It could very well be that few people will buy a single copy of this device, but many organisations will buy 10 or 20 copies. I think Canon may be to video equipment what IBM used to be to computer equipment: Nobody ever got fired buying IBM, the saying went, and so maybe today nobody ever got fired buying Canon. They're "safe" for the guy signing the purchase order.
Whether the product is innovative may not actually matter as much as the label. Canon may use the tech seen here, in an evolved form, in future cams or camcorders or whatever -- including suppositories... What matters is they may be filling a line item on any number of purchase orders etc.
Meanwhile, DPR killed several birds with one stone by running several pieces on the device: the anticipated responses to the claims here generated site traffic; Canonisti arrived to defend the indefensible, somebody at Amazon might be happily counting clicks, and in the final analysis, there's no such thing as bad publicity.
Mike99999: Canon informercial from a site sponsored by Canon. No surprises here...
This camera is a RX10-clone disguised to look like something better. The RX-10 has a target audience, but for 4K use I don't see why anyone would choose this Canon over the flexibility of a GH4.
I think it'd be more fair to Canon to recognize that people do like the 5DII video capabilities though. Pricing, size, etc. come into play but realistically Canon have made significant steps, just as Panasonic have.
The question is, will the XC10 be viewed as a significant step?
jukeboxjohnnie: Yes but photography is mainly a stills hobby I couldn't care less about video I've never used it on my camera since digital started
ozturert: I don't need this camera but I can see how useful this can be for some.Ups, sorry! I should have said "this is an extremely expensive and nonsense camera. my FZ1000 is much better and cheap!" :)
You're generally correct; your FZ is better and cheap.
There may be a user base for this, and there may be ways in which this is better than the FZ. However, no amount of optimism or stretching will make this the ground-breaking revelation that Canon or the media apparently want it to be.
It seems to be a decent camcorder with the capabilities of a P&S stills digicam, or vice-versa. I don't think it's capable of cold fusion and sincerely doubt it will even come close to curing cancer.
Cool story bro.
Why are you reading about a camcorder?
If the XC10 were a big deal, would it need press pieces explaining that it's a big deal?
myung keun: I love this concept and I do feel like it's the right direction, but I would never invest in a system that offers 4k or 20k that has rolling shutter. It just doesn't make sense to invest that much money into a body and lenses, external displays, rigs, microphones etc. and have a system that I cannot do a decent pan with.
Ps: Talking about it, does anybody have information on that particular matter in this particular case?
This is fixed lens (so there are no other lenses in which to invest) and there don't seem to be actual XLRs (I don't know what your audio lines are set up for right now).
more people claim to have had this camera than those who claim to own it or just want to own it.
That is funny.
princecody: Why would I buy this when the Panasonic FZ1000 is only a fraction of the cost? Someone please enlighten me regarding this outrageous price tag :)
Wait, if we can only speculate about the build quality of the Canon, we're using its weight as some sort of indication that it's more resilient than the FZ? So if it weighed another 2 kg, would it then be even better?...
People are using mobile phones and their videos are run on CNN.
Could this find a market as an entry-level pro webcam? The browser interface is actually a good choice IMO. Sound could be an issue with no XLRs but I suppose unbalanced lines could work.
Donnie G: It's wonderful to see the trolls whipped up into a feeding frenzy over Canon's XC10 multi-media camera, especially since, on this site, that usually means that Canon has hit another grand slam home run out of the marketplace ballpark. Canon's fresh approach to camera design ergonomics, distilled from their Cinema EOS cameras, is a very clear indication of the form any mirrorless EOS DSLR replacement will take in the future. Imagine a mirrorless EOS Rebel with no need of a battery draining EVF and no need for a mirror box to support an OVF because it would have a simple removable eye loupe that attaches directly to the live view display. You would control the sensor display from the grip via a joystick when the loupe is attached. Ah, but first things first. :))
A mirrorless EOS Rebel with no EVF or mirror box to support an OVF, but rather a loupe attaching to a live view display is a compelling idea. I'd like that.
The XC10 is unremarkable.
shutterbobby: Funny I had the MV1..the 1st digital video & still cam from Canon about 20 yrs ago,at the same price as this one.DV quality video & stills good enough for web work back then..made money with this as well.Sure there is a market for this....
The MV1s were nice machines and they had that BP-9something charger if memory serves, and our cables would always twist and strip... Sure, users made money using those, but now things are different. I used the last one in a fixed location; reliable and worth the money back then.
Quality today is somehow vital and irrelevant at the same time We all want better tones, better dynamics, an end to rolling shutter issues, etc. OTOH some guy with an iPhone 6P has uploaded a video before the fancy gear is even unpacked.
The best part of the advertorial was the bit about "Even DPReview would benefit from this type of camera." Well, yes, if it sells via the site I suppose DPReview will benefit. Congrats.
Other than that though... Meh... Calling this some sort of revolution is unfounded, and the primary reason the author has to list for whom this device is intended is that it is ostensibly unclear for whom this device in intended...
Will Jackie Treehorn buy 20-30 cameras for his company? I doubt it. Skin tones are poor, and low light performance is unremarkable.
We've shot Canon since the first EOS 6x0 series. The following decade we got the Kodak/Canon hybrids. Then actual Canon DSLRs, and so on, and I'm sure many here have similar backgrounds. If Canon thought this device would be exciting, they've lost the plot.
Nos 4, 1, 2 my top three pics, in that order. Great shots.
rallyfan: I think the pricing is actually bad news for J fans and Nikon 1 fans.
In the past, the 1s were priced a bit high IMO and they didn't seem to sell very well. Maybe I'm mistaken but that's the impression I got. Then, 1s would show up at deep discounts and there were bargains to be had.
As a result I learned that this is a nice system. It's very small and has great burst/AF performance compared to other small MILCs, and with the deep discounts previously available it was very compelling.
The new J seems nice. Granted, the 4K/15fps thing seems silly at first (upon closer examination, it's borderline idiotic, but oh, well -- the other features are great). However the new cam is priced well from the start, and may sell better, meaning there may not be deep discounts.
I hope it flops and is sold off in fire sales, because I think this is a great camera! I can get by with a single battery and sell the lens anyway.
Now I wonder what their next move might be. A V series 1 along similar lines but with the viewfinder differences implemented would also be very interesting.
These are great cams overall!
I think the pricing is actually bad news for J fans and Nikon 1 fans.
electrophoto: I used to own the X10 - and quite liked it... always felt, that at the time it came out it was one of the best compacts on the market - a striking balance between size, external controls and good enough IQ - but times have changed and there's not really anything that tempts me with the X30.When I need a compact I take my LX100 - which is only slightly larger than the X30 - and neither is truly pocketable so it's less off an issue anyhow.The LX100 does everything the X30 does including a decent EVF but with a much larger sensor, nicer lens (at least for my needs) and a good bit of traditional / external controls. And the price isn't that far off either.
Or if I wanted it even more compact the RX100Mk3 is a tempting offer too...
If fuji would have at least put in a 1" sensor.
electrophoto, I suppose you're right. A better sensor (larger? better? both?) would make the existing price more palatable. I also agree that doing so might make people think twice about moving up the Fuji range.
rallyfan: I suspect a used X10 would be a more reasonable proposal given the high pricing of this, and the modest IQ.
As to the layout and controls, we are rapidly approaching the stage when neither will have any sort of context, in that generations of photographers are coming that will have never used "classic" controls and will have never used a film camera.
This is great news, because we'll finally break free of the "film" mentality and move forward. The nostalgia is not just pointless, it's counter-productive at times.
Anybody here work as an X-ray tech, an orthopedic, or a radiologist? Do you miss the days of developing and fixing X-ray film and autorads? Do you wish you could get the "feel" and "control" back today, or would you rather use a modern interface and have your patients get their results instantly, with the possibility of further analyses using a computerized interface? Hm...
Why are photographers still stuck when everyone else that uses imaging isn't? Must be hobbyists.
You're calling me a troll but avoiding the issues I've brought up.
There's not been a direct answer regarding whether you get paid for the process or the image. If you get paid for the image, the process is quite literally your problem, not the client's. Therefore you can use whatever device you prefer anyway. If you prefer using dials, good for you. Some may say they're "established" or "proven" but they've done nothing to move us forward IMO. We need a simple, direct interface, true, but I don't think this is it.
As to the more important question -- whether you wear a beret -- I'm going to take all that above as a "yes."
It's not an inexpensive camera for the image quality offered. If you like it, so be it. I'd want something that makes imaging easier. To each their own. I haven't lost hope in Fujifilm, as I said their range is noteworthy. This isn't their finest example though.
Thanks for the discussion.
It's hard to pic a favourite but I particularly enjoyed no. 7, from Utah, because it took a cold day and brought out a striking warmth.
Are you paid for the process or the image?
Speaking personally, I've paid others for images. Do your clients pay you for the process?
(I just can't resist: Do you wear a beret?...).