Serious Sam: The pro kit is currently selling for almost 3K (well 2.9)in Australia. This is same price as grey import D750 Kit. They need to drop the price by at least 30% to make it worth while to look at
For those who is welling to hand over 3K to Samsung for a Camera, you must be:1 Clueless2 Very Rich3 Korean
or mix of the above.....
I love the what they say in the video made by TCSTV "The Mirrorless Party 2015" You can watch it here https://youtu.be/eplN_wI0AbA
Who is this Samsung........:P
Hmm that kit includes a 16-50mm f2-2.8 lens which is by itself a $1300 lens. Why would you compare that price to a body only price? NX1 body sells for $1300 which is significantly cheaper than the Canon 7D II at $1700 and only $100 more than the Nikon D7200.
random78: Great job at a nice, balanced review! NX1 seems like a great camera. Hoping that NX500 retains much of its attributes (except obviously the 15FPS).
Yeah the 2.3x crop in the video is a shame, but to be fair to Samsung scaling the 28MP frames to 4K at 30FPS as NX1 does will require a lot more processing than simply cropping. And given the significantly lower price point (and smaller battery) they probably can't include as heavy a processor in NX500 as NX1. 5 shots buffer is definitely small. My main worry though is low light AF. Other than that everything looks good!
Great job at a nice, balanced review! NX1 seems like a great camera. Hoping that NX500 retains much of its attributes (except obviously the 15FPS).
NameFinder: Deja Vu - MV1 reloaded:
It was 1997, when Canon launched a "hybrid camera" ("convergence camera" it is called here) named OPTURA MV1. Of course, this was not a 4K cam but a dv cam - however, the ergonomics and over-all concept looked quite comparable to the XC10.
The web address below lists 3 recording modes:field movie modeframe movie modephoto mode
To "visit" e.g. here: http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/dvc/data/1997-2001/1997_mv1.html?lang=us&categ=crn&page=1997-2001&p=2
@Richard. I think you guys are degrading the "news environment" a bit too much to try and prove your point. The simple fact is that there already are cameras like GH4 and A7s, and to a lesser extent FZ1000, which are simultaneously full-capability video devices as well as full-capability still devices. They don't compromise one for the other. It would be obvious to anyone that apart from the grip, these devices provide a far better convergence of video + stills capabilities than the CX10 which is just above average as a video camera and below average as a stills camera. Why would your news agency prefer a CX10 over a GH4+14-140mm combo which costs less money and which can do better video than CX10 and far better stills.
So it looks like your idea of a universal capture device revolves around one which is good at video but can be mediocre at stills, as opposed to many other devices already released which are equally good at both stills and videos. Honestly you guys should stop defending your stance as it is not holding any water no matter how many arguments you make.
Also I am sure you know that video is normally shot at shutter speed like 1/30 or 1/60s which is often not fast enough for stills specially in dynamic situations as found in the field where you guys argue XC10 would be use. And if you shoot video at higher shutter speeds then it feels weird and not cinematic. So as good as the idea of an 8MP still grab out of video looks on paper, it is far from a generally useful approach.
KonstantinosK: No RAW photos so how can this be a serious tool for photographers?
And yet the same news organizations which will be content with 1" sensor jpegs shot with an f5.6 lens due to simplicity and speed, will insist on 4K video resolution with a 300Mbps codec and 10-bit color. Hmmmm. OK.
Donnie G: What makes the Canon XC10 better or more brilliant than the GH4, A7s, NX1, etc.? Well, instead of building a "me too" version of those other cameras, Canon chose to create the 1st. affordable, purpose built, multi-media device for today's up and coming multi-media professionals. Traditional enthusiasts are not the target audience, although many of the ergonomic and other design elements, such as the clip on viewfinder, will surely find their way into products designed for enthusiasts in the near future. Meanwhile, Canon will sell millions of these new multi-media cameras to those who do see the brilliance and bang for the buck in its design. Great job Canon! Great article DPR! :))
Newspaper journalists have also used iPhones in their reporting, and it does take video as well. Maybe they already have what they need and we are arguing for nothing :) I wonder why is it that we need top of the line specs in video with 4K resolution and 300Mbps codec but so relaxed about still image quality. Could it be because we are talking about a camera which is primarily made for video? :)
random78: So after reading the updated article it is still not clear that other than the codec what does XC10 offer to make it more worthy of the revolutionary convergence device. As I wrote in a comment below, its still image capabilities are not even up to par with good P&S cameras. How can you call it a true convergence device given that it doesn't even shoot RAW images, lacks basic image controls like exposure bracketing, has rudimentary continuous shooting at 3.8FPS, has a maximum shutter speed of only 1/2000s and so on. It is clearly a camcorder with rudimentary image capture support like all previous camcorders. I am sorry to say but other than the grip, it is a far mediocre convergence device than say FZ1000 or RX10.
With all due respect Dale a convergence device at least has to have the basic features that most $300 P&S would have today. Sorry but I maintain that in your enthusiasm for ergonomics you have assigned a greater title to this camera than it deserves.
Hmm how many of those sports shooters will take jpegs from a 1" sensor? and will be willing to work with 3.8FPS continuous shooting? Anyways. Yes the article was discussing ergonomics, but unfortunately went out to claim that XC10 is the first true convergence device based purely on the ergonomics when the rest of the specification clearly don't match that title. If the article only claimed that XC10 delivers the first true convergence in camera ergonomics then yes I am all with them. It is a very exciting development. Have a great day.
Fair enough, so FZ1000 is only as good as XC10 in terms of IS, not better :)
"Many PJs shoot only JPGs." - not with a 1" sensor.
"FZ1000 is at f/4.0 already at 175mm or so". Given that the XC10 is f5.6 @ 240mm, it is highly likely that it will be f5.6 by the time it hits 175mm.
Yes I can see the gist that it is a "true convergence" device because its ergonomics are designed for both. I think that is a great thing that Canon has done. However I dislike the fact that article ignores the fact that apart from the grip on actual imaging and videos capabilities, it is still first and foremost a video camera with rudimentary stills support unlike the cameras it is being compared to which carry full spec stills as well as full spec video capabilities which to my mind makes them more worthy of true convergence device title. Anyways. I have said the same thing about 10 times. Not going to repeat it again.
So after reading the updated article it is still not clear that other than the codec what does XC10 offer to make it more worthy of the revolutionary convergence device. As I wrote in a comment below, its still image capabilities are not even up to par with good P&S cameras. How can you call it a true convergence device given that it doesn't even shoot RAW images, lacks basic image controls like exposure bracketing, has rudimentary continuous shooting at 3.8FPS, has a maximum shutter speed of only 1/2000s and so on. It is clearly a camcorder with rudimentary image capture support like all previous camcorders. I am sorry to say but other than the grip, it is a far mediocre convergence device than say FZ1000 or RX10.
Which is why they decided to make a "Me too" version of RX10 and FZ1000 :) What extra does it offer to the multi-media professionals over the FZ1000 which also offers 4K video with the same size 1" sensor AND has far better specifications for stills? CX10 can't even shoot RAW still images. The FZ1000 supports 12FPS shooting as opposed to 3.8FPS on XC10, it has a 25-400mm f2.8-4 lens compared to the 24-240mm f2.8-5.6 on the XC10. It supports 5-axis optical image stabilization in 4K mode, which XC10 doesn't. It has a fully articulated LCD, more versatile than the XC10's tilting screen. It has 1/16000 maximum shutter speed as opposed to 1/2000 in XC10. FZ1000 has closer focusing abilities. FZ1000 has built-in EVF. XC10 doesn't even seem to have any exposure bracketing options.
XC10 is a camcorder, not a "convergence" device - a title far more suitable for cameras like FZ1000, RX10 or LX100.
Bjorn_L: This reads like it was written by a fanboy not an analyst.
If you need 4k, then the lack of stabilization would seem to be a deal killer on this. Particularly when combined with the slow lens. The Gh4 simply seems a better solution. It too has all-in-one solutions which cover the same range but don't give up stabilized 4k video. Sealed lenses too, if you want that. Plus you have the option of using f/1.4 or even f/0.95 lenses and high end add-ons. Ultimately the gh4 seems to be a better solution and while you can add many $1000s in add-ons to it, to achieve the modest specs of the xc10 you could do so at a lower price point.
If you don't need 4k video (and very few really do) then the Sony rx10 seems a better solution. The lens takes in 4x as much light at the long end. It is wider and about as long. The rx10 has the same DR & bit rate, stabilized zoom, sealed lens.
I fail to see how this is worth considering by anyone not just in love with it because of the brand.
@Joseph: Yes the lens is always stabilized. Though the 5-axis stabilization is only offered electronically and thus only in 1080P. In 4K mode you don't get the 5-axis IS. The "consumer" grade FZ1000 though has 5-axis optical image stabilization which is available in 4K as well. Again I don't want to sound like FZ1000 fanboy. XC10 might turn out to be an exceptionally great camera. What is turning a lot of us off is the hype that has been given to this camera by DPReview when on the surface other than the 300Mbps All-I codec and the grip, it doesn't seem to have anything revolutionary over existing cameras. Better does not equal revolutionary. In any case lets wait for DPReview's updated article to hear their thoughts before we argue any further.
Dale Baskin: Since there have been a lot of questions/comments about this camera relative to cameras like the FZ1000 we've decided to put together a small addendum to add to the article that may clarify the differences between cameras. (Which is why I'm not hanging out here responding to comments.) I'll post a message as soon as it's up.
Unlike dpreview which thinks that XC10 is so much out of league of FZ1000 that it doesn't even warrant a mention in the article, filmmakers at EOSHD which actually use these hybrid cameras, are giving a far more lukewarm response to XC10:
Andrew Reid clearly doesn't think XC10 offers anything of signifcance over the FZ1000 and actually recommends getting an LX100 over the XC10. His final comment "This camera tarnishes the Cinema EOS brand."
Angrymagpie: Native advertising makes its way to dpreview?
@Barney: That may be the case but would you care to elaborate in the article what makes CX10 that much more Pro oriented compared to FZ1000 or RX10. I don't think it is obvious to a lot of readers. When most of us read about a 1" sensor fixed lens camera with 4K video the first question that comes to mind is that isn't it what FZ1000 already is. As a reviewer we look to you to educate us on why XC10 is not just Canon's version of FZ1000 and what makes it stand out. This is the first question that will come up in the mind of anyone familiar with recent photographic landscape and not addressing that it is a glaring omission in the article.
random78: Come on, DPReview folks. Of all the places you already know that RX10 and FZ1000 already deliver the same capabilities. Specially FZ1000 as it also has the 4K and at a much lower price point. So why publish an article that pretends as if this is the first revolutionary camera to do this?
@joseph. I think you are missing the point. Sure XC10 may have a better lens, or somewhat better high ISO performance etc. We don't know yet if that's the case but maybe that is the case. However, DPReview is hailing XC10 as a revolutionary camera as it is providing a convergence of video and still shooting by providing 4K video as well as good stills capabilities with its 1" sensor. So the question is that is FZ1000 not providing the same convergence. All we are asking is that what is in the XC10 which is making it revolutionary compared to say FZ1000. I am not saying it is not. I am just trying to understand the reasons. Is it mainly the fact that its ergonomics are designed with both in mind? That may be a good enough reason but it would be great if DPReview clearly addresses that in the article instead of chosing to simpley ignore the two cameras FZ1000 and RX10 which are the closest to XC10 in their imaging and video capabilities.
Gerard Hoffnung: I read the first 2 paragraphs of this article and thought "this is going to to be a Canon hate fest in the comments", I wasn't disappointed. Apparently many commenters here are the only true arbiters of what is acceptable for the rest of us. I hope there are plenty of buyers for this camera, I certainly would love one if my budget ran to it.
I am not sure about any Canon hate. I still use a couple of Canon cameras and Canon DSLRs are still my favorite in terms of ergonomics and controls etc. However a lot of people are trying to understand what this $2500 canon is bringing to the table which is not already available in the $800 FZ1000. Does asking that question equate to hating Canon?
neatnclean: waht "big deal"? Basically it is nothing else but a late answer from Canon to Sony RX-10 ... with somewhat better (4k) video capabilities at a much higher price.
Would you please elaborate on those several ways and also encourage the dpreview authors to do the same in their article.