mpgxsvcd

mpgxsvcd

Lives in United States USA, NC, United States
Works as a Jack of all Trades
Joined on May 17, 2004

Comments

Total: 1729, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On Opinion: Why the Canon XC10 is a big deal article (808 comments in total)
In reply to:

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.

I applaud you and Dpreview for this. This really shows that you are willing to listen to our comments and our criticisms. I appreciate your willingness to see this from different perspectives.

Even though I totally disagreed with your original article I am willing to listen to what you have to say about the comparison between the FZ1000 and this camera. Have you or anyone else at Dpreview been able to use this camera even in a pre-production form or does it just exist on paper outside of Canon at the moment?

Direct link | Posted on Apr 8, 2015 at 20:41 UTC
On Opinion: Why the Canon XC10 is a big deal article (808 comments in total)
In reply to:

mpgxsvcd: “The Canon XC10 may be the first true 'convergence' camera.”

If you have your head buried in the sand and don’t realize that the FZ1000 came out last year for 1/3 the price.

That was the last time. I promise. Nuff said already.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 8, 2015 at 18:44 UTC
On Opinion: Why the Canon XC10 is a big deal article (808 comments in total)

“The Canon XC10 may be the first true 'convergence' camera.”

If you have your head buried in the sand and don’t realize that the FZ1000 came out last year for 1/3 the price.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 8, 2015 at 18:16 UTC as 237th comment | 10 replies
On Opinion: Why the Canon XC10 is a big deal article (808 comments in total)
In reply to:

mpgxsvcd: The author of this article is oblivious to the fact that the FZ1000 is perfectly suited to the scenarios he described for less than 1/3 the price of this Canon camera. I got the impression that the author really hasn’t used a GH4, FZ1000, or LX100 before and has no idea how powerful those cameras actually are.

Yes ergonomics are a factor. However, still image quality, flexibility, weight, versatility with different lenses, are also factors. This new Canon will have not have an advantage in any of those areas.

A built in ND filter is not even remotely close to evening out the playing field with everything this camera is missing for its price range.

Normally, I really like Dpreview articles. However, this article missed the mark badly.

Dale, it appears that this camera will require both hands to use it at all times. If that is correct then it would be a terrible camera for field work where you have to often use at least one hand to stabilize yourself. I see the ergonomics of this camera as a MAJOR drawback for field work.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 8, 2015 at 18:14 UTC
On Canon XC10: What you need to know article (229 comments in total)

Does this camera require to shoot using both hands? If so then it would be a really bad choice for shooting live action stuff in the field.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 8, 2015 at 18:05 UTC as 25th comment | 1 reply
On Opinion: Why the Canon XC10 is a big deal article (808 comments in total)

Simply put, if you were shooting ENG why would this camera be a better choice than an FZ1000?

Here are some reasons why I think it wouldn’t be a good choice.

1. CFAST cards are so expensive that you couldn’t afford large capacity cards let alone back up cards.

2. The camera requires both hands operation. You must hold the body with your left hand and the grip with the other hand. That is extremely limiting in an environment where you might need to stabilize yourself with one hand.

3. The viewfinder is ridiculously awkward and large.

4. The price of the camera is just too high to justify the features that it offers.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 8, 2015 at 17:59 UTC as 244th comment
On Opinion: Why the Canon XC10 is a big deal article (808 comments in total)
In reply to:

mpgxsvcd: This is going to be a pathetic stills camera. Low resolution, small sensor, and less than stellar focal ratios. I really do not agree with this article at all.

"Out of genuine interest (I promise) how would you describe the kind of photography you most often do?"

I generally do indoor low light sports photography. Lot’s of indoor Climbing competitions but I also shoot things like basketball, running, and triathlons. I dabble in landscapes when I climb outdoors and I do a lot of astro photography with my telescope.

I really like shallow depth of field for the portraits I have done but it is really hard to get the depth of field I desire with M4/3s or smaller sensors.

In general I shoot in 4K @ 30 FPS video for these events now because I can easily pull 4K stills from the video and not miss any of the action shots. Panasonic’s implementation of photo from video is nearly perfect for this.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 8, 2015 at 17:51 UTC
On Opinion: Why the Canon XC10 is a big deal article (808 comments in total)

The author of this article is oblivious to the fact that the FZ1000 is perfectly suited to the scenarios he described for less than 1/3 the price of this Canon camera. I got the impression that the author really hasn’t used a GH4, FZ1000, or LX100 before and has no idea how powerful those cameras actually are.

Yes ergonomics are a factor. However, still image quality, flexibility, weight, versatility with different lenses, are also factors. This new Canon will have not have an advantage in any of those areas.

A built in ND filter is not even remotely close to evening out the playing field with everything this camera is missing for its price range.

Normally, I really like Dpreview articles. However, this article missed the mark badly.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 8, 2015 at 17:45 UTC as 248th comment | 3 replies
On Opinion: Why the Canon XC10 is a big deal article (808 comments in total)

This is going to be a pathetic stills camera. Low resolution, small sensor, and less than stellar focal ratios. I really do not agree with this article at all.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 8, 2015 at 16:55 UTC as 272nd comment | 4 replies
On Canon XC10: What you need to know article (229 comments in total)

an FZ1000($746 current Amazon price) AND an RX10($998) AND an LX100($759). That would be $2503 in total. I rest my case.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 8, 2015 at 16:38 UTC as 32nd comment | 2 replies
On Canon XC10: What you need to know article (229 comments in total)
In reply to:

The Squire: I do wonder what this is for.

It's not an enthusiast product at that price.

Maybe production companies need a decent 4k b-camera. But if drone mount is a big part of the story then perhaps they'd have been better off creating something more like a scaled-up GoPro but with a decent 4K codec and IS? IMHO there's a market for such a device, even at this sort of price.

But this... It's hard to justify it over a GH4 or FZ1000 and I suspect if Sony update their excellent RX10 to 4K, this will be dead in the water.

Yes. Only time will tell. However, I still don’t think a reasonable person could conclude that this camera would make a better 4K B-CAM than an FZ1000($746 current Amazon price) AND an RX10($998) AND an LX100($759). That would be $2503 in total.

You can literally get ALL of this camera’s 3 closest competitors for the same price as this camera. Why would anyone in their right mind ever entertain buying this camera over getting all 3 of those other proven cameras?

It is almost like Canon said “how much do our competitors cameras cost” and someone screwed up and thought they meant “how much do all of our competitors cameras cost when added together”.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 8, 2015 at 16:00 UTC
On Canon XC10: What you need to know article (229 comments in total)
In reply to:

WACONimages: At last Canon offers something out of the box. And see all those comments here on dpreview. Bashing a product no one seen for real, no one touched or had the chance to use.

Give it break. I'm sure there is a market for and soon many website will show reviews from video customers and will tell if it up to do the job.

Just don't understand bashing products you never used or saw in real life.

"Nobody offers 4K with these specs plus a 24-240mm lens and ND filter built in. I don't mean to sound like I'm defending the XC10 too much (since I haven't used it) but there really aren't equivalent models out there for 'under $1K'."

Those aren’t specs I would be bragging about. The reach is pathetic for this size camera and the Focal Ratios really are not competitive at all.

That must be a pretty spectacular ND filter if it costs $1500+.

Really Barney there is simply no good reason to justify the cost. Why should we give it a chance or give it the benefit of the doubt? It simply is a camera nobody here wants because of its price.

Why should we hold our tongue and not say anything? We want Canon AND Dpreview to know that we don’t like this even without ever trying it. It is an absolute non-starter.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 8, 2015 at 15:49 UTC
On Canon XC10: What you need to know article (229 comments in total)
In reply to:

The Squire: I do wonder what this is for.

It's not an enthusiast product at that price.

Maybe production companies need a decent 4k b-camera. But if drone mount is a big part of the story then perhaps they'd have been better off creating something more like a scaled-up GoPro but with a decent 4K codec and IS? IMHO there's a market for such a device, even at this sort of price.

But this... It's hard to justify it over a GH4 or FZ1000 and I suspect if Sony update their excellent RX10 to 4K, this will be dead in the water.

Apparently it isn’t for anyone. Not a single comment so far has indicated that the poster is interested in buying it or would even consider buying it.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 8, 2015 at 15:29 UTC
On Canon XC10: What you need to know article (229 comments in total)
In reply to:

The Squire: I do wonder what this is for.

It's not an enthusiast product at that price.

Maybe production companies need a decent 4k b-camera. But if drone mount is a big part of the story then perhaps they'd have been better off creating something more like a scaled-up GoPro but with a decent 4K codec and IS? IMHO there's a market for such a device, even at this sort of price.

But this... It's hard to justify it over a GH4 or FZ1000 and I suspect if Sony update their excellent RX10 to 4K, this will be dead in the water.

"It's for multimedia professionals who need the smallest possible 4K/Hybrid body and the best possible footage. Assuming the footage is as good as it should be from the XC10, it's a pretty cheap package. But it's not an enthusiast stills camera - that's for sure."

Barney, this camera is less than half an inch smaller than the FZ1000 in two dimensions and actually bigger than it in one dimension. It is about 3-4 times the cost. Uses the same sized sensor with half the stills resolution. Doesn’t have its best stabilization for 4K video. Uses extremely rare and overpriced memory cards. And it weighs more than the FZ1000.

We are so hard on this camera because it simply would be an unreasonable choice to purchase it at this price. We will never get to try this camera simply because we wouldn’t even consider buying it.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 8, 2015 at 14:47 UTC
On Canon XC10: What you need to know article (229 comments in total)
In reply to:

mpgxsvcd: Canon is so out of touch with what their consumers will actually buy.

The latest reports show that while they sell a lot more cameras than other companies the amount of cameras they are selling now compared to a few years ago is dismal. They have lost touch with their consumers and are completely resting on the fact that they once produced products that everyone wanted.

All of their new cameras are overpriced, delayed, and not competitive with comparable products from other manufacturers.

They can only use the excuse that they sell more cameras than any other company for so long. Their trajectory is going downhill fast. It may be that the whole camera industry is going downhill. However, it is certain that Canon will NEVER increase its yearly sales of cameras ever again unless they change their current ways of doing business. They will continue to decrease in yearly sales until something changes.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 8, 2015 at 14:38 UTC
On Canon XC10: What you need to know article (229 comments in total)
In reply to:

mpgxsvcd: I didn’t even know what a CFAST card was until I read this article. It looks like a 256 GB CFAST card is “only” $990. Even a 64 GB card is “only” $352. At 300 mb/sec you are going to be burning through those very expensive cards rather quickly.

It looks like a reasonable setup for this camera is in the $4500-$5000 range. I’ll pass.

B and H photo is reporting that it doesn’t come with the “required” CFAST card. Could you double check if that is true or not? Did their press release say it comes with the card or did they say that?

Direct link | Posted on Apr 8, 2015 at 14:31 UTC
On Canon XC10: What you need to know article (229 comments in total)

Canon is so out of touch with what their consumers will actually buy.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 8, 2015 at 14:14 UTC as 57th comment | 6 replies
On Canon XC10: What you need to know article (229 comments in total)

The only thing truly wrong with this camera is the price. If it was $900 like its competition I would see people considering buying it. At $2500 with $1000 memory cards even Hasselbad would pause at publishing that pricing.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 8, 2015 at 14:12 UTC as 58th comment
On Canon XC10: What you need to know article (229 comments in total)
In reply to:

Nukunukoo: It's an excellent 4K camera. But the price... If they took $5000 off the price like they did the C300, then I'll definitely buy 40 of them!

"It's an excellent 4K camera. But the price... If they took $5000 off the price like they did the C300, then I'll definitely buy 40 of them!"

If they took $5000 off the price of this camera then even I would buy one since I would get a camera and $2500 for nothing.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 8, 2015 at 14:08 UTC
On Canon XC10: What you need to know article (229 comments in total)

This is Canon trying to be different for the sake of being different.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 8, 2015 at 14:07 UTC as 59th comment | 1 reply
Total: 1729, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »