gskolenda: This XC10 is a complete planned rip-off or Canon is just stupid!
I will take the Samsung NX1 and there 16-50 lens over this XC10 All Day Long!Even though the NX1+Lens package cost $400 more!
Eleson it is true. Compression on the h.265 is superior for the same quality compared to the h.264 by quite a bit. It's a lot newer. h.265 is still pretty new so it's a bit of a pain but yes. Given identical bit rates you would expect the NX1's compression to leave more image quality.
Photato: Wow, 4:3 Aspect Ratio Sensor ?!Where is the logic on that?
But you see this is a stills/video CONVERSION camera! You see, we wanted stills shooters to be comfortable so we gave them battery from a 5dm3 and it's aspect ratio as well!
What? The 5dm3 and pretty much every APS/FF sensor we've ever sold is 3:2 aspect ratio? Close enough. Just crop in a shot of our logo, it'll sell.
CarlosMP: I don't understand, why have such a high bitrate for a 1" sensor and relatively dim lens. Why would someone buy this over a Panasonic GH4 ?
And why post so many articles and not compare them to the competition.
Why is this a big deal Photo + video convergence ? Don't most decent cameras do both fairly well ?
Even lowliest of Sony ILC's offer full p/a/s/m iso wb controls while shooting and let you go below frame rate in shutter speed.
If its not an advertorial, lets talk about the elephant in the room the GH4 why get this over a Panasonic GH4 ? Or even a LX100 , FZ1000 or Samsungs NX1 and NX500 or Sonys A7S or AX100 ?
You want to really accurately capture diffraction effects. 305mb/s can show with never before seen clarity what diffraction looks like with moving objects on video
cgarrard: Sorry I didn't see anyone criticizing this part, so I'm going too...
"Out of all the different cameras that Canon offers, the XC10 probably comes with the most comprehensive kit of any of them. In addition to the basic camera, cables, and things that you might expect, the camera ships with the additional viewfinder, a 64GB CFast card and card reader, and a wireless infrared remote."
Additional viewfinder is a piece of plastic, with plastic in it. I can get a 64GB card on Amazon for..nothing. Imagine how much that costs Canon... and the wireless remote, hah... peanuts. None of that costs Canon much if anything to include.
"These are all accessories that are typically sold as options for other cameras, but they are all included with the XC10. Users can be comfortable that they will find everything....... It also uses the same battery as the EOS 5D Mark III [and several other EOS DSLRs - ed.] making it easier to manage interchangeably with other Canon cameras."
You know it's great they throw in all this extra "kit" we don't care about for out money in return for JPG only and an f5.6 lens. Thanks for prioritizing so well canon!
Clearly you have no options on what memory card to use with it and so many choices for faster lenses :P
gandulfc: the only thing it might have over anything that brutally beats in in the other areas (lens, icl, sensor,price) is if the codec blows everything out of the water, but then, again, its bitrate will scare a lot of the "prosumers"
It's pretty niche to think there are people who can't handle the bulk of a cine camera and also can't deal with the bitrate of a GH4/blackmagic and yet also think the xc-10's lens is sufficient. I can't see anybody adding up those three needs and coming out xc-10. This notion that the XC-10 is even on par with an RX100m3 you can put in your pocket and forget about as a stills camera is also laughable.
thoth22: "Was there a particular reason Canon chose to use a clip-on viewfinder instead of a built-in EVF?"
Answer - Because we can charge $500 for it separately.
It's not like other companies sell small cameras with articulating screens AND viewfinders for less than $3,000. It's a great value!
KrisAK: "...increase(d) the performance of this camera in low light. The noise levels are quite good right up to its limit."
It has decent sized pixels even by APS-C standards. Per pixel it might be good but it's still very low res for your low light. They likely get away with saying this bunk by looking at the pixel level of an identically framed shot with a 12mp sensor and a 24mp sensor WITHOUT down sampling them to the same size.
Cost. You only paid $2,500 for our 1" sensor. You shouldn't expect it to be the right aspect ratio.
Mister Roboto: I wish DPR/Connect will do comparison as extensive as this
http://www.imore.com/iphone-6-plus-vs-galaxy-note-4-camera-comparison and get a neutral reviewer so that readers/buyers can decide properly and not just rely on the graphs and rating which IMHO are not helping at all.
I found this review to be unusually comprehensive. I do feel like it's a little untimely. Both those articles were released in 2014. Moble's just a much shorter product lifespan than DPR is used to. If it's serious about being a source for this type of information it needs to focus on improving timing by an order of magnitude.
Where a DSLR review that comes out 6 months after release is informative to existing owners and will last for months as useful buying information the Note4 is already in the later half of it's life and has probably sold 90% of it's run by this point at least.
Just completely insulting that Canon answered cost minimization on a 1" sensor $2,500 fixed lens camera as a reason for such obvious flaws. You're right canon. I AM asking too much for my $2,700. I'll remedy that by asking for a camera without your logo on it.
1" f4.9 got criticized by this very website 3 years ago when the RX100 came out as "slow". I quote: "The RX100's lens is only really fast at its wide-angle end, meaning there's no real scope for shallow depth-of-field photography". I can't WAIT to see the grainy quality from indoor light through an f15 FF equiv lens you can dutifully record at 305mb/s.
Seems extremely ambitious.
EF to E-mount FF with AF? has somebody tested that? I had no idea it existed.
mosc: The A6000's combination of price, a-mount support, AF, and 11fps burst are good enough to render this camera DOA IMHO. I also think this pricepoint's market share is continuing to shrink. People want pro grade everything (which means telephoto lens behemoths), the size/feature advantage of mirrorless and fixed lens, or they use their phone.
True. If you have a lot of A-mount APS-C glass, it's an excellent choice. That describes VERY few people.
mpgxsvcd: I understand why this camera didn't get the Gold award. It isn't quite the camera that the NX1 is. However, isn't it great that a camera with so many great features with this price point is not considered to be exceptional?
The cameras of today are very good compared to what our options were just a few short years ago.
The NX1 is one we will all look back at for years I think. DSLR APS-C is hard to impress on the low end with so many compelling mirrorless and fixed lens options. Some dinky 18-55 f3.5-5.6 kit lens offers little advantage these days compared to smaller choices. It's not like the next step down is a 1/1.7" Canon G7 or somesuch. We have the FZ1000, the LX100, the RX100m3, and 1/2.33" cell phone that are perfectly good in perfect light. APS-C DSLR only makes sense with larger glass now which takes it pretty far from entry level money and makes Sony's option, although cheap in body, not impressive. The NX1 and 7Dm2 are just better.
The A6000's combination of price, a-mount support, AF, and 11fps burst are good enough to render this camera DOA IMHO. I also think this pricepoint's market share is continuing to shrink. People want pro grade everything (which means telephoto lens behemoths), the size/feature advantage of mirrorless and fixed lens, or they use their phone.
dialstatic: 8K video would be insane. It'd be like having a D810 that shoots 30fps (or so). Will we even *need* stills cameras in the near future?
The D810's JPG files are close to 10MB. If you want 30fps out of it you're talking 2,400 mb/s video. Lossless compression might cut that in half but I doubt more than that. There's more to the difference between stills and video than resolution. Stills capture all information in one frame. Video likes to save space with fancy codex's that subtly reduce quality in places you (hopefully) won't look.
Also, the D810 doesn't have enough pixels for 8K video. It's 7360 wide (3:2 ratio) where 8K video (4320p) is 7680 pixels. You'd need a 7680x5120 mp 3:2 sensor to capture it which is an even higher 39.3 mp cutting off about 8% top and bottom. The Canon 5DS has the resolution for it. In fact it would do it on a 1.13x crop!
I thought manual focus was a requirement for 85mm f1.2. The depth of field is too small otherwise. Why all this fuss about the AF? The canon 85 1.2mm's AF is notoriously terrible wide open.
Maff maff: Sadly they have left out IS. If they wouldn’t it would have increase the versatility in super low light even further and I know this is a wide angle with F1,4 maybe on a body which is good for ISO 3200.Having the possibility in the company’s to leave out IS on lenses is for me a deal breaker for body’s with no IBIS and the reason why I like systems which have this like Olympus some Sony and others. Here IS is guaranteed for all lenses and no option for the manufacturer to leave it out somewhere which will happen even on expensive primes like here.
I find IS useful at 1/100s and below. This is still a large sensor camera comparatively. Is it so hard to imagine wanting to shoot at night without paper thin depth of field?
how wide's the lens? And how fast? And I'm just assuming this is 1/2.33"?
D1N0: Do they still smear detail like in my HX9v?
mosc: This physical format still has legs IMHO. Sony just needs to pair it with a bigger sensor (like 1/1.7" or 2/3") and a brighter f2.8 lens. Won't go to 720mm anymore but who cares? Particularly if it's 24mm or even wider, it'll be too useful and too easy to pocket to sweat the image quality.
... and a viewfinder like the HX90V. Preferably wider than 28 while they're at it.