exm3racer: Got mine a few weeks ago and have taken it on a couple vacations. RAW was the major selling point for me as I only shoot Raw on my D600 and use LR/PS. Pretty happy overall, looking to see what comes next in this segment.
Biggest surprise for me was the macro mode, it takes killer close up photos. It's like I just got a macro lens. And it does wide angle macro, very cool! Image quality while using macro is much better than I expected... as long as you don't crop too much.
Good things:(ran out of characters)
Improvements I'd like to see - realize these may add to a more costly product, but I'd be willing to pay for them:
rear screen needs to be anti scratchLens flare easily - better lens coatingWould like CPLMore aperture incrementsBetter ISO performance starting at 800Don't know if it's possible but I'd love a viewfinderLens is OK sharp and sharpens nicely if you are shooting RAW, but could be better.Burst shooting in RAWsomething approaching RX100 in quality..
I think the RX100, etc, are a whole other thing that, if ruggedized, you'd have to start compromising on features.
THat said, I think one thing that can help with image quality, low light, etc is lowering the pixel count and increasing the size of the pixels. Several camera makers have done that because they realize that more pixels hurts so many other factors.
yzhenkai: Is this camera suitalbe for my two-year old son? He breaks everything.
Oh yes. The camera itself is a considerably heavy projectile when they get mad and start throwing things.
Nuno Souto: Such a pity Oly missed this opportunity to make a truly useful diving camera, with at least 30m capability and a way to fire a slave flash...Ah yes, all that is available for double the price in the UW housing? Why buy this one in the first place, then...
Put this one in the housing. Or a canon P&S. Canon makes a lot of underwater housings.
We got our older Olympus 720sw and our 6mo old used it to slobber on. Then to take pictures. THere are other smaller tough cameras, but these things stick around, so get the kid a good one, because you'll also use it for yourself, and family trips.
I speak from a decade of experience with one. Yes, one camera.
JohnEwing: When reviewing "tough" cameras it would be useful to mention (in the specs?) whether the LCD uses Gorilla glass or equivalent.
My Panny TS1 did, and spent years in a side pocket of my handlebar bag with no damage. My TS3 didn't, as I found out after a month in the HB bag.
Had I known of the difference I would have put on a screen protector.
So: what about the Olly? GG or no?
On my 10 year old Olympus, I put some of that screen protector shield on the screen, which was also not recessed. 10 years later, it's still perfectly fine.
After reading a bit I knew this was a Jeff Keller review- good writing and wit.
Our 10 year old Olympus pre-"tough" rugged camera just died because kids opened the battery door and dropped it in the pool. So we're looking for a replacement. (Double locking doors sound real good about now!)
I'm bemused that the combination of a 2-stage iris, and ND filter in or out only equals three exposure settings. i.e. iris 4.9, iris 6.3, iris 6.3 + ND.Why not iris 4.9 + ND for a fourth setting?
And given the noted bla results for video, I'm surprised Panasonic was not discussed here as other reviews talk about good video with the Panny Tough Cameras. No Panny cameras in the comparison tool either?
I'm glad to see Tap Mode still there, as that's a very handy feature for gloved use.
I'm surprised by the RAW, though. In the outdoor comparison, I liked the JPG better in all respects. It's not a dramatic improvement.
THis one looks like a winner. THanks for the review!
And on April 30, Canon tweeted:"#ThrowbackThursday to 1997 when the Optura was released, allowing users to capture video & digital photos in one unit."
So is the XC10 an innovative hybrid camera?Not by a long shot.
But at least Canon holds on to their designers for a long time, because the Optura and the XC10 looks liek they were designed by the same guy.
But they certainly look similar. :)
IEBA1: What the hell is it with DPreview and this stupid camera?First we get the powder puff piece of why it's a "big deal" and "leading the convergence." Then we get this.
As a writer for over a decade, I'd like to see this author ask one followup question to clarify the double-marketing speak that contradicts itself:
"The XC10 has a 5-axis stabilization system when recording HD video. That’s … optical stabilization with digital stabilization. With digital stabilization you [crop the sensor]. You don’t lose image stabilization when shooting still images or 4K video. … since you’re using the entire sensor to capture an image or video, the camera reverts to normal optical stabilization."
So then there's no "5-axis" stabilization in 4K or stills. If not, then don't promote it.
"The XC10 uses the same codec as the C300 Mark II. It’s called XF-AVC. It is a proprietary Canon codec in an MXF wrapper, but it is H.264 based, so it is standards based."
It's proprietary - it's standards based.
Barney, you funny.Coincidentially, Canon tweeted this:"@CanonUSAimaging: #ThrowbackThursday to 1997 when the Optura was released, allowing users to capture video & digital photos in one unit http://twitter.com/CanonUSAimaging/status/593807541362130945/photo/1"
So when you say this one is innovative, remember, it's not.
Not by a long shot.
I urge DPreview readers to check out the coverage of Samsung's NX1 because that camera deserves all the "innovative" and "integrated" and "game changing" press lauded to it.
I like Canon. I really do. I've reviewed their gear for years and lauded the features and capabilities they've brought to market.
But more so than the oddness of the XC10, I'm bothered by this blatant overly positive coverage of this one camera that is late to the game and is under featured, and overpriced, compared to the direct competition of hybrid DSLRs with internal 4K recording.
What the hell is it with DPreview and this stupid camera?First we get the powder puff piece of why it's a "big deal" and "leading the convergence." Then we get this.
I had hoped to see a comparison of the Note's video with and withought HDR. And does HDR video work in 4K?
IEBA1: I agree with all the posts that wonder about the point of this article. Given how few "opinion" pieces are on DPreview, why the XC10 gets a positive opinion piece makes the whole web site suspect.
I laughed out loud at: "The XC10 represents an important step on the path to convergence between the still and video imaging worlds, though it’s important to recognize that it’s an early step."
Wha? Can you even find a camera any more that doesn't do both?
Years ago, I hacked a GH2 for fantastic video, stills, and augmented it to use cine servo zoom lenses for capabilities still lenses simply cannot provide. Last year I upgraded to a GH4 and haven't looked back. It is a stellar tool. You can see gobs of my technical videos here:
The only unique feature is the rotatable grip. Something I had on my first HD camcorder, the JVC GR-HD1. Yes, I'm an early adopter. Thats why it bugs me when I see article like this that are _years_ behind the curve.
And worst of all, after reading this Canon puff piece,I see Dale was also involved with simultaneously writing the Samsung NX1 review where it concludes:
"And here's the crazy thing… Almost every feature on the camera seems aimed directly at a class leading competitor… The result is a camera loaded with features for both still photography and video, and which excels at both."
"We could probably justify giving the NX1 an award simply based on technological advancements and raising the bar for both image quality and video performance in its class. But those achievements are wrapped inside a well designed camera with a great user experience… In the process… it pushes boundaries and drives innovation across the entire market. Congratulations to the Samsung NX1 for winning our Gold Award."
So I don't understand this praise of the Canon camera while writing those words about the Samsung NX1. The NX1 is an important step in convergence, that has long been going on.
I find it interesting that Dale has high praise for the Canon here "for the intended market" he insists. But no camera like this is restricted in any way for any market. It's a camera purchasable and usable by anyone.
I think those camcorders which now have TCP/IP technology in them and the ability to connect a 4G LTE USB stick and stream directly from the camera are FAR more targeted at the ENG news market than this little Canon cam, which seems to offer zero "target market" specific features.
News shooters I know don't want a 300 Mbps data stream because it just takes longer to do everything. The guys I know (one who just had a Dallas video he produced picked up by ABC, and then the BBC, shoots low bitrate MPEG so he can access and puph the file from the camera, through his cell phone to the station.
In news, speed is everything. This Canon camera lacks that.XLR jacks for wireless and handheld reporter mics? Nope. Ability to power an on-camera light? Nope.
Lab D: This camera may be a total FAIL. It depends how good the 1 inch sensor is. If it is similar to current 1 inch sensors, then the F/5.6 zoom will render the video near useless indoors (at least towards the long end).The 12 MP jpeg only stills combined with an F/5.6 might yield lower quality images than most P&S cameras with F/2 lenses.
So the camera becomes a limited use camera/camcorder for $2500.
Any like someone else mentioned, what does this camera use to track moving subjects? Please don't say CDAF only. :)
THen you haven't been on a news shoot recently. I see all kinds of camera being used. From handycams, to cell phones, to those 2/3" ENG cameras you mention, to new cameras with direct IP addressability and a place to plug a 4G LTE USB stick for streaming from the camera, to large sensor cameras and DSRS. It's been blown wide open for some time.
zakk9: It's difficult to understand why I would prefer this over a GH4. The list of features where the Panasonic is superior would be longer than the 818 characters I have left in ths post.
The card requirements are a particular curiosity because I expect most U-3 SD cards (30 MBps minimum) to be able to handle the 305 Mbps rate which is 38 MBps.
The GH4 I own shoots 4K _up to_ 100 Mbps. It typically uses 80 Mbps because, well, the point of having a big sensor video is to get some shallow DoF in the shot, so all that blurry area compresses very well. 80 Mbps is 10 MBps which is a pittance, really. I don't have any U-3 cards and I've shot 4K for about a year now with zero issues.
Dale responded to a comment: "Also, don't interpret our enthusiasm for the *concept* of what this product represents with the actual product."
This product represents something that's been in place for nearly five years now. I'm glad he's enthusiastic for the *concept* because it's a *reality* that I've been professionally writing about for several years.
I agree with all the posts that wonder about the point of this article. Given how few "opinion" pieces are on DPreview, why the XC10 gets a positive opinion piece makes the whole web site suspect.
Panny has proved that bit rate isn't everything- by offering a 200 Mbps HD and a 100 Mbps 4K in one camera, and the Panny's 4K soundly trounces the HD with up to 2x the bit rate available. So more bits ≠ better image automatically.