Donnie G: Someone commented here that the Canon XC10 is a prosumer PowerShot camera, and I agree. The camera is everything that a PowerShot built for pros on a budget should be. I won't try to comment on its image quality or even on whether it will be accepted by the target user base until I can get my hands on one and check it out for myself. What impresses me the most at this time are the design and ergonomics. I think Canon has made a very user friendly camera that, like all PowerShots, can be picked up and used by anyone regardless of their skill level. If all of this proves to be true in practice, then I will definitely buy one for myself by next spring. It would be the first small sensor camera that I would consider to be a compliment to my DSLR system and the way I work. As first impressions go, I really like what I see in the XC10. :))
@Donnie G- your love of Canon has made you so myopic that you seem to think that the XC10 is the only "video production" capable camera in the market! LOL. It's not. That's the difference between you and everyone else on this thread: we seem to have a wider and broader perspective than you. You've apparently decided that you'll only ever use Canon, and so anything they produce needs to be supported, praised, and justified in your mind.
@Donnie G - Oh, just buy one already. Why do I get the feeling that Canon could make a camera out of card board and chewing gum, and you'd still be the one to defend and promote it? LOL.
Unfortunately, you seem to be in the minority in thinking that this camera is a good value proposition. I think this camera is following the same path as the EOS M introduction: overpriced and underwhelming. XC10: no RAW, no interchangeable lenses, variable aperture zoom, no power zoom, it doesn't accept Canon's EVF-DC1, the LCD hood adds a lot to its "compact" size, etc. And how many "heavy pro" users like buying fixed lens bridge cameras that can't shoot RAW, let alone ones costing $2500?
I'd wait until the price gets slashed, like they did with the EOS M.
Canon depends on people like you, people who think: it's a Canon, and therefore will buy it, regardless of price. But it doesn't always work, though. Canon tried the same thing with the EOS M and its original price tag-- a $799 "Powershot" with interchangeable lenses. Canon was hoping that Canon fans would overlook the EOS M's shortcomings, and cough up the cash anyway. Now it looks like they are attempting to do the same with the XC10, this time with a $2500 "Powershot", but without the interchangeable lenses, and without RAW. It's Canon's most expensive "Powershot" ever.
km25: Think of all the ways that camera companies have been trying to by pass the lonely cable release. Is it because it is too heavy to drag around. Maybe cause of how complex it's usage is. Thank God in heaven that now the hard work of triping the sutter moves closer to auto shutters, shutters that known when it is a good image and the camera takes the picture on it's own. Remotes have there place. This just having the camera peel you a grape.
If it's one less thing I have to carry around, I'm all for it. It's not about the cable release being "too heavy" or "too complex." For me, it's just one less item to have to carry, to dig out of my camera bag, to carry in my pocket, or to lose/misplace. That's why I like the option to trigger cameras remotely with a smartphone. But even wirelessly linking a smartphone and opening up an app can be a bit more cumbersome than this touchless shutter method. At the very least, it gives me another option that doesn't require me to carry an additional item.
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.