Scales USA: I see this as Apple's view of the demise of DSLR's in favor of the cameras on smart phones. They are right, sales of high end cameras are dropping, so Apple is just anticipating that their users will be making simple edits with their Iphone images.
Fortunately, there are other choices and for a few dollars, ACDSEE Ultimate 8 does everything and even has layers. I use Lightroom / Photoshop, but I have used ACDSEE for simple edits for years, in fact, since before the world wide web. I bought their flagship version last weekend for $49. Its quite capable and, like Lightroom, it has a database to keep track of your images.
My only gripe is that ACDSEE has been slow to update their RAW support for new camera models.
You are actually wrong. The data shows that the DSLR, which had a huge surge in sales a couple of years ago, has dropped down to a more "normal" level. The main drop in camera sales comes from mid- and high-end compacts.
JMCO: Lightroom has never been the only option. As probably mentioned in comments here, I think the best paid alternative to Aperture now is Capture One Pro. If you only shoot Sony, it is a no brainer as it is free. You can also just BUY COP not rent it like LR.COP also had a way to move a collection from Aperture *or* LR over to COP before Adobe did!Regardless, for the poor photographer, the software that came with your camera or that you can download for free ain’t bad either. Nikon Capture NX-D with View NX-i are quite nice now. But, the organizing is done in NX-i with editing in NX-D and, basically, it is only for Nikon files. But, maybe accessing your family photos only in Photos is better anyhow?Like it was said, Aperture is still working. I use mostly plug ins to edit in it so, I’ll keep using it. But I do admit, the image organizing is still confusing. I moved to all vault but now, I think I’ll need to go back to referenced because of its demise. I have no idea how to do that!
For the record, you can also buy Lightroom. No need to rent it.
Maverick_: A fixed lens? 1" Sensor? 3.8fps? No viewfinder? for $2500?
Why would anyone want to buy this, where they have so many other options? Just the fact that you can't change the lens will keep many away from this camera.
Also it's not that small to make it a great drone camera. Who puts a large zoom lens on drones?
As a Panasonic GH user, I am in the market for a new camera, but it will not be this one.
>> Any larger and it would be a super-massive camera
So, is the GH4, with twice the size chip, a "super-massive" camera? No, it is not. It is tiny. It also beats this Canon in every single area.
>> 3.8 FPS is fine
I don't think anyone cares about the FPS for stills, this is a video camera. As a stills I would prefer my S95 over this any time.
>> $2500 for a 1" sensor dream camera?
How is this a dream camera? It is a souped-up GoPro. For 3K!
>> If it was a DSLR, it would be $2500
If this was a stills camera, with this chip and this zoom it would be about $500. This camera doesn't come anywhere near a $2500 DSLR. This camera, as a stills camera, is a joke. Completely useless. Seriously. It can't take pictures with a blurry background. In other words, no decent portraits. But hey, you're right, nobody ever used a camera to take portraits.
>> You wouldn't buy this camera.
Nobody in their right mind would buy this camera.
myung keun: Jony Ive's frenzy for minimalism doesn't only affect aesthetics but also functionality. I can live with less visual clutter, but not less functionality. That being said, there is of course a more sensible side to this:
This is just a start.I assume that Apple is working hard to widen their photography platform capabilities. They just needed a strong grounded foundation to built on.We all know that Apple is serious and passionate about photography.Aperture was a good software but it was trying to be a separate entity on its own and was not connected to the existing Apple infrastructure (at least not as well). The platform lost its merit to be expanded any further. Apple wanted a clean slate. A fresh start. They knew it's going to upset many of the existing loyal Aperture users. But they also knew they couldn't do that without sacrificing at least something.
About 2000 years ago there roamed a dude on this planet who was eventually executed on a tree structure by the powers that were. Before he died he told his followers: "I'll be back". No, it wasn't the dude played by Arnold. He also said: "I'll be back and some of you will still be here when I'm back". For reasons that defy (even) belief, his followers are still waiting. Though the original dudes are now long since dead.
Apple fan boys remind me a little of those guys.
Here is a dose of reality: Apple has long since realized that the pro market, once a main source of income, is no longer so. In fact, the pro market is expensive to maintain, an ungrateful bunch of miscreants, and cheapskates to boot. No point in dealing with them anymore.
Final Cut X was a warning and should have been a wake up call. Aperture should have been the final message. Now it is "Photos will probably be great. Soon". Goodness. Macs are great computers. Apple makes crap software! End of story.
Gollan: This was an interesting article. I was surprised to hear that Photos was going to be the Aperture replacement and I'm impressed that Jeff Keller even gave it a try. It seems to me that Apple has always catered to creative enterprise and it is somewhat surprising to see them back away. (Frankly, Apple has a history of blowing hot and cold in other areas too, such as the use of iPads in Education). My friend is a professional artist who uses iMacs, but she also uses a DSLR to produce much of the raw material that goes into her work. What message is Apple sending to her when they have taken away one of the powerful tools that is in her workflow?
Honestly, I think you are making your decisions on VERY old data. Seriously. Windows today is rock solid, has been for years. Now, if you buy cheap-ass hardware, sure you'll get bad results, but the remedy for that is easy enough.
Honestly, if Apple software was anywhere near as reliable as Windows, why is the iCloud infrastructure on Windows and (partly) Linux? No matter how much data you push through your computer it doesn't come close, to a tenth of a percent, of what the iCloud infrastructure does, and that runs on Windows.
Lightpath48: Since 2007 I'd worked with Aperture almost exclusively, editing and organizing almost 12,000 raw files. The 10.10.3 upgrade with obligatory Photos app devastated me at first. Now I'm trying to make the fullest possible use of Photos, in parallel with Nikon's NX software. But a number of key Aperture 3.6 controls are just missing. What were they thinking? I'm not sure where I will go from here.
stevo23: Aperture is a fabulous program. To compare the new program to it is just silly - it clearly isn't trying to replace Aperture. We can't even take this idea seriously.
This is true, but that also leaves Mac users in a bit of a bind. Staying with Aperture is not an option, it is a dead product. Apple also has made its intentions clear, it is no longer interested in the professional or enthusiast marked, but focusing on the consumer marked. What is a pro or an enthusiast to do?
There is only one way forward and that is Lightroom. Like it or not.
Dan Wagner: So, this is for news gathering companies, newspapers, tv news. They need to save money by having one person do it all. Interesting, but many of these places don't want to pay anything, (some newspapers have already fired everyone) and use iphone images, anything they can get readers and viewers to send in for free. Point the camera at the action, let it run, and when the action is over, search for a still image for print, a segment for video, and you're done. :)
@Dan Wagner>> So, this is for news gathering companies, newspapers, tv news
Not really, it is unsuitable for interview situations and it is unsuitable for impromptu in-door shooting.
kadardr: It seems to me that crossover cameras and speciality cameras are the trend of the future. According to Canon it is for sure. Nothing wrong with that. About XC10: could you cover a wedding with this one sole camera?
@kadardr>> could you cover a wedding with this one sole camera?
I doubt it unless the wedding is entirely outside on a very sunny day, and you do not intend to shoot any interviews with the guests.
1/ The lens is far to slow for in-door work unless the room is brightly lit.2/ The sensor makes sure the image is razor sharp basically from the end of the lens hood until infinity, making interview style shooting impossible unless you have a very compelling, pre-blurred background.
This camera is about as bad as it can get for wedding photography.
regordyoll: Why a 1" sensor when a Sony A7 has a full frame sensor or a Sony A6000 has an APS-C sensor? I'd like to understand the reason. Thanks!
@Richard Butler: >> would be much larger, a Full Frame camera with one,>>still larger
Sorry, but this is absolute nonsense. An equivalently GH4 would be a bit lighter, a Sony A7S with an equivalent (sorry, that just made me laugh a little, make that vastly superior) lens would be about a pack of matches heavier.
All possible alternatives to the XC10 are vastly superior in a similar price and weight range. The XC10 have ZERO professional features. Don't get stuck on the codec, the Ursa mini is another vastly superior product with a better codec and SIGNIFICANTLY cheaper storage.
Please mention ONE feature of this camera that is better than the competition. A swiveling handle?
SmilerGrogan: For people who are asking "who needs this camera?" I would direct you to your local church. Religious institutions are very big into multi media and see high-quality video as a way to spread their message. A lot of them rely on volunteer or entry-level videographers so a camera like this is perfect for them. There are way more than 300,000 congregations in the U.S. and if only 10 percent needed new cameras this year, that's a lot of units right there. Then think of all the golf teachers, football and soccer teams, schools. This is an easy sell to all those groups.
>> I would direct you to your local church
BZZT! WRONG! Not unless your church is always very, very well lit. This thing lets in about as much light as a brick wall. A church would be FAR better off with a GH4 or an A7S or any of the HD camcorders out there.
baggy1: This is a big deal for news and celebrity shooters.Paps already have GoPro's & small video's bolted to their stills camera's.In 10 years still photography as we know it now will cease to exist.For that pro market it is adapt or die time.
How is this a big deal for the paparazzi's, they'll get the video they want in the "same" quality from their GoPros. Why would they drop 3K on this junk?
Angrymagpie: Native advertising makes its way to dpreview?
@Barney: I agree with the others, you claim there are pro features in there, but then in the article you list none. Not a single one. I am sorry, but 10 bit 4:2:2 is only useful for the high end work, and this camera is NOT developed with the high end in mind. There are ZERO features in the actual image-making process that are pro on this camera.
Seriously. Not ONE feature is in the pro, or even in the high-end enthusiast category. Every single competitor from the FZ1000 and on blows this camera out of the water. The FZ1000 only on price for sure, but then again, if I could chose I would have four FZ1000s any day over a single XC10.
So far the supporters (and I am a Canon guy) have listed ZERO compelling features of this camera. ZERO.
monsieurlumiere: For young videographer who study the basics, most of the equipment used are Canon 5D mk3 cameras and lenses. The cost of such equipment is more expensive than the XC-10. The future of the XC-10 will tell us if this equipment is good for videography students. If the XC-10 works well, It could be that it becomes the videography standard for students, as the 5D was.
>> Shallow depth-of-field should only be used on very>> rare occasions
Yeah, when you are shooting people that you want to have some focus in your video, but you are correct, nobody ever does that. Sigh.
Stollen1234: when Dpreview writes an article it is not the press..its an information and an opinion on a new Camera..
I dont understand why some people get so mad if Canon release another superior product...
i think they need to get a life
thank you Dpreview...thank you Canon
Gh4 + Atomos 3.5KCanon XC10 + 128G memory card 3K
At this price range, the GH4 is an order of magnitude better deal.
>> realized it would be like talking to the proverbial brick wall
I use mostly Canon for (planned, organized) stills work, 5D and 6D with a good selection of glass, most of it Canon L. For video I use the GH4 which beats anything Canon has ever put out in this category, and I also use the GH4 for my more "snapshot" stuff since the GH4 gear is less than 1/3 of the weight and size of an equivalent 6D backpack.
I have been waiting for a Canon 4K offering since first hearing about the GH4. I could not wait any longer and... I still would love to sell my GH4 stuff though and replace it with some equivalent Canon gear since I have a rather large investment in Canon glass.
So, since I am not a Panasonc fan-boy, and presumably, what would you like to say about this XC10 piece of junk? I mean, on paper at least. It is laughable junk. What was it you had planned to say?
TriezeA72: Even Leica would find it hard trying to flog off this half baked pudding for $2500, the pricing is over inflated and very ambitious... If canon want to save face, then a serious price reduction is needed, before they destroy what ever little credibility they have left to stand on!
I disagree that Leica is as bad as Canon (in this case) at over inflation. Leica lenses (at least) are generally of decent quality. The XC10 is specifically designed to separate a fool and his cash. It has no other redeeming features.
TriezeA72: If there was no such thing as a GH4, A7S, FZ1000, etc etc, then $2500 for a XC10 wouldn't seem so ridiculous, but because there are such better cameras out already, some well below $2500, it really makes canon look stupid and dpr silly for trying to justify the price tag!For the amount of dosh they're asking, I would have at the very least expected a viewfinder, not a detachable loupe...... and to be honest, at this price-point its a pathetic attempt at trying to cash grab! Seriously canon, if you want to charge $2500, then you'll need to do better than this lousy third-rate effort
>> Sure but would you take a GH4 into a warzone assignment>> for six months?
I certainly would rather have the GH4 than this Canon. The XC10 is not weather sealed, and if the war zone had rain or dust, it would probably not survive the first six weeks, let alone six months.
The GH4 on the other hand IS weather sealed and would do fine. The GH4 build quality is certainly on par with my 6D, but perhaps not the 5D. The XC10 doesn't seem to be on par with my Canon S95 even.
>> Do any of the above cameras shoot 305mbps?
For the @2500 this thing costs (actually closer to $3K unless it comes with a CFast card) I can get the GH4 with a good lens and add an Atomos Shogun on top. Then I get 10bit 4:2:2 ProRES on the Shogun and a field monitor thrown in for free. I would want that over the XC10 any time of the day.
SnakePlissken: Aggghhh, this article makes sense, yet I am so desperate to hate Canon and declare them bankrupt and redundant in the face of mirrorless. Agggghhhh, DPReview I hate you! Now I have to think for myself instead of just following the hating crowd who sneer at any new development from Canon or Nikon. Disaster!
You don't seem to get it. I have lots of Canon gear. I shoot Canon FF on the 5D and 6D. I have been waiting for Canon to get into the 4K enthusiast market for quite a while. I stopped waiting and got a GH4 in addition to my Canon stuff. If Canon produces a Gh4 killer (that can use my EF lenses of which I have many really, really good ones) at a reasonable price, I'll sell my GH4.
Then Canon releases this. Garbage. Now I'll have to think about getting rid of my Canon gear, Canon has long since stopped listening to its customers.
Nonsense - this product is inferior to the competition in every possible way.
1/ No interchangeable lenses - seriously?2/ 1" sensor - no "blurry backgrounds" ever3/ Variable aperture? 2.8 to 5.6 on a 1" sensor is a bad joke4/ 1" sensor - that horrible home-video look in all footage5/ No image stabilization in 4K mode - seriously? That can't be.6/ Price - absurd
A 1" sensor at f/2.8 has a depth of field equivalent to (almost) f/8.Canon perfect for: "cheap-ass home-movie camcorder" look.
This camera is marginally (codec) better in some areas than the FZ1000 at three times the price. It can not touch the GH4 or the A7S in any area at all, since they both do 10bit 4:2:2 at a lower price than the Canon (add Atomos and the GH4 still beats this thing on price).
This is the perfect camera for parting a fool and his money. Nothing more.