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.
marcio_napoli: Red knows their market better than me, but as far as I'm concerned, I can't see Hollywood ready for 35mp footage.
Not even Hollywood can handle it. It's just too extra costly for IQ gains that exactly who cares?
35mp moving images, even for the masters at Hollywood, is not a walk in the park.
You get more expensive CG, make up, special make up, props, sets, wardrobe, deadlines, etc.
Blockbusters' budget are average at 100 - 200 million, at 2k.
For 35mp footage, you can bet it will increase another 100 million for extra technical requirements.
PS: if you wonder what I'm talking about, it's possible that you've never made a CG visual effect.
Going from DV resolution, to 1080p is massive in terms of technical skills required.
Jumping to 4k is another massive leap, and then there's this 35mp thing...
Not worthy the extra cost. Not even for Hollywood.
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.
mosc: I wish DPR would do like a 30 second video clip in 4K between this and the FZ1000, process them and downsample them to 1080p, and then put them up to show how clearly superior the video quality the XC10 is. If you want to wax on about 305 mb/s data rates as revolutionary, at least show some reason why you think that's important.
Cause all I see is a lens that's f5.6 at 240 instead of f4.0 at 400, a sensor that can't deliver 20mp stills, a body without a viewfinder (for video?!!), a user interface from an elph (control dials missing?), and a value proposition that's insulting. So... show me the goods DPR now that you've backed yourself on this ledge.
"all I see is a lens that's f5.6 at 240 instead of f4.0 at 400, a sensor that can't deliver 20mp stills, a body without a viewfinder, a user interface from an elph, and a value proposition that's insulting."
Okay, so these were the good parts of the XC10, surely. Now, tell us your dislikes! :-))
Kjell Olsson: We all know that Amazon owns DPR, but I thought that this fact wouldn´t affect DPR´s views and reviews and that every manufacturer would be treated in the same fair way.
As this article is written by a DPR "Reviewer / Staff Writer", I think the readers are entitled to an explanation to why this very biased article was published.
It´s time for Simon Joinson: Editor-in-Chief to enter the stage!
I also notice that the presentation of Dale Baskin has been altered today - after the animated discussion here started to heat up . Why?
Canon and their foolish promos are to blame here, not DP Review. Based on the specs, particularly of the lens and the memory cards used, this one is perhaps an "epic failure." Maybe one day we will see some in-depth video reviews of the XC10 to make sure if our initial bad impressions were justified or not.
Oh yeah -- "Earth to Canon:" consumer cameras do not sell for $2,500 in the Spring of 2015, Dear Canon-san. Leave the white rabbit alone already!
TO Photo: I think this camera is aimed at a very different demographic than the typical DPR poster - a market much younger and more diverse. Why 4K video - because you can extract 8 MP stills from the stream and still have a video to down convert for a website. Potential users of this camera may be upgrading from using smart phones and tablets to get more control over image quality particularly under difficult conditions. You have to think new media users not traditional photographers or videographers.
"Potential users of this camera may be upgrading from using smart phones and tablets."
April Fool's Day was LAST WEEK.
mpgxsvcd: Could you define "convergence" as opposed to "Hybrid"please. I fail to see the difference at the moment.
"Could you define "convergence" as opposed to "Hybrid" please."
Gladly. It is when your eyes are seeing the crazy marketing hype promo that some PR firm wrote for Canon -- but your brain refuses to believe any of it.