April 26, 2015 at 6:28PM

0

Canon XC10

Is it that bad? Everyone is bashing this, ok one can not have interchangeable lenses on it. The lens is f2.8-5.6 on a 1" sensor. Wich is really bad indeed, but then again the iso is up to 20 000. It is small, it has everything on it, it records in 4k, canon log, shallow depth of field will be a problem but do you really need shallow dof? I mean come on, a lot of hollywod pictures are not shot with shallow dof. Indeed the 5d revolution was a mistake by canon and they are crippling this camera. I am sure this little cam could have had interchangeable lenses with a bigger sensor, but that would have just slaughtered the c300. Also I feel that sometimes companies as they become bigger they purposely cripple their products. But is it that bad?

5 Comments

I think the question that you need to ask is... "Is the XC10 good value for $2,500 ?"

I find myself agreeing with Andrew Reid when it comes to this new camera...

Canon struck raw, EVF and brighter zoom from XC10 “for cost reasons”
http://www.eoshd.com/2015/04/canon-struck-raw-evf-and-brighter-zoom-from...

Looking at the other cameras you can buy for $2,500 ( including a used Canon C100 ), I'm not sure the XC10 is a good value.

April 26, 2015 at 7:38PM

3
Reply
Guy McLoughlin
Video Producer
32120

How are you not? Does the form factor not bother you at all? The c100 with a lens on it is significantly bigger and heavier. It does not record 4k. Ok you could say the gh4, but the gh4 does not have the low light capabilities of the xc10. And really, you just pick up the xc10 and just go. I can bring the xc10 with me in my backpack and shoot anywhere in the world. Good luck with just "putting the c100 with a lens in your backpack along with clothes and other stuff....does this not count?

April 26, 2015 at 7:49PM

0
Reply

I just read that article you mentioned. Yeah, unfortunately it's a crap camera for that price. Should have cost 799usd.

April 26, 2015 at 7:53PM, Edited April 26, 7:53PM

0
Reply

Come on, it's a portable 4k camcorder with a very useful ISO range and LP-E6 batteries, ready to use. Why doesn't anyone complain about the Ursa Mini using CFAST cards only (none included), no batteries (not even a battery plate) and no EVF included in the price?

April 27, 2015 at 5:58PM

0
Reply
avatar
Sten Rosendahl
Indie filmmaker
168

The XC-10 is going to be awesome. Forget about what people say, it's going to open up tons of creative possibilities and make it user friendly enough that you might be tempted to actually use it, and that's what matters. Canon haters and their knee jerk reactions to what they consider underwhelming "specs" are just noise. But if you can, try before you buy.

April 28, 2015 at 10:47PM

1
Reply
Derek Olson
Directomatographeditor
374

It's not "hating" or anything else than what little Canon is giving you for your money here. I heard this camera is (honestly) targeted at the 24 year old social media staffer who need to capture video from time to time. That makes sense. But at $2,499 it doesn't (for an individual, not corporation).

It also looks like they are licensing Sony's 1 inch chip from them again- hopefully with some tweaks to sensor scan speeds and high ISO noise- but still, you can get the (already very good, and not much different) Sony 4K AX100 for $1,699 right now. I got to use it for a few days and I don't really see what the Canon might offer that the Sony doesn't (aside from the tweaks I mentioned).

People would probably love this camera if it was priced at $1,500. The GH4 is priced fairly (and uses a bigger sensor), and there are some very good camcorders at $1K and under that do a great job with 4K. Since the lens on the XC-10 is so slow, there aren't any DOF benefits to the Canon. So shy of extraordinary and totally unelected amazing high ISO performance, it looks like a $1,000 to $1,500 camera. No Canon bashing, just Canon curiosity.

April 30, 2015 at 11:53PM, Edited April 30, 11:57PM

0
Reply

Let's see what the XC10 can do in low-light before judging. The Canon LOG and Wide DR are both nice and the Canon look is a must if you need to edit it together with C100/C300 footage, but if it's worse than the AX100 or PXW-X70 at high ISO/db, it won't cut it for my needs. And no, I won't compare it to the cheaper 4k bridge cameras, they're all excellent travelling companions on holidays but they have low bit-rate codecs, low light is pretty bad and they're all missing some features.

May 19, 2015 at 5:19AM

0
Reply
avatar
Sten Rosendahl
Indie filmmaker
168

Your Comment