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.
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.
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! :))
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.
@Joseph: OK let me rephrase it for you then. XC10 looks to have similar capabilities as models like FZ1000, which also has a 1" sensor, has a longer faster zoom lens, and offers native 4K recording and has 1/3rd the price of XC10. So you would expect that the article would at least talk about why XC10 is more revolutionary compared to those models, instead of not even mentioning them.
@Barney: Normally I am the first one to talk against conspiracy theories but this article from preview has been rather disappointing to me as well. It talks about GH4, NX1 etc but completely ignores the fact that what XC10 delivers has already been delivered by cameras like FZ1000 and that too at a much lower price. If XC10 is more revolutionary compared to say FZ1000 for some reason then the article should address that and clearly explain why you guys think that.
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?
Shiranai: Whats the difference between using this or just using a normal LED video light from say Yongnuo with 291 more LEDs and at the same time 12 times cheaper?And don't tell me the only difference is, that it "flashes" instead of being permanently on.
Yes it is niche product for sure. Though I would argue that there are quite a few uses of it and the reason you don't see this type of photography too often is because the equipment required for such work has so far been out of the reach of a normal user. At the same time as someone else pointed out, having a short powerful strobe is not enough. When you are trying to capture events so fast, you must also have the ability to fire the shutter at a precise moment.
@shiranai - you are a bit confused about how flashes work. As you mentioned yourself the shutter itself can only freeze the motion down to 1/8000 even in the best of the DSLRs today. However a short flash duration can allow you to capture events much faster than that. If the flash is on for only a 1/2M of a second then that means that your subject gets illuminated for only that short duration and that's the only duration in which your camera gets the light and captures the subject. For the rest of the time, even though the shutter is open since there is no light so the camera doesn't capture anything. So your effective exposure time is 1/2M second (assuming that the ambient light is negligible). However that exposure time is so short that unless the light is very powerful you will get a very underexposed subject. So the shorter the flash duration the faster is the motion you could capture, but the more powerful that "strobe" of light needs to be. Hope that helps.
mosc: So this sensor is a standard sensor? I still can't figure out if this technology requires any actual hardware or if it's just a multi-exposure + software amalgamation.
In a traditional camera, the lens focuses light rays from a single plane in the world to the sensor. So all the light rays that originate from a single point on that plane, converge precisely to a single point on the sensor. However the light rays from any plane in front of or behind the focus plane, get merged into each other giving you the out of focus blur. In other words the traditional camera only preserves information from one plane in the world. The lytro light field camera, introduces additional micro-lenses between the lens and the sensor which allow it to focus light rays from multiple planes to different pixels. In other words a light field camera is simultaneously recording information from multiple focus planes in the world. That's what allows the lytro camera to change focus plan after capture or create an "all-focus" image etc. However that also means that the number of pixels available to capture each focus plane are limited. That's why they have gone for 41MP sensor.
dark goob: I applaud DPreview for not mentioning "equivalence" in this article, and for not calling Super35 a "crop sensor".
I'm glad we've finally evolved beyond calling things "full-frame" vs. "crop". Clearly, when Canon's most advanced optics by far are made full-frame relative to Super35 (24.9x14mm), which is much smaller even than an 16:9 APS film frame, we are finally in the future where 135-format's long dominance over the cultural milieu has ended.
Maybe now DPreview would be open to switching to using Range Factor terminology. This lens is a 2.01:1–41.08:1 Range Factor. The ratio is D:W, where D=distance-to-subject, and W=width-across-frame. I.e. a 1-foot ruler will occupy the entire width of the frame left-to-right from 41.08 feet away at 1000mm. With the extender it increases to a max of 59.76:1.
"Compare" this to a Canon SX60HS which has a Range Factor of 0.62:1–39.55:1 on its 1/2.3"-format (6.2x4.6mm) sensor, which is a 27% crop of Super35.
@dark goob. You need to ease up man. Unfortunately people often think of arguments as black & white where one view is either completely correct or completely incorrect. I am not disagreeing to your basic ideas. I have in the past myself thought about similar schemes. However when I thought about my own schemes I realized two issues which are what I presented to you. First is the one which you did not address --- something like your range factor is not a property of the lens itself and depends on the sensor size used. What do you do when a lens can be mounted on multiple sensor sizes? How do you define the range factor of the lens in that case? Manufacturers today label lenses with actual focal length which is unambiguous. Second, people don't adopt a new system just because someone on a forum doesn't like the existing system. They do it only when the existing system has some limitations. When the existing system is working well then there is no incentive to switch to something else.
.....Now if we start using a different system like your range factor or AOV, then we have to develop the intuition all over again about what those mean. I don't really know how wide is a 50 degree AOV. The other issue which can potentially make such a scheme a big mess is that if you label a lens with say your Range Factor then you have to assume a specific sensor size for that and that's not right. You can mount the same lens on cameras with different sensor sizes and then the range factor will no longer hold. For example a Canon 24-70mm lens can be mounted on a 5DIII, 1D2 or 7D, giving different AOV in each case. For Nikon side there are also folks using their lenses on 1-inch sensor Nikon 1 cameras. I think the lenses should be labelled based on their FL's as that's inherent to them. Any labeling which assumes a specific sensor size is bound to cause even more chaos.
@dark goob. While I understand your frustration with the notations like crop factors, and agree in principal to the idea that every format is "full frame". However the problem is that the solution that you are suggesting and other similar solutions are likely to cause more confusion and can be even more cumbersome. First, most of us have developed a fairly good understanding of what various focal lengths mean for the 35mm format. i.e. how wide is 28mm and how long is 100mm etc. So it is very convenient and straight forward to convert everything to that same frame of reference. It is easy, convenient and works very well, as long as we don't get hung up on the terminology. Don't wanna call it crop factor? sure call it something else.......
KGP: Lets face it... mirrorless size/weight advantage applies only when prime lenses combined with these bodies. There is no way to skip the law of physic & optics... the larger the sensor the biggest the optical elements, the fastest the aperture the heavier the glass. So simple. This lens is a nice addition to Fuji's line up, im pretty sure its gonna kick ass !
Yes the size and weight advantage of mirror-less is not there with telephone lenses. However, those who have adopted a mirrorless system still need the option to use a longer lens when they need it. For those who maintain a mirror-less camera in addition to their full DSLR system, these longer lenses may not be relevant. But for those looking to switch entirely to mirrorless, the lens lineup needs to be more diverse and cover a lot of different needs.