Ok, hang on a second... How did you take that picture of the horse jumping over you and not die??
Has anyone else noticed that on B&H it lists all of Canon's EOS Cinema cameras as "non-returnable"? Is that a common thing? At first I took it as a sign that maybe Canon is about to phase out all of these cameras for something new but if this is a normal thing with EOS cameras could someone let me know?
This is amazeballs. If I had the cash I'd get two of these right now.
That makes things MUCH better. Although I am still not sure its worth it over a GH4. I guess we will have to wait until sample footage comes out. If this thing can get decent low light footage then it might be enough to change my mind.
I am a journalist and while this camera has its merits I just don't see justifying this compared to what else I could have at a lower price point. I am actually ok with the built in lens but its hard to justify this as a "journalism" camera when the screen doesn't fold out for a one person filming set up.
This means I'd have to buy a monitor, that is not only added cost but its just another piece of gear I have to carry and power.
The other thing that is tentatively turning me off about this camera is that it appears that the 4k recording only works on CFast 2.0 cards and not CFast 1.0. This isn't confirmed but it hasn't been mentioned anywhere.
If its true and 4k recording only works with CFast 2.0 then that could considerably add to the cost as well. The cheapest CFast 2.0 card I found is $180 for a 32gb which isn't bad but it quickly goes up from there. The next cheapest is nearly $400.
So unless you're always going to be behind the camera and only planning to shoot in HD this $2,500 camera plus a decent HD monitor ($400) plus a CFast 2.0 card ($180) becomes a $3,000 plus camera.
Compare that to a GH4 with a built in flip out screen and no need for CFast 2.0 ($1,495), a basic lens ($165), and say $60 for a high speed 64gb SD card and you are at $1720. That's a $2,280 price difference.
Basically, you'd be paying $2,280 for a longer zoom and 205 mbps higher bit rate. Does it seem worth it at that point? I lean towards no. And I REALLY wanted to like this camera.
I am a OMB who shoots video and stills for a blog and while many people who have a higher level of experience than me are disappointed with this camera, to me it is almost perfect. The key word here is "ALMOST" and the few things that keep it from being perfect tick me off so much that it almost makes me want to give up on Canon all together.
I currently use a t2i (yes, that's how far behind I am) and have been racking my brain for months as to what I should get next. I want to really up the quality of my videos but I also need a capable stills shooter and I want to avoid having two bodies if at all possible.
I thought about the 70D but despite its cool autofocus, touch screen, and wifi, the no clean HDMI out, and similar low light performance as my t2i knocked it off the list. The 7D Mark II was next. It shoots great pictures and has awesome burst shot which is good for me since I shoot action stuff at least 3 times a year, and it has clean HDMI out. However, with 4k being more common now it seems ...like a missed opportunity to get something that can only shoot HD.
This brought me to Panasonic and Sony. I hesitate here since I am used to canon but the GH4 and A7 series cannot be denied. The GH4 has nearly everything I want (4k, burst shot, flip out screen, clean HDMI out, headphone jack, etc) but its low light performance is terrible. I need good low light performance since I shoot a lot at dim to dark environments (auto shows, conventions).
Then there is the Sony A7s. Small, full frame, amazing low light, but the camera is 2,500 for just the body and I'd need to put another 2,000 for 4k recording, and this is before the price of a lens or a metabones adapter.
So, now Canon announces this XC10 and really gets my hopes up. 4k, no need to buy a lens, no need to buy an external recorder, likely decent low light capability, workable stills shooting, but $2,500 and NO FLIP OUT SCREEN!
It annoyed me so much when the video kept referring to it as a great "journalist camera". How can they call it that when a lone journalist can't even see what they're filming until after they've filmed it?? It would be such a simple thing to make the screen flip out completely and articulate but they left it out. Why?? It just seems like a pattern with canon that they give you NEARLY everything you want but then leave out something simple yet extremely important. Its like they've turned into Apple!
I am crossing my fingers that Sony announces a price drop on the A7s or that Panasonic announces a new GH with better low light. Unless canon has some other surprise announcement in store, I think I may be finally fed up with them.