Boy, oh boy, these things here look really, really cheap. These are by ZEISS? Man, no wonder the Chinese optics makers are gaining on the West by leaps and bounds.
joseliax: This camera, for video aficionados like me, is a joke, and here's why:
1. Too expensive for the features it has.2. No RAW on a US$2,500 camera? seriously?3. No EVF on a "do-it-all" compact camera, seriously?4. f5.6 lens? for drones? Have you see the constant aperture 2.8 competitors? Seriously?5. No interchangeable lens? On a $2,500 camera? Come on...
So guys, please, we're not stupid. We can read specs, we read blogs and forums, we compare notes, we have friends who own other cameras. Don't treat us like idiots who have no clue about what you're doing.
And here's what you at Canon are doing: You know you have the technology to sell us a great sub-$1,000 camera with all the specs we want, but you don't do it because you don't want to affect sales of your higher margin products.
I can feel your pain in that regard, but the market is changing. Look at the Panasonic GH4, the Samsung NX1, the Sony A7S, etc. If you continue down that path, you will lose people like me soon...
“Canon See Impossible” -- this is an impossible sale at $2,500. Or at $2,000.
Now, re-label it as a PowerShot-soetning and drop the price to a much more in-line United States dollar or € 450 -- and by jolly, you will actually have some real flesh and blood folks buying this here thingie, Yessirie.
T3: Chuck's answers and justifications are suspicious, to say the least. He says RAW was "not cost effective". Really? How is it that far less expensive cameras have this "not cost effective" capability to shoot RAW? He says the XC10 has a fixed lens for "keeping the sensor clean in the field". Apparently, Canon doesn't think advanced users know how to change the lens in the field without mucking up their sensors. He says camera size was a really important factor in designing the XC10...so they put a giant loupe on the camera's LCD, instead of giving it an EVF. What's even weirder is that Canon offers a detachable tilting EVF (the Canon EVF-DC1), and yet it does not appear that the XC10 will be able to make use of Canon's own EVF-DC1.
Canon will blow the next model they'll cook up by an even wider margin, I bet. A Canon press release and follow-up "serious interview" -- it's like "Saturday Night Live" running Sunday through Friday!
Oliver KMIA: What a bad joke Chuck. A 1080 8bit one inch sensor camera, non constant aperture fix lens without raw stills... For $2500 I understand that it must have been very hard to implement these features due to "cost issue"Don't worry Chuck, this is not going to eat up your C series market, I already switched to GH4 and A7s like the rest of the world did, as it was very obvious at the last NAB. Keep going Canon.
This was an "interview?????????"
Now, if I could just saw off that wretched, dark as Darth Vader lens and crazy glue another better (read: usable in video as well) optic in its place, maybe we would have something... right after swapping out the smart phone sized sensor to something larger and again, more usable. Oh yeah, and I would have to duct tape a viewfinder on there someplace as well, right?
Nukunukoo: The Studio version has 4k but no SD. Dammit.
You do not want to record UHD/4K video to a Secure Digital flash media card, trust me on that, Nuku.
Right now it is almost impossible to do good make-up for 4K close-ups. We need to use the soft lenses and digital soft filters and even the old nylon stocking pulled over the lens tricks to make the human face passable.
In 8K rez, I bet you will not find a single make-up artist today who could tackle that for a close-up or even for a medium-close shot.
budi0251: By introducing it into professional market, means that consumer market will follow soon; let's say 5-10 years on Canon 5D Mk VIII Sr or Nikon D8Xs :DEventhough by then they'll need to invent new things for the professional market to stay unique & competitive.
How about Arri, Imax, Panavision, etc.? will they follow the death of Kodak as well? (not now, but soon. Evolve or Die!).
How about Arri, Imax, Panavision, etc.? will they follow the death of Kodak as well?"
A: The three companies you had just mentioned are doing better now than they ever had in their long, illustrious corporate history.
Joe Ogiba: 40.96x21.6mm sensor , 8192 x 4320 pixels @60fps stills or 75fps widescreen Cinema 8K video, now that is the ultimate hybrid !
Re. the "Cinema 8K video" -- well, there is no such thing. At least not according to the Digital Cinema Initiative folks, and they happen to know a thing or two about what's hip in the world's cinemas today.
What types of an OPTIC are you going to be using to cover this Goliath of a sensor, please? Seriously.
RRJackson: Two things; the first is obviously that very few lenses are going to cover a sensor this wide. And the second is that Red still apparently thinks a brick is the height of industrial design.
Yes indeed, RRJ. According to Red, if a camera does not look like a brick.... then it must be a piece of brick.
"Anyone making the upgrade to the Carbon Fiber version will then be able to pay extra to get the forthcoming 8K sensor."
Wow, you mean to tell me that Red would not let you pay the extra $$$$$$$$$$ for this "8K sensor" (ha-ha-ha-ha) when your camera only has a low-life, pedestrian edition magnesium alloy body? Only when you already had paid the extra €€€€€€€€€€€ for the carbon fiber bodied variant first?
Wow.... what will they think of next, eh?
hotdog321: Doesn't seem like much of a deal to me; marginal at best. Many of these great price drops barely cover shipping.
Great news indeed! Now Canon lenses are only approximately 2.25x the price of what they should be.
Schwermetall: I'm a owner of the RX100 and very satisfied but I think 12MP @ 1" can be very good. We will see it in the near future @ DPR :-)
Nobody should pay more than $1,000 for any 1-inch sensor digital camera, and really, $700 max. for one would be much more reasonable. Particularly considering all the other larger sensor, removable and interchangeable lens options.
Canon will be raffling off copies of this XC10 here at charity auctions -- why would anyone be crazed or desperate enough to spend 2,500 big ones for one of these $$$ ueber-priced €€€ lame ducks?
Stokis: price will kill this camera.
It is probably d-e-a-d already. In fact, we buried it right here on DP Review.
ozturert: This is Canon, so it must be bad :)Typical DPR user :)
Why pay $2,500 for a crippled half-and-half camera with a remarkably poor lens and a crazy memory card type that can cost you $999 a pop extra?
jkoch2: Quirks in DPR's comparison of the XC10 to the FZ1000 or RX10: 1) failure to consider 4k itself as a route to oversampled 1080p, 2) price and cost of memory cards, 3) lens specs, 4) EVF, 5) battery life, 6) any consideration given to the GH4 or NX1, both of which offer higher bitrates and more versatillity for less cost.
That said, maybe Canon will win, even if it sells only 75,000 units, at $2,500 each, and the upscale marketing costs $500 / unit. The $1,000 margin will still yield more than the $50 / unit competitors take home on sales of 1,000,000 at $1,050 each. After all, even with expensive memory cards included, $4,000 is only a minute fraction of the cost of a single day's shoot of a commercial production that has any tangible need for 4.2.2 300mbps video.
Canon knows precious little about video codecs -- just look at their pricey EOS C-X00 line-up. For Canon, AVCHD and MPEG-2 is fine, just fine. So, this new codec from them -- based on their past history with codecs, I cannot trust it at all. It would be a miracle if this was any good and even close in quality to a Sony XAVC intraframe codec.
Photomonkey: It is a notable camera because Canon is doing it. THIS is why Canon was working on when everyone was hoping for a new sensor.This is a far more meaningful step as it has far greater implication for photographers everywhere.
The sensors will come, the lenses will come and the price will come down (and go up). But in the end this will be seen as a landmark.
@ AR: " they are focusing on tools for working professionals."
Well, working professionals won't be working for long, or even classified as professionals, if they end up using consumer camcorders and cameras, like this Canon XC10 here.
PB47: If DPReview gets a chance to interview Canon I hope they ask them why they chose to go with such a slow lens that severely limits the ability for this camera to create anything with a shallow dof. And when the Canon reps respond that they felt reach was more important than speed I hope DPReview points to the RX10, which is a smaller and lighter camera with a similar lens that is a constant f2.8. Surely Canon could have made this lens a constant f2.8 at the least. Also, why is there no dual pixel autofocus, xlr inputs, etc. To buy this camera and a couple decent CFast cards you're looking at around $3,500. $3,500 for a lens that is equivalent to f7.6 to 15.2 in terms of depth of field. Think about what you can buy for $3,500. If you have to buy a Canon just get a C100 with the dual pixel upgrade for $3,500.
There are probably 999 better buys for your $$$ or €€€ than this weird one here from Canon. Out of every 1,000 digital camera/camcorder being offered for sale right now, I had meant to say.
Josh SZ: Panasonic has GH4 and Samsung has NX1 for as good as they are now, both companies or others can learn some thoughts from this model. They can repackage what they have now and produce something better for video targeted applications. The competition is just beginning…
Why is this XC10 any good for video work, you think? I mean, with a 1-inch sensor and an F5.6 iris lens, you can probably only contemplate using it on brighter, sunnier days outdoors.
Funny thing, in the 1970s Canon was making Super 8 cameras with constant f1.4 and constant f1.7 10x range zoom optics. And now -- this lens. Amazing, and not nearly in a good way.