once more, it's not a true video camera. It's a consumer point-and-shoot that happens to do video.

What's the difference? The video codec is so compressed (to get 4K to fit in cheap SD cards) that you can only do minimal correction in post. A battery that is designed to last just long enough for a child's birthday party. Ergonomics that are mostly for hand-held stills shooting. A zoom that pops-out like Pinocchio's nose, so you can't use it on a Steadicam (you need to re-balance for every focal length).

All of these issues have workarounds, but you need to ask yourself why your time is worth so little. Why are you wasting valuable shooting/post hours trying to compensate for using the wrong tool? Are you there to create great work, or just to operate a camera?

I'm not saying that you can't do good video work with adapted consumer stills cameras, I'm just saying that it's more difficult. The time you spend trying to make your camera work for you is time that you can't spend making your final product better.

 

[jeffa4444]

...
Video wise, that F2.8-5.6 is not
completely irrational)
...

Please elaborate on that statement. I shoot video since 1986, and worked over two decades by now in feature film film production, but you are the first one who can see an advantage in it. I'm really interested where you see a positive aspect of it. I have obviously missed it so far. Thanks. (I hope I do not sound like a Forum Troll here, if so sorry, not my intention)

Of course, my friend. I'll speak for myself here because of the type of work that I do and and that I like to watch. The basic advantage of using a videocamera versus a DSLR is the combination of a smallish sensor and a lens that behaves properly within a considerable zoom range. That seems to be the case with the XC10.

Generally, you'll get deep DOF with that combo with the added benefit of portability. A F1.4 lens that's soft wide open serves no function, FOR ME, even if it lets in a lot of light into my videocamera. I find DSLRs notoriously difficult to work with because most of them were not designed with video as their priority. Since Canon's 5D Mark II, of course, DSLRs have a special "video allure" that's only justified if you really know how to properly use them. I would much rather work with a solid parfocal system.

That's what I meant with my statement. I'd gladly pay for the XC10 if Canon delivered a 4K video-centric product that made my ENG easier and be somewhat affordable. Canon ergonomics are welcome.

I'm afraid you misunderstood drs's question. We understand the advantage of small sensors and convenient to use ENG bodies. However, we have issues with the lens itself. This camera is marketed as a professional video camera that is affordable, convenient and ergonomic. However, we are presented with a camera that barely meets the requirements for a professional camera and it's not convenient. For what it has to offer, it is not affordable when compared to the competition.

Before I go any further, I'd like to point out that I'm actually in the market for cameras like these. Like drs, I work in the industry and make a living off of it. I feel that I am a potential target for this camera since I'm looking to upgrade cameras soon. I'll be purchasing a camera in the 3-6K range that would match well with a larger camera that I would rent when needed. I'll also go for a camera that is similar to the description of the XC10, however, I don't feel that the XC10 lives up to its description.

The first issue is that lens! A lot of the arguments that people are making is that this is great for run and gun. But a lens that will change the aperture from 2.8 to 5.6 when zooming in would be a nightmare when getting into lower light situations, especially with that small of a sensor. Combine with it not being that wide and permanent, it is a total buzz kill. This is a terrible lens for run and gun work. There's also reviews saying that the lens will sometimes zoom in when tilted down on a drone while the drone is gaining elevation and lack of lens control, there's better options out there for drone work. It also lack XLR audio and the headphone jack is in an odd spot.

A lot of people are pointing out that it has 4:2:2. I don't see the huge advantage of 4:2:2 when it's still 8 bit H.264, it didn't make a noticeable difference on the 5D Mark III and the difference won't be nearly as noticeable at 4K. The bigger issue is the media. I have no complaints about using CFast 2.0, but it's necessary for the 8 bit H.264 issue. The big problem is that you cannot shoot 4K on the SD card. However an even bigger problem is the fact that you can't record 1080 from the camera to save space without having an SD card, both cards are required if you want flexibility during run and gun.

I will compromise something here and there for stunning looking images or for the ability to be compact and portable. The 5D Mark III with ML Raw is a perfect example, I recorded audio externally for the awesome image when needed. But this camera is full of compromise after compromise after compromise. It doesn't make my job easier and doesn't allow me to be more creative. The RX10 MK2, GH4 and NX1 are currently at the top of the list for my smaller camera, not this one. My 5D Mark III replacement is so far looking like the A7R 2, I'll wait until the 5D Mark IV and A7S 2 to make a decision.

Yes, I agree with practically everything you said. I'm with you here.

The lens is of course a compromise, but so is every bright zoom mounted on the DLSRs we use for our work. They are big and heavy.

Since I generally shoot between F5.6 and F8 I think the XC10 would not be wholly unreasonable for my purposes.

I'm really over the "shallow as paper" look. I enjoy deep DOF and enjoy when I see it in big productions

from the past and present. It just seems nicer to me.

As a director in a very large camera rental company servicing numerous high end features we have seen all kinds of cameras used for action movies from 2/3" surveilance cameras, BM pocket cameras to Canon 5D MKII / Canon 7D / Canon 1DC all the way up to Canon C300s. These are normally used for very brief cut-away shots where space, safety or cost is an issue (i.e. cost of writing it off a movie camera with a lens can get very expensive to replace). We have bought ONE XC10 purely as a lower cost almost throw away camera as an option on these types of movie, for many that would seem almost lavish but its cheaper than adapting many other cameras because manpower is our largest cost when we do so. Its never going to be a mainstream camera, but it may have its place and then again if it doesnt its a minimal risk. As for CFast current Arri Alexa and Arri Amira camera use CFast and if the camera is used on these jobs (excluding Raw where Codex is the preferred option on the Alexa) then its standardised media.

 

[drs]

...
Video wise, that F2.8-5.6 is not
completely irrational)
...

Please elaborate on that statement. I shoot video since 1986, and worked over two decades by now in feature film film production, but you are the first one who can see an advantage in it. I'm really interested where you see a positive aspect of it. I have obviously missed it so far. Thanks. (I hope I do not sound like a Forum Troll here, if so sorry, not my intention)

Of course, my friend. I'll speak for myself here because of the type of work that I do and and that I like to watch. The basic advantage of using a videocamera versus a DSLR is the combination of a smallish sensor and a lens that behaves properly within a considerable zoom range. That seems to be the case with the XC10.

Generally, you'll get deep DOF with that combo with the added benefit of portability. A F1.4 lens that's soft wide open serves no function, FOR ME, even if it lets in a lot of light into my videocamera. I find DSLRs notoriously difficult to work with because most of them were not designed with video as their priority. Since Canon's 5D Mark II, of course, DSLRs have a special "video allure" that's only justified if you really know how to properly use them. I would much rather work with a solid parfocal system.

That's what I meant with my statement. I'd gladly pay for the XC10 if Canon delivered a 4K video-centric product that made my ENG easier and be somewhat affordable. Canon ergonomics are welcome.

Thanks, but that doesn't really elaborate on your statement that I quoted.
My concern was more about the F/2.8 to F/5.6. If you light a set, the smallest F-stop dictates the needed amount of light. I wish Canon would have got this right. I'm certainly invested in Canon, but for digital cinema capture, I use something else, with, e.g., EF mount, to stay in the family.
This camera could have been a great starter or B-Camera (as in back-up camera ;o) and would have found a place in my boxes. But the F-stop idea that they placed here, I really don't get it. Perhaps in v2.
Thanks again for your patience with my question. )

 

[drs]

As a director in a very large camera rental company servicing numerous high end features we have seen all kinds of cameras used for action movies from 2/3" surveilance cameras, BM pocket cameras to Canon 5D MKII / Canon 7D / Canon 1DC all the way up to Canon C300s. These are normally used for very brief cut-away shots where space, safety or cost is an issue (i.e. cost of writing it off a movie camera with a lens can get very expensive to replace). We have bought ONE XC10 purely as a lower cost almost throw away camera as an option on these types of movie, for many that would seem almost lavish but its cheaper than adapting many other cameras because manpower is our largest cost when we do so. Its never going to be a mainstream camera, but it may have its place and then again if it doesnt its a minimal risk. As for CFast current Arri Alexa and Arri Amira camera use CFast and if the camera is used on these jobs (excluding Raw where Codex is the preferred option on the Alexa) then its standardised media.

As a "crash camera" -- of course I can see that. I can't see that this was Canon's main idea of it, though ;o)

 

[drs]

I'm afraid you misunderstood drs's question. We understand the advantage of small sensors and convenient to use ENG bodies. However, we have issues with the lens itself. This camera is marketed as a professional video camera that is affordable, convenient and ergonomic. However, we are presented with a camera that barely meets the requirements for a professional camera and it's not convenient. For what it has to offer, it is not affordable when compared to the competition.

Before I go any further, I'd like to point out that I'm actually in the market for cameras like these. Like drs, I work in the industry and make a living off of it. I feel that I am a potential target for this camera since I'm looking to upgrade cameras soon. I'll be purchasing a camera in the 3-6K range that would match well with a larger camera that I would rent when needed. I'll also go for a camera that is similar to the description of the XC10, however, I don't feel that the XC10 lives up to its description.

The first issue is that lens! A lot of the arguments that people are making is that this is great for run and gun. But a lens that will change the aperture from 2.8 to 5.6 when zooming in would be a nightmare when getting into lower light situations, especially with that small of a sensor. Combine with it not being that wide and permanent, it is a total buzz kill. This is a terrible lens for run and gun work. There's also reviews saying that the lens will sometimes zoom in when tilted down on a drone while the drone is gaining elevation and lack of lens control, there's better options out there for drone work. It also lack XLR audio and the headphone jack is in an odd spot.

A lot of people are pointing out that it has 4:2:2. I don't see the huge advantage of 4:2:2 when it's still 8 bit H.264, it didn't make a noticeable difference on the 5D Mark III and the difference won't be nearly as noticeable at 4K. The bigger issue is the media. I have no complaints about using CFast 2.0, but it's necessary for the 8 bit H.264 issue. The big problem is that you cannot shoot 4K on the SD card. However an even bigger problem is the fact that you can't record 1080 from the camera to save space without having an SD card, both cards are required if you want flexibility during run and gun.

I will compromise something here and there for stunning looking images or for the ability to be compact and portable. The 5D Mark III with ML Raw is a perfect example, I recorded audio externally for the awesome image when needed. But this camera is full of compromise after compromise after compromise. It doesn't make my job easier and doesn't allow me to be more creative. The RX10 MK2, GH4 and NX1 are currently at the top of the list for my smaller camera, not this one. My 5D Mark III replacement is so far looking like the A7R 2, I'll wait until the 5D Mark IV and A7S 2 to make a decision.

Agreed, especially on the 8bit/channel part. Even in 4:2:2 and h.264. The biggest downside, all settings are baked into the file.

This might work if one gets the exposure right, and has no intention to grade. ;o) This seems to be the target audience, based on the specs of the camera.
The pleasure to work with raw is not just a luxury.
(My camera gives me natively 6K raw, and going back to 8bit, compressed, is not nice, to say it kindly)

I understand the price-point and the target audience. Canon can't deliver something that would come too close to the C line. But the lens, especially from Canon (!) could have been more though through.

 

[drs]

Great thread, great discussion, thanks to everyone. )

 

[EduPortas]

...
Video wise, that F2.8-5.6 is not
completely irrational)
...

Please elaborate on that statement. I shoot video since 1986, and worked over two decades by now in feature film film production, but you are the first one who can see an advantage in it. I'm really interested where you see a positive aspect of it. I have obviously missed it so far. Thanks. (I hope I do not sound like a Forum Troll here, if so sorry, not my intention)

Of course, my friend. I'll speak for myself here because of the type of work that I do and and that I like to watch. The basic advantage of using a videocamera versus a DSLR is the combination of a smallish sensor and a lens that behaves properly within a considerable zoom range. That seems to be the case with the XC10.

Generally, you'll get deep DOF with that combo with the added benefit of portability. A F1.4 lens that's soft wide open serves no function, FOR ME, even if it lets in a lot of light into my videocamera. I find DSLRs notoriously difficult to work with because most of them were not designed with video as their priority. Since Canon's 5D Mark II, of course, DSLRs have a special "video allure" that's only justified if you really know how to properly use them. I would much rather work with a solid parfocal system.

That's what I meant with my statement. I'd gladly pay for the XC10 if Canon delivered a 4K video-centric product that made my ENG easier and be somewhat affordable. Canon ergonomics are welcome.

Thanks, but that doesn't really elaborate on your statement that I quoted.
My concern was more about the F/2.8 to F/5.6. If you light a set, the smallest F-stop dictates the needed amount of light. I wish Canon would have got this right. I'm certainly invested in Canon, but for digital cinema capture, I use something else, with, e.g., EF mount, to stay in the family.
This camera could have been a great starter or B-Camera (as in back-up camera ;o) and would have found a place in my boxes. But the F-stop idea that they placed here, I really don't get it. Perhaps in v2.
Thanks again for your patience with my question. )

I'm thinking Canon decided on that aperture for practical reasons. This a hybrid cam, per their documentation.

Anything brighter and we're into a different league of videocams?

of size/weight.

 

[KrisK]

Agreed, especially on the 8bit/channel part. Even in 4:2:2 and h.264. The biggest downside, all settings are baked into the file.

This might work if one gets the exposure right, and has no intention to grade. ;o) This seems to be the target audience, based on the specs of the camera.
The pleasure to work with raw is not just a luxury.
(My camera gives me natively 6K raw, and going back to 8bit, compressed, is not nice, to say it kindly)

But doesn't the C100 Mark II also record 8-bit, and pump 8-bit out the HDMI port?

How do folks manage with that camera (or the C100), footage from which I've always found to be lovely? (Do the profiles offer more customization, etc.?)

 

[Bernard]

But doesn't the C100 Mark II also record 8-bit, and pump 8-bit out the HDMI port?

As always on the internet, something that's good enough for blockbusters that are enjoyed by tens of millions of people around the world isn't good enough for someone commenting about a camera he/she has never used.

People get so obsessed with "Top Trumps" features (50 million ISO, F:0.9!) that they don't realize that these features are irrelevant to film-making 99.9% of the time.

 

[Tugela]

(Contrary to the above poster, I don't mind a deep DOF. In fact, now I

actively search for it when in the field. Video wise, that F2.8-5.6 is not

completely irrational)

Thanks for that. I do wish people would comment on what the camera IS rather than what it's not.

Another sample. Graded footage shows nice color; hightlight rolloff nicer to my eye than the Sony 1" (e.g. X70, AX100.)

https://youtu.be/_Z-lvv1H19Q

Very soft, with massive purple fringing evident at 1:11

 

[Tugela]

...
Video wise, that F2.8-5.6 is not
completely irrational)
...

Please elaborate on that statement. I shoot video since 1986, and worked over two decades by now in feature film film production, but you are the first one who can see an advantage in it. I'm really interested where you see a positive aspect of it. I have obviously missed it so far. Thanks. (I hope I do not sound like a Forum Troll here, if so sorry, not my intention)

Of course, my friend. I'll speak for myself here because of the type of work that I do and and that I like to watch. The basic advantage of using a videocamera versus a DSLR is the combination of a smallish sensor and a lens that behaves properly within a considerable zoom range. That seems to be the case with the XC10.

Generally, you'll get deep DOF with that combo with the added benefit of portability. A F1.4 lens that's soft wide open serves no function, FOR ME, even if it lets in a lot of light into my videocamera. I find DSLRs notoriously difficult to work with because most of them were not designed with video as their priority. Since Canon's 5D Mark II, of course, DSLRs have a special "video allure" that's only justified if you really know how to properly use them. I would much rather work with a solid parfocal system.

That's what I meant with my statement. I'd gladly pay for the XC10 if Canon delivered a 4K video-centric product that made my ENG easier and be somewhat affordable. Canon ergonomics are welcome.

DSLRs are terrible for shooting video with, but the current enthusiast level MILCs are much friendlier to use. Cameras such as the GH4/NX1/a7rII will outperform things like the 5DIII and 7DII by a big margin.

 

[Tugela]

how about the Sony RX10 II at $1300?

Once more, it's not a true video camera. It's a consumer point-and-shoot that happens to do video.

What's the difference? The video codec is so compressed (to get 4K to fit in cheap SD cards) that you can only do minimal correction in post. A battery that is designed to last just long enough for a child's birthday party. Ergonomics that are mostly for hand-held stills shooting. A zoom that pops-out like Pinocchio's nose, so you can't use it on a Steadicam (you need to re-balance for every focal length).

All of these issues have workarounds, but you need to ask yourself why your time is worth so little. Why are you wasting valuable shooting/post hours trying to compensate for using the wrong tool? Are you there to create great work, or just to operate a camera?

I'm not saying that you can't do good video work with adapted consumer stills cameras, I'm just saying that it's more difficult. The time you spend trying to make your camera work for you is time that you can't spend making your final product better.

Any professional who requires serious grading is going to be using a proper video camera, not an XC10. The people who use the XC10 are not going to be grading anything. It is supposed to be intended as a portable camera for reporters and the like. Anything shot by them is going to be used as is after transcoding into a usable format.

Something like the RX10MII is a far better choice for that sort of application than the XC10. And it can take real photograph as well.

 

[Bernard]

The people who use the XC10 are not going to be grading anything. (...)
Something like the RX10MII is a far better choice for that sort of application than the XC10.

I don't fully understand this defeatist logic: "my videos will never amount to much, therefore I may as well just use some cheap point-and-shoot."

We should all be doing some amount of grading, if only to match colour, exposure and contrast between shots. There's a world of difference between the amount of bandwidth you can store on a C-Fast card and the amount you can store on a point-and-shoot that's been tuned to work with any cheap SD card.

Look at what BlackMagic is doing: they give you a list of 2 or 3 top-end (expensive) SD cards and bluntly tell you that their cameras won't work with anything else. And that's just for their HD cameras, they don't consider any SD card good enough for 4K.

If you think your work is not worthy of grading, then I can't argue with that. What I can argue with is the fact that you extend that judgment to all film makers, as if somehow we should all accept the same huge quality compromises that come with recording 4K at ultra-low bit rates.

I know that the XC-10 is entry-level, and that means compromises. Canon, with their long video history, has decided to go for higher bandwidth and better usability, at the expense of headline features like lens speed and maximum ISO. I respect their choice, and I think that many film makers will benefit from it.

 

[meywd]

The people who use the XC10 are not going to be grading anything. (...)
Something like the RX10MII is a far better choice for that sort of application than the XC10.

I don't fully understand this defeatist logic: "my videos will never amount to much, therefore I may as well just use some cheap point-and-shoot."

We should all be doing some amount of grading, if only to match colour, exposure and contrast between shots. There's a world of difference between the amount of bandwidth you can store on a C-Fast card and the amount you can store on a point-and-shoot that's been tuned to work with any cheap SD card.

Look at what BlackMagic is doing: they give you a list of 2 or 3 top-end (expensive) SD cards and bluntly tell you that their cameras won't work with anything else. And that's just for their HD cameras, they don't consider any SD card good enough for 4K.

If you think your work is not worthy of grading, then I can't argue with that. What I can argue with is the fact that you extend that judgment to all film makers, as if somehow we should all accept the same huge quality compromises that come with recording 4K at ultra-low bit rates.

I know that the XC-10 is entry-level, and that means compromises. Canon, with their long video history, has decided to go for higher bandwidth and better usability, at the expense of headline features like lens speed and maximum ISO. I respect their choice, and I think that many film makers will benefit from it.

+1 , and why want 4k if you are not serious enough to grade?