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.
meland: Most DPR people rabidly criticising this product will never be in its target audience and sadly have demonstrated that they certainly don't want to try to understand that it might suit someone else. However quite why it makes them so hot under the collar is hard to say. Don't like the product? Don't buy it. Don't need the product? Same answer.
Having said that sadly Chuck Westfall does seem past his sell by date. He's done a reasonable job over the years but if Canon USA really wants to have someone to explain this particular product to DPR readers (probably a lost cause in any case) they perhaps should consider recruiting someone who can come across better than poor old Chuck has been able to manage. Or not concern themselves with DPR at all.
So what is its target audience? People who want to spend $2500 for a 12mp bridge camera that can't shoot RAW?
SmilerGrogan: Great job by Chuck. DPR readers need more education like this from the editors on the difference between the requirements of video shooters versus still shooters. Like life, camera design is a series of compromises and it looks like the Canon engineers did a great job of balancing the features vs. cost vs. complexity vs. weight.
" Canon engineers did a great job of balancing the features vs. cost vs. complexity vs. weight."
Seems more like they compromised all these aspects. The cost isn't low. It doesn't have RAW. It uses a huge loupe over the rear LCD which adds considerable size to the camera rather than having a compact EVF. As for weight, it could have been made even lighter if it were given the option to change lenses. Too bad you can't stick a small, lightweight prime lens on it like a Canon 24mm f/2.8 pancake.
Elaka Farmor: With a $2500 price tag it should outclass GH4 and NX1. Good luck with that…..
@Sdaniella - slow, variable aperture superzooms aren't that expensive.
The sad thing about the XC10 is that it'll never have a faster lens on it. Never. You're stuck with that slow variable-aperture superzoom.
RRJackson: Lousy 8-bit codec. Might as well buy a 4K cell phone.
Sdaniella - "fyi, the original EOS M, was intentionally a very basic model, that sits below basic budget beginner EOS Rebel dSLRs"
Well, Canon blew it with the EOS M too, because they tried to sell a "very basic model that sits below basic budget beginner EOS Rebel DSLRs" for a whopping $799. Way overpriced for what you're getting...which is the same issue with the XC10! The XC10 isn't worth $2500 anymore than the EOS M was worth $799. But once again, Canon thinks they can get people to blindly cough up the cash for products with major intentional omissions.
If anyone is truly interested in this camera, just wait until Canon dumps the price by two-thirds like they did with the EOS M in an effort to unload it. Anyone buying it now at its current price is a sucker, just like the foolish people who bought the EOS M at its original price.
T3: Wait for it to go on fire-sale. But even then, I'm not sure how attractive it will be. It's an expensive fixed lens bridge camera with no RAW!
Who says anyone is taking things personally? When a product has a lot of flaws, people just call them out. No need to get defensive. Maybe it's you who's taking it "so personally."
I should also point out that another flaw is that it doesn't have a power zoom. No RAW, no interchangable lens, no power zoom, and a big plastic eyepiece that fits over the LCD instead of a real EVF, and a high price. This thing is weird.
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."
Wow! It 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." What an amazing innovation!
Wait for it to go on fire-sale. But even then, I'm not sure how attractive it will be. It's an expensive fixed lens bridge camera with no RAW!
Maverickmii: compliments to Samsung, NX1 packs a lot of interesting features! though a challenging product proposition in a crowded segment, a mirrorless aps-c with the size of a dslr and the price of a FF.
@Maverickmii - "And wow, 15 fps it must take a long time to delete the overhead (80%) afterwards :-)"
Yeah, it takes soooo long to delete images! Oh, the horror! Not.
Shooting in bursts at high frame rate can really make a huge difference in many situations.
rallyfan: Why harass the three elderly women in Spain?
*Sigh* Taking photos is not "rude behavior".
"I can think of no place where it's right." Really? Seriously? You can't think of any place where its okay to take photo of people on the street? LOL. Maybe you belong in the North Korea gov't, because it seems like you'd fit right in with that totalitarian, hyper-controlled society, LOL. Meanwhile, here in the free world, we've been free to do street photography ever since photography was first born. And thank goodness most people don't think that it's such an offensive crime as you do. You might not think it's a big deal, but small freedoms do matter. And it's hyper-sensitive people like yourself who take offense to everything that are usually on the forefront of greater and greater restrictions. It's pretty scary and sad that people like you cry "harassment" at the slightest potential that anyone might be "uncomfortable" and don't think that there's "no place where it's right" to take a photo of someone in public.
@Greynard - Really? Photography is now "rude" behavior? Great, another yahoo who wants to vilify photographers and photography. Did you know there are some places in the world that are trying to criminalize photography? Those laws must warm your heart, Greynerd:
When people suddenly think that the simple act of doing photography in public is "rude" behavior, we get laws like these that curtail our freedoms. Thanks, rallyfan and Greynerd! I'm sure you guys would be the first to cheer when a photographer is thrown in jail for taking photos on the street. So much for the art of street photography! It may some day be a criminal act.
And frankly, I bet those elderly women got over it as soon as the photographer got his shot and walked away. It's not like they were traumatized by it. They probably just went on with their lives as if nothing had happened.
I think the world has gone a bit uptight if people start thinking that a random photo taken in a public place is "harassment", just because someone made you feel "uncomfortable." That's just the price you pay for living in a society with other people.
Sometimes, things happen that might make you feel "uncomfortable." Someone bumps into you while walking down the street. Or you have to cram into a crowded subway car. Or, God forbid, someone makes unsolicited eye contact with you! Yes, all these things have the potential to make someone feel "uncomfortable". Like I said, that's just the small price you pay for living in a society with other people. If you want to avoid any potential for feeling "uncomfortable" out in public, then just stay at home! But if you go out in public, you have to understand that you're out in public.
You're whining about a trivial first-world problem here. "Oh, no, someone made me feel uncomfortable because they took a photo!" Get over it.
Utterlyotter: Without doubt a brilliant camera.But don´t quite see the point of an apsc for FF-money and in a DSLR-sized body, sort of defeats the purpose imo. (Thats highly subjective of course)
But it´ll put some pressure on the competition, wich is good.
I still remember when people like yourself were calling auto exposure metering, auto focus, multiple focus points, focus tracking, and image stabilization lenses "gimmicks". People like yourself would say, "I don't need them! I don't care about all these gimmicks!" Of course, these are all things that we now take for granted, and use as valuable tools for photography. It just goes to show that a lot of new stuff is initially dismissed as a "gimmick" by the older, more conservative crowd; but today's "gimmick" usually becomes tomorrow's standard, expected feature.
keeponkeepingon: I think the title, "a class of it owns" just goes to show how dorked up the DPREVIEW sensor size based camera classification system is.
With the kit lens this is almost a $3000 camera. It should be compared to other $3000 cameras regardless of sensor size.
Also I don't see how any camera that has problems focusing in low light could be given a gold?
If I want a quick sunny day camera, I'll use my iPhone thank you very much.
What in the world are you smoking? LOL. The camera body alone sells for only $1300. It just happens to be available in a kit that includes a very high-end Samsung "S" lens, which is basically Samsung's equivalent to Canon's "L" lenses. Try to price out a weather sealed 16-50mm f/2-2.8 lens with ED glass and OIS in any other system! While we're at it, try pricing out the cost of a 15 fps DSLR with 4K video in any other system! A Canon 7D MKII with only 10 fps, no 4K video, no wifi, no articulating LCD, no touch screen, sells for $1700, quite a bit more than the $1300 selling price of the NX1.
Your overblown complaint about the "amazing" attention that dpreview is giving this camera (LOL!) just makes you sound really, really insecure. What's wrong with more competition in the marketplace? I use Canon EOS and I also use Samsung NX. Both have their pros and cons, which is why I use both. But I see the stuff coming from Samsung as being very exciting.
Is it really harassment? I don't see how a quick photo, on the street, in a public place, rises to the level of harassment.
@HFLM- the point is that you're getting 15fps in a $1300 camera. How much would you have to spend to get similar speed in a DSLR? As for 4K, again, it's something you're getting in a $1300 camera. It merely points to the considerable level of specs and technology that Samsung is willing to give you for such a low price. As for touch screen, time to get with the modern age! Touch screens are everywhere. I guess you're one of those people who thinks touch screens on smartphones are also a gimmick. I find touch focus to be the fastest way to manually tell the camera exactly where to focus. Great for when the camera is mounted on a tripod or table pod. It's also handy when the articulating screen is flipped out, like for low angle shooting or waist level shooting. And for video shooters, touch focus is a huge advantage! No need for any follow-focus or focus-pull contraptions on your lens! Touch focus is no gimmick. You just don't know how to use it, or understand how others use it.
realtrance: Years ago I was finally excited about digital photography.
Suffers from the same problem as computers: intentionally built-in obsolescence.
These days I just stick with my iPhone's camera and whatever results I happen to get. Every now and then I take out my Canon 1V body and remember how much better things once were, before it all went to overpriced, constantly obsoleted and thus crippled digital crap.
Yeah, the good old days when the maximum ISO color film I ever used was a whopping high ISO 800! And for higher ISO shooting, I'd use Ilford Delta 3200 black-and-white filme shot at ISO 1600, and images were so grainy it looked like images were composed of large grains of sand.
No thanks, I'll still take digital.
As for "obsolescence", I have an old Canon Rebel XT DSLR from 2008 that still shoots just fine. It may only be 8mp-- low by today's standards-- but it still takes great images, and I've printed up plenty of images that easily match or exceed the quality of film. And I'm not limited to 36 shots per roll, and no image review, like I am with film. I don't know what you mean by "crippled digital crap." Film was crippled in its own way (36 shots per roll, no image review, poor high ISO, high cost per shot, etc). I think a film camera is more "obsolete" than my old Rebel XT DSLR.
T3: Unlike all the cynics here, I don't think it's bad at all. If I were an RX100 owner, it's something I'd definitely consider. I just think a lot of people are making fun of it because the Hassy Stellars had come before it. But if the Hassy Stellars had never existed, and Fotodiox had introduced this $60 wooded grip for the RX100 all on their own, I think people would look at it differently. I think it's a nice way to add some visual character to a bland-looking RX100, while also adding a nice grip to it! I happen to like the look of wood, and it's a striking contrast to the camera body. Aside from the look of wood, I just like how wood feels, so I think it would be a nice grip to hold. Ultimately, I think that would be something that would make the grip worth having: being able to have the feel of a contoured wood grip under your fingers.
It's just a wooden grip, for crying out loud. LOL. What's all this non-sense about it being "tacky and "looks horrible" and "mis-match." I think some people just want cookie-cutter cameras that all look the same, and anything that remotely deviates from that stringent industrial aesthetic is deemed "tacky" and "horrible", LOL. God forbid anyone does anything to a camera that might add a bit of personality! "Wood on a camera! The horror!" Anything different seems downright offensive to you. Relax. It's just a harmless little wooden grip, and no one is going to force you to buy one.
You'd probably hate what I did to my Oly m4/3 camera: https://imageshack.com/i/64img9908copyj
I think it's fun and gives the camera some personality. You'd probably start hyperventilating with anger. LOL. I guess I'm just a little more flexible and light-hearted when it comes to my cameras.
It's a 15 frame-per-second APS-C camera that sells for $1300 and shoots 4K video. A Canon 7D MKII is 10 fps, sells for $1700, doesn't have an articulating LCD, no have a touch screen, no wifi, no 4K, and it's bigger and heavier.. So when you say "APS-C for FF money", you really ought to take into consideration the specs.