Canon XC10: What you need to know

Indeed, the word "camera" would not be used wisely in connection with Canon's XC-10. A possible sale at USD $700, a summertime laugh riot at the announced USD $2500 racket price.

Keep in mind, the kit lens on this thing is worth about $100 -- BUT you cannot just rip it off and toss it into the rubbish bin, 'cause the darn thing is crazy glued on the XC10 body permanently! Crazy.

Jun 29, 2015permalink

The Squire

Looks like Blackmagic just made this product irrelevant, for drone use at least: http://www.engadget.com/2015/04/13/blackmagic-micro-cinema-camera-leak/

Apr 13, 2015permalink

Drewy

So it's possibly for ENG work,eh? Where's the zoom rocker...how hard would it have been to borrow the HF G30 rocker for starters. And the XLR connectors? This falls way short of what it should be...but it will sell, and then Canon will bring out one with all the above. Canon...I know you can do better!!

Apr 13, 2015permalink

Bruce Oudekerk

My worst fears for the logical evolution of the camera have been realized.

Apr 11, 2015permalink

FrameFactory

Canon Version Of Copy from Sony RX10 or Panasonic FZ1000

Apr 10, 2015permalink

Graham Austin

I don't think anyone would buy a Canon new, after that insane price drop they did on the 1DC and C300

Apr 9, 2015permalink

Rehabdoc

Looks like one more baby convergence step towards mirrorless... Again with number one priority not being to make a great camera, but to avoid in every way possible, any shred of a possibility of cutting into DSLR sales.

Apr 9, 2015permalink

Stokis

price will kill this camera.

Apr 9, 2015permalink

It is probably d-e-a-d already. In fact, we buried it right here on DP Review.

Apr 10, 2015permalink

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 :-)

Apr 9, 2015*permalink

The question is are you willing to pay almost 2 grand more for a lens 2 stops slower?

Apr 9, 2015permalink

I just looked up the specs of an RX100. The Canon lens is much less than two steps slower (F2.8-5.6 v f1.8 - 4.9) and has a vastly greater zoom range. It's a completely different kind of camera anyway and clearly worth far more.

Schwermetall may be right - it will be interesting to see how 12MP works on that sensor size, which was his point, duh!

Apr 9, 2015permalink

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?

Apr 10, 2015permalink

You just aren't getting it. It's not a point and shoot little camera that happens to be capable of video. It's a serious tool. If it's not for you, walk on by. Calling the target market "Nobody" because you don't understand it isn't helpful.

I didn't think this was for me initially but, having thought about it, this could be the camera that would replace my ageing but 100% dependable video camera, at an inflation adjusted similar price point, with prospects of lasting and being usable for just as long. And it might even take very nice photos too. Does that make me Nobody?

Apr 10, 2015permalink

"at an inflation adjusted similar price point"

Since when does inflation apply to ever improving and getting cheaper electronic products.

Apr 10, 2015permalink

For equivalent money you get vastly better video quality and stills unimaginable back then.

Apr 10, 2015permalink

Samuli Pulkkinen

@francis: isn't it weird, people are still paying 50 000 and more for 2/3" cameras these days... Maybe they just do not know what they are doing and should ask you first?

Apr 11, 2015permalink

@ deep7: "It's a serious tool. "

hat is? If you are talking about the USD $2500 Canon XC-010 -- it is but a joke of a camera with an outrage passing for a glued-on a lens. Canon might sell some copies of it to a desperate John Q. Consumer at $700 a pop, but that would be about the top price anyone with more brain than money would and should pay for one o these latest Canon-follies.

@ Sampuket: "people are still paying 50 000 and more for 2/3" cameras these days."

Maybe they do -- on some other, distant planet. Show me one real person who would be that utterly dumb on Planet Earth. But maybe you are confusing flashy manufacturers' press announcements -- with what actually gets SOLD. Well, that could be it, too, right?

Jun 29, 2015permalink

Now that is some serious drivel!

Jun 30, 2015permalink

Gionni Dorelli

It is more interesting for video, because photos on a 1inch 12mp sensor with a non interchangeable zoom, it s for very basic low end work.

Apr 9, 2015permalink

W4YNE 1

I wonder if this is why Canon never installed 4k video in a 5D mk4 camera?

Is it Canons logic that If the consumer wants a 4K video camera why not make them buy two, one camera for video and one for stills."greater profits"

I'm affraid if I was in the market for a video I think I would seriously consider the Panasonics GH4 with It's 4k video and decent stills over this offering from Canon.

Apr 9, 2015permalink

The Canon 1D C does 4K. I agree, the GH4 is a much better hybrid stills/video camera.

Apr 9, 2015permalink

Christmas ball

Where can you buy the 5d Mark IV? When was it relesed?

Apr 9, 2015permalink

joyclick

Price,price,price?
Pricy?

Apr 9, 2015permalink

GaryJP

This has taken a lot of people by surprise. Now watch them spit.

I am interested in it, but have to wait and see whether its performance is better than my GH4 with pro Zuiko lenses. Very tempting though, and not outside the price range for a freelance video producer.

Apr 9, 2015permalink

jtan163

@Barney Britton - any news on the video toolset - e.g. zebras, focus peaking (for those of us who don't trust the AF), vector scopes and the like?

I like it, I can't afford it, but I'm very tempted anyway.

Apr 9, 2015permalink

It has zebras (70-100%), peaking (three colours), markers, time code and colour bars (EB/SMPTE on the PAL versions, at least).

Apr 9, 2015permalink

jtan163

Ooh timecode, nice.

Thanks Richard.

Apr 9, 2015permalink

eclux

According to a friend who asked at NAB, no waveform or histogram. Don't know about vectorscope but I'd guess no. Then again, that's all just firmware.

Apr 27, 2015permalink

TriezeA72

Even Leica would find it hard trying to flog off this half baked pudding for $2500, the pricing is over inflated and very ambitious... If canon want to save face, then a serious price reduction is needed, before they destroy what ever little credibility they have left to stand on!

Apr 8, 2015permalink

MustyMarie

No they would not, but they would add some glitter to its outside and say it is made by saluting German workers - then add another 1 or 2 $k to the price !! ;)

Leica are the grandest of all fleecers, but it takes an idiot/sucker to buy them now doesn't it !!!!!

Apr 9, 2015permalink

ColdViking

I disagree that Leica is as bad as Canon (in this case) at over inflation. Leica lenses (at least) are generally of decent quality. The XC10 is specifically designed to separate a fool and his cash. It has no other redeeming features.

Apr 9, 2015permalink

lilBuddha

Canon make very good lenses. A few duds, like any other manufacturer, but very good for the vast majority.
Leica also make very good lenses. But to pretend there is no markup for the little red dot is silly. Of course there is.
Whether you think it is worth it is another matter.
But they are not the worst at this, Hasselblad are.
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/6269346635/hasselblad-introduces-stellar-ii-luxury-enthusiast-compact

Apr 9, 2015permalink

Thomas Kachadurian

Hmmm. Is it a $2,500 home video camera for wealthy people. With it's 1" sensor it won't appeal to Photographers. 1" is great in a sony RX100, but this fella is way bigger than that.

Video folks, is this your dream?

Apr 8, 2015permalink

No, not my dream. For $2500 I would want interchangeable lenses and a larger sensor.

Now that sounds like my GH4, only for far less money.

Apr 8, 2015permalink

brownie314

Seems like even an A7s with external recorder is a better option.

Apr 9, 2015permalink

DesertRat2012

As soon as you start talking about external anything you put yourself totally outside the target market for this product.

Apr 19, 2015permalink

hayely

My dream camera - Canon XC10 (20?), APS-C sensor, $ 2000.

Apr 8, 2015permalink

Samsung 28mp APS-C 4K NX1 body $1,299 , Samsung 16-50mm f/3.5-5.6 Power Zoom ED OIS Lens $349. Keep dreaming if you think Canon will match that.

Apr 8, 2015permalink

MustyMarie

It has a 10x lens so what Samsung lens for that ?? Not a equivalent comparison, better cam YES, but apples and oranges !!

Just a ?better? RX10 ? maybe?

Apr 9, 2015permalink

Samsung has the 18-200mm OIS zoom for the 4K NX1.

Apr 9, 2015permalink

which is not what you want to use on the samsung NX1
http://www.ephotozine.com/article/samsung-18-200mm-f-3-5-6-3-ed-ois-lens-review-22069

You can get 2 lenses within budget to cover the range.

Apr 9, 2015permalink

Interesting idea. I'll have to see how the still imagery turns out.

The lack of a dedicated viewfinder is a big deal to me, because I enjoy using the LCD and viewfinder but I don't think I want them melded together.

Um, the 1" sensor is EXACTLY what I'm looking for from Canon, Nikon, Fuji, and Olympus. Any smaller and there just isn't enough capability for a clean image; but any larger and you need interchangeable lenses.

Apr 8, 2015permalink

(unknown member)

While it seems to be way over priced compared to some of the cameras mentioned in this thread, maybe waiting to see what it actually puts out might make sense before bashing it.

After all, Nikon puts the same sensor in entry DSLRs as they do in more expensive ones and you don't see the same gnashing of teeth about what the differences are.

I don't want one but I am sure lots of video professionals will.
Since it will fit on a large drone I can see many organisations using it.

The EVF thing would need to work well for hand helf use I would think.

Apr 8, 2015*permalink

A fixed lens? 1" Sensor? 3.8fps? No viewfinder? for $2500?

Why would anyone want to buy this, where they have so many other options? Just the fact that you can't change the lens will keep many away from this camera.

Also it's not that small to make it a great drone camera. Who puts a large zoom lens on drones?

As a Panasonic GH user, I am in the market for a new camera, but it will not be this one.

Apr 8, 2015permalink

I was going to say something, but then I read, "As a Panasonic user" and I realized it would be like talking to the proverbial brick wall.

Apr 8, 2015permalink

Bernard Carns

Some of us are Canon users and are still not interested.
Some of us also have more than just Canon.
We don't see in black white like some others.....
So go back to your brick wall......

Apr 8, 2015permalink

Bio, I am also a long time Canon user and Canon is still my favorite DSLR brand. But as Bernard says, this camera is just not cutting it.

Apr 8, 2015permalink

Kawika Nui

Maverick:
If you're a GH user looking for a new camera, and if 4K isn't a "must have," check out the GX7. I like mine so much I sold my GH3.

Apr 9, 2015*permalink

ColdViking

@Biological_Viewfinder

>> realized it would be like talking to the proverbial brick wall

I use mostly Canon for (planned, organized) stills work, 5D and 6D with a good selection of glass, most of it Canon L. For video I use the GH4 which beats anything Canon has ever put out in this category, and I also use the GH4 for my more "snapshot" stuff since the GH4 gear is less than 1/3 of the weight and size of an equivalent 6D backpack.

I have been waiting for a Canon 4K offering since first hearing about the GH4. I could not wait any longer and... I still would love to sell my GH4 stuff though and replace it with some equivalent Canon gear since I have a rather large investment in Canon glass.

So, since I am not a Panasonc fan-boy, and presumably, what would you like to say about this XC10 piece of junk? I mean, on paper at least. It is laughable junk. What was it you had planned to say?

Apr 9, 2015permalink

Too bad that we can't reply to individual comments.
To Kawika, I would love to pick up a full frame Canon, and use it just for stills. but I think I'll probably end up with a GH4 or GH5. I have a bit of time.

Apr 9, 2015permalink

I was going to say, a 1" sensor is perfect for this camera. Any larger and it would be a super-massive camera, like one of those bricks people carry around their necks like loadstone. Any smaller and it would be just like everything else.

3.8 FPS is fine. Not every damned camera needs to be 10 FPS. If 3.8 is too damned slow for you who needs everything to be a supreme technological breakthrough or it isn't imrpressive; then go buy a Medium Format Sensor with 18,000,000 ISO and 42 FPS. Me, I'm going to be thinking about actual reality, and the uses that this camera might provide for me.

A viewfinder isn't needed if you can learn how to use the LCD hood viewfinder.

$2500 for a 1" sensor dream camera? If the images work, then that would be fine. If it was a DSLR, it would be $2500 and then I would have to go buy lenses too.

I guess what I wanted to say was, why do you need to cry about a camera that doesn't apply to you. You wouldn't buy this camera. FINE! We get it.

Apr 9, 2015*permalink

biological, why do you need to protect a camera that we all know you'd never buy! you make no sense. Canon fans already have a few lenses, they don't need a fixed lens. I have two Canon lenses I don't use.

I have been on DPR for 15 years plus and I make any damn comment that I want.

Apr 11, 2015*permalink

ColdViking

@Biological_Viewfinder

>> Any larger and it would be a super-massive camera

So, is the GH4, with twice the size chip, a "super-massive" camera? No, it is not. It is tiny. It also beats this Canon in every single area.

>> 3.8 FPS is fine

I don't think anyone cares about the FPS for stills, this is a video camera. As a stills I would prefer my S95 over this any time.

>> $2500 for a 1" sensor dream camera?

How is this a dream camera? It is a souped-up GoPro. For 3K!

>> If it was a DSLR, it would be $2500

If this was a stills camera, with this chip and this zoom it would be about $500. This camera doesn't come anywhere near a $2500 DSLR. This camera, as a stills camera, is a joke. Completely useless. Seriously. It can't take pictures with a blurry background. In other words, no decent portraits. But hey, you're right, nobody ever used a camera to take portraits.

>> You wouldn't buy this camera.

Nobody in their right mind would buy this camera.

Apr 24, 2015permalink

You post reads like you're mad, bro.

Apr 24, 2015permalink

KrisAK

Is there no long-GOP option for 4K recording?

I understand the appeal of massive bit rates for certain workflows, but it would be nice to have the OPTION to shoot in a more storage-friendly format. (And 4K XAVC-S footage certainly looks nice.)

Apr 8, 2015permalink

virtualkyr

I'll say, I was impressed with details I could recover on Sony a7s HD footage shot in XAVC-s at 50 mbps. A very nice user friendly codec based on my experience.

Apr 8, 2015permalink

CaPi

Hm so Canon is following Panasonic. Lets see how that works out - especially with Canons innovation cycles.
Any news there is good news to me. Go for it guys.

Apr 8, 2015permalink

mpgxsvcd

Does this camera require to shoot using both hands? If so then it would be a really bad choice for shooting live action stuff in the field.

Apr 8, 2015permalink

Camley

Do you mean that one hand should be under the lens and the other holding the camera? In any case you really need to handle the camera to judge how useful it would be for live action.

Apr 8, 2015permalink

Some goofy points:

-305Mb/s is still possible on the faster SD cards
-That baseplate looks like it will get in the way of gearing for zoom and focus pulling
-The type of AF motor used isn't mentioned- if it's a USM-type with direct manual override, cool, but if it's an STM-type, focus pullers will likely be frustrated!

Apr 8, 2015permalink

The current fastest speed class is the U3 rating for UHS-I and II cards. These only promise that they can maintain at least 30MB/s, which is some way short of the 38MB/s that 305Mbps represents.

So some SD cards might be able to cope with those data rates but there's no way of being certain, at present.

Apr 8, 2015permalink

The BMPCC captures RAW video onto SD cards. By my calculations the bitrates on raw are around 60 MB/s or 480 Mbps. So capturing 305 Mbps onto SD is eminently achievable.

Apr 8, 2015permalink

As I say, it's quite possible that some of these cards are capable of such speeds. The problem is that there's not yet a standard stringent enough to guarantee it.

Yes there are UHS-II cards that say '280MB/s' on the front. These say they can write at up to 250MB/s, but the U3 symbol on the front only promises that they won't dip below 30MB/s.

Apr 9, 2015permalink

I agree Richard. The standard is missing, yet it's perplexing that Canon went with CFAST in place of XQD, which works just as well for their intended purposes.

Or that they haven't worked to create a standard for faster SD cards, given that it can very obviously be put to use.

Apr 9, 2015permalink

SD cards are capable, but the problem lies with the manufacturers in that they push the READ speeds, while either not listing, or listing in very small print, the WRITE speeds.

If there is a standard committee that oversees this they need to change the standards in such a way that the manufacturers MUST make the sustained WRITE speed be prominantly listed as the primary criteria.

Add to that that Canon is more than capable of working with SD manufacturers and publishing a list of cards that DO work.

Apr 10, 2015permalink

Sandisk's 95MB/s card is stated to write at 90MB/s; one can find that out, and anything else about their cards, with a little digging.

The fun part is this, though- it's now becoming hard to make slow cards, simply because the newer, faster flash is more economical.

Apr 10, 2015permalink

@John C Tharp: as in the example I gave above, the SanDisk card you quote can write at up to 90MB/s. It's the minimum sustained write speed (which isn't always published), that's the issue.

Apr 10, 2015permalink

Agreed- I own one of the cards, and my only in-camera benchmark is that it allows me to get the full burst out of my 6D, whereas the 45MB/s rated read-speed cards would not.

The point remains that SD is actually capable of the necessary write speeds, with current hardware to boot, and one has to wonder why neither Canon nor Nikon have pushed for a certification.

(Nikon is easier to understand in pushing for XQD given their relatively close relationship with Sony, and hell, if it has to be something other than SD/CF, XQD makes sense given that's it's straight PCIe rather than throwing the otherwise deprecated ATA protocol in the mix as CFAST does...)

Apr 11, 2015permalink

virtualkyr

Man I dunno... the Sony AX100 for $1,700 still seems like the better deal in terms of video cameras and ergonomics for running full manual.

Having one button access to the iris, shutter, and gain on the AX100, plus a handy switch for the NDs is really nice.

Apr 8, 2015permalink

KrisAK

And then there's the X70. The price has dropped to 1999, so with the paid upgrade to 4K it should be on par...price wise...with the new Canon. Should be interesting to see some comparisons.

Apr 8, 2015*permalink

virtualkyr

Right if you need the XLR inputs and don't need 4K, the X70 is the way to go.

It looks like the 4K upgrade to the X70 isn't scheduled to come until June which is still a bit off.

Apr 8, 2015permalink

TORN

Funny, probalbly this (video)camera is doing what it was designed and build for pretty well - like it is the case with a lot of Canon products for a very long time now. Admittedly Canon is not famous for being most innovative, having the topmost feature set or being always the plain best of the bunch but on the other hand they do rarely try to replace substance with bling. My Fuji stuff is exactly the other way around. Lots of bling but no chance to implement ergonomic dials and buttons or a hassle free sensor into a $1000 camera. I would not be surprised when the XC10 delivers a lot of fun and quality when in actual use.

Apr 8, 2015permalink

ttran88

Sony sensor? Good camera!

Apr 8, 2015permalink

Sony doesn't currently list a 12MP 1" type sensor as being available to customers (though this isn't always immediately made public).

We've not seen a 4:3 aspect ratio 1-type sensor before, which is what this camera's currently using.

Apr 8, 2015permalink

Rooru S

reminds me of the Sony R1

Apr 8, 2015permalink

Earth Art

I was worried the lens would not be 4K, but thankfully it says 4K right on the front. That should make a huge difference. :)

It was smart not to use a 1080p lens.

Apr 8, 2015*permalink

Eleson

When did you last see a lens not handling an 8MP picture?

Apr 9, 2015permalink

mpgxsvcd

an FZ1000($746 current Amazon price) AND an RX10($998) AND an LX100($759). That would be $2503 in total. I rest my case.

Apr 8, 2015permalink

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ntt=45-175mm&N=0&InitialSearch=yes&sts=ma&Top+Nav-Search=
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/818962-REG/Panasonic_H_PS14042S_Lumix_G_X_Vario.html
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/818956-REG/Panasonic_H_PS45175K_Lumix_G_X_Vario.html

Panasonic GH4 + 14-42mm + 45-175mm =
1499,-
316,-
379,-
2194,- total

So a gh4 with 2 powerzooms costs less. has a sensor double the size and the option to add faster glass in the future for free.

Apr 8, 2015permalink

Not to mention to just use any glass you want.

Apr 8, 2015permalink

Wait.. fz1000 & rx10 specs, but the price ouch.

GH4 + Nebula4000 would still be under

fz1000 + gh4 would still be under

oh well its good to see Canon fight back

Apr 8, 2015permalink

Check out the other story. The Canon specs are much higher than the FZ1000 and RX10.

Apr 9, 2015permalink

I know, but so is the price. You can only do so much with a 1". No matter what ,it will be a dog in lowlight. It would have been awesome with a aps-c even at $3500 I think.

Comes to prove my point... a FZ1000R with a micro third sensor would be a killer product. Even at 24 - 240mm. Call it GH4x

Something like the LX100 with the XC10 specs.

Common panasonic, it would be a great compliment for the GH4, Canon just gave you a price cap. Aim at sub $2000

Apr 9, 2015permalink

Oooh! "5-axis image stabilization (albeit apparently in HD video capture mode only)"
You can't get THAT on a sub $1000 hybrid still/video camera!

Oh wait...never mind.

And I am sure it comes with OSPDAF or DFD to keep subjects in focus, right?

Apr 8, 2015*permalink

EthanP99

This vs fz1000 vs ax100

Fight!

Apr 8, 2015permalink

DuxX

In last couple of years their cameras is more video that photo capable so this is logical step ahead or backward ;)

Apr 8, 2015permalink

PB47

In terms of depth of field the lens is equivalent to f7.6-15.2. I'm guessing most of the range will be f12+. That's pathetic, especially when someone is paying $2,500. At the very least, given the size and weight of this thing, the lens could have easily been a constant f2.8, if not faster. Just look at some of the recent fixed lens cameras Sony, Panasonic, and Canon have come out with. This camera has a lot going for it but that slow lens...oooooof! I know why Canon did it though- mustn't spoil the consumers. If they want any sort of cinematic shallow dof in their shots they need to step up. Their strategy is so cynical. I really hope it costs them with this camera.

Apr 8, 2015*permalink

I would think the target market would see decent depth of field as a good thing, especially being able to achieve that in a compact package without having speed/sensitivity issues. For those who want the same video specs and a shallower depth of field, there are other options but they are not cheap.

And when you give "equivalent" numbers, you are referring to one particular format in photography. Why not suggest everyone gets a large format video camera so they can have nearly zero depth of field? Such silliness!

Apr 9, 2015permalink

PB47

You ever watch Vice news stories? Large sensor cameras with shallow dof are the norm. Check out the very popular website News Shooter which is aimed towards news and documentary workers and whose motto is "making the real world look as good as cinema". Professionals now want the option of being able to shoot shallow when needed. And you can shoot 4k and get much more shallow dof for far less money than this costs. Just look at the LX100 and it's fixed lens. Or get a GH4 or NX1 and a fast prime. Will all the specs be identical, of course not, they're different cameras. For example, with the Panasonic and Samsungs you won't have to spend $700 on a CFast card to be able to record 4k. As far as you complaining about me pointing out the obvious (this is a VERY slow lens), the format I make reference to is the same format Canon cites in their press release when describing the focal length. Such silliness!

Apr 9, 2015permalink

So this is an FZ1000 with a shorter slower lens, a lower resolution sensor, and most likely lower DR, all for about 3x the price!
Awesome!

Apr 8, 2015permalink

Does the FZ1000 do 4K without line skipping? The point being that the lower resolution of the Canon was chosen to fit 4K without any resizing.

Apr 8, 2015permalink

Yes it doesn't skip lines.
It just crops even more then the other Panasonic 4k still camera's

Apr 8, 2015permalink

Yes, I've now seen it mentioned below. My point still stands that choosing a sensor resolution that allows for 4K without cropping (to be precise, without the unavoidable cropping due to different aspect ratios of still and movie capture) is one that should not be seen as a negative aspect. Both choices (FZ1000 on XC10) have their merits, ie, higher still resolution on the FZ1000 and larger sensor area and real wide-angle option for the XC10.

Apr 8, 2015permalink

The problem is that the larger area used on the Canon is negated by the faster lens on the Panasonic.

If you need the wide-end on a 4k capable camera the GH4 lx100 sony ax100 all are cheaper. And 2 have larger sensors then this canon for significantly less money

Apr 8, 2015permalink

Faster lens only compensates in light-constrained situations (and in regard to DOF), and it is not faster at the wide end. For base ISO performance, only the sensor size counts (for sensors with similar technology). And with a video camera, shooting mostly close to 1/30 (or 1/60 s), one is likely to stay at base ISO more often than with still cameras.

The GH4 remains the best deal for shooting video and stills, not least because it is attractive for both still and video shooters and thus appeals to a larger market and be sold profitable with larger margins. But it is also larger and heavier than the XC10 (and AX100) once you add similar lenses. And it lacks some videography features like a built-in ND filter (which is much easier to implement with a fixed-lens camera).

The closest comparison is with the AX100, and here things are much closer.

Apr 8, 2015permalink

The GH4 isn't heavier as this Canon with the compareable 14-140mm F3.5-5.6 lens. Nor is it any larger.
Actually it's smaller once you add that stupid loupe to the Canon.

Apr 8, 2015permalink

You are right about the weight, I had accidentally used the weight of the 4/3 lens. But there are also two 14-140 mm m43 lenses:
XC10: 125 x 102 x 122 mm, 1040 g
GH4 + 14-140 mm f/4 - 5.8: 133 x 93 x 120 mm, 1020 g
GH4 + 14-140 mm f/3.5 - 5.6: 133 x 93 x 111 mm, 825 g

With the 4/3 lens (and incorrectly attaching it without the adaptor) I got:
GH4 + 14-140 mm f/3.5-5.6, 4/3: 133 x 93 x 126 mm, 1080 g
(width - height - depth, the latter for the lens+camera combo estimated from camerasize.com)

Apr 8, 2015permalink

The FZ1000's 4K is amazing under the right conditions, it needs light. You can get a $100 lighting kit and you have a very good kit. So much detail, its crazy. It really is, specially if you know your way around video.

Apr 9, 2015permalink

justmeMN

To steal a historic quote, DPR sure has a lot of "nattering nabobs of negativism."

Apr 8, 2015permalink

LensBeginner

I'd like a staggering kabob, please.

Apr 8, 2015permalink

jkoch2

A historic quote of the words of a pol, SA, convicted of bribe-mongering. However, he definitely deterred anyone from wishing ill health to his boss, RN.

Apr 8, 2015permalink

chbde

To those comparing XC10 and FZ1000: When using the 4K-mode on the Panasonic, only a crop fraction of the sensor is used, resulting in an equivalent focal length of 37-592mm instead of 24-400mm for stills and 1080p video. Also, because the effective sensor area is halved, this may potentially result in a worse low-light performance than the Canon (dependent on the sensor performance of course).

Apr 8, 2015permalink

The FZ1000 is a stop faster at the long-end. That should cancel it out and it has a massive reach advantage.

Apr 8, 2015permalink

A "fraction" of the sensor? Did you know that the XC10 also only uses a "fraction" of the sensor for video?
Also, yes the FZ1000 is stop faster at the long end, but its long end is 592 vs. a paltry 273mm.

Apr 8, 2015*permalink

chbde

"Did you know that the XC10 also only uses a "fraction" of the sensor for video"

Yep, that's right, but the fraction is higher (about 70% of all pixels compared to ~40% for the FZ1000). Also, 27mm equiv. at the wide end may be more practical to some than 37mm.

Don't get me wrong, the Canon looks quite unattractive in comparison to FZ1000 ( and GH4) to me, but it's important to point out the differences in 4k mode, as they are a bit hidden in the spec sheets, especially concerning the effective focal length.

Apr 8, 2015permalink

The effective focal length during 4k recording is a good remark chbde.
But then there is another option available today from Sony
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1022653-REG/sony_fdrax100_b_hdr_ax100_full_hd_handycam.html

Apr 8, 2015permalink

FZ1000 is closer to 42%, but yes, both are a "fraction".
Does the Canon use a Sony sensor, or will it be crippled for DR at ISO100?

Apr 8, 2015permalink

The DR difference is only obvious in Raw stills.
Without a flat profile all of that information will be lost in compression.

Apr 8, 2015permalink

I am pretty sure both are being marketed as hybrid cameras that take RAW stills.

Apr 8, 2015permalink

No one in the right mind will buy a camera this price with a sensor that small with a lens that dim for taking stills.

Apr 8, 2015permalink

You mean nobody in his or her right mind will buy a camera like the AX100 which is more than twice the price of the FZ1000 with a sensor that small and a lens that dim for taking stills?

Yes, you are right, nobody will buy either the XC10 or the AX100 for primarily taking stills. And since the vast majority of posters at DPreview are primarily still shooters, the vast majority will ding both cameras (XC10 and AX100).

Apr 8, 2015permalink

Despite it having the makings of a great Wedding Event camera (we are still using Atmos-backed RX10s) I'm still on the lookout for the mythical RX20 (RX10 Mark II?) before deciding which to go when I go 4K (the low light performance of the FZ1000 was really a problem to us, pity).

Besides, at $2500, I'd rather get another Full Frame...

Apr 8, 2015*permalink

Obviously the FZ1000 4k is better than no 4K at all.
I always feel sorry for people who wait for products for which there are not even credible rumors.

Apr 8, 2015permalink

EthanP99

Sony already has a 4k camcorder with 24-400mm

Its not impossible to put that into a rx10

Apr 8, 2015permalink

jkoch2

Some rumors merit honor, even if facts fall short. On occasion, justice occurs, though more often it is a mere rumor.

It is completely credible to imagine an RX100iv or RX10ii with 4k, since they share the AX100 sensor. Harder, on the other hand, to imagine an A7sii with internal 4k, since there are no convenient precedents. Only Samsung has delivered an APS-c camera with internal 4k. Will the A7000 also? Sony is reticent to say a peep, but one can always prod the rumor long enough and cross fingers.

Apr 8, 2015permalink

The most recent rumor says Sony tried to put 4K on an APS body but it crashes constantly and over heated. For internal 4K recording Sony will either need a larger body with something to cool the sensor, or a new sensor that is more energy efficient. Either way, it looks like it will be a long wait since they have to go back to the drawing board.

Apr 8, 2015permalink

Well so far only Samsung has pulled that off. So they've time.
The A7s can do it externally and the FS7 seems very popular.

Apr 8, 2015permalink

jackspra

Nukunukoo. Was looking at the rx10 but the focus adjustment seemed describable as loose. Do you find that.Otherwise the camera was appealing.Thought I would wait for the upgrade.

Apr 8, 2015permalink

Lab D. Feel sorry all you want. We're still quite happy with Hd with the clients to prove it. Poor low light in wedding events are an absolute no. To jackspra, there are a few hunting but it's not really a problem since our rigs go manual (by wire of course) and when we do post, the issue becomes totally irrelevant. Of course we use simultaneous cams per scene. =)

Apr 8, 2015*permalink

You can solve FZ1000 low light performance at events with a YN160/YN300 when need on a bracket if you want off axis. Might not be the greatest solution, but then again the FZ1000 is the price of a lens. You still have the flexibility of having 4K when needed. It does come handy for stills from video.

Apr 9, 2015permalink

True. But I'd rather wait for the GH4's price to drop or another Samsung NX next year. That way, our investment on the Sonys has maxed it's ROI. =) By then, who knows?

Apr 9, 2015permalink

RX10 with atomos? wow never thought of that. Does it make a difference? Is ti worth it? I needed the extra zoom for my africa trips :-). Last time it was a nightmare carrying 3 lenses. Never again I said

Apr 9, 2015permalink

It has been quite a great performer and the Atomos gets me almost 2 stops of latitude even when compared to Sony's XAVC-S firmware upgrade. The low light is amazing even! I guess that's from downsampling 20MP down to 2MP =) Still absolutely perfect for my Wedding Events. Focusing does need improvement but then again, we just usually manual it most of the time. As much as possible, I don't use video lights unless absolutely necessary, most of my higher paying cliensts don't need the distraction.

Apr 9, 2015*permalink

We are talking about the 1" Sony RX10, right? wow do you have any samples? This one of the first works I did with the FZ1000. Did not really use light either, had a YN160 just in case and for some highlight.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_IjSNJSnSU

Apr 9, 2015permalink

nathanbush

Canon shows off an early stage concept camera.. oh wait, that's supposed to be a real product selling for $2500, lol.

Apr 8, 2015permalink

(unknown member)

Why there is no 4K in the 50MP 5DaaaAAHH!

Apr 8, 2015permalink

jkoch2

Four reasons: 1) 4k+FF sensor = too much heat, 2) 50MP hard to reconcile with 4k video, without lots of cropping, sub-sampling, or skipping, 3) a 4k-oriented 5D would entail compromises distasteful to still-oriented Canon veterans, 4) C300 protection.

Apr 8, 2015permalink

(unknown member)

Not at all, ask the guys at Sony who are working on it right now...

Apr 8, 2015permalink

ZoranHR

munro harrap
But why don't you explain us?

Apr 8, 2015permalink

(unknown member)

I think you need to explain yourselves.

Apr 8, 2015permalink

ZoranHR

Your answer says out loud you're just one uselles...troll.

Apr 8, 2015permalink

(unknown member)

Noi. I replied as I did because "But why dont you explain us" made no sense to me at all.

Apr 9, 2015permalink

(unknown member)

What puts people off the current Sony solution, which is the same price is the need for the 4K to be recorded externally. You otherwise have a very high quality 12MP full-frame sensor that can output good 4K footage into an Atmos etc, but that doubles the cost. It is expensive and way too unwieldy/bulky , but if and when they resolve the overheating problems will be superior to this Canon and the FZ1000 because it can use interchangeable lenses off anything, from anywhere- which makes it very cheap in practice.

Apr 9, 2015permalink

The Vorlon

So we have the usual - a device not available till June, and two people 'had it' and 1 'owns' it... smh

Apr 8, 2015permalink

http://www.dpreview.com/products/compare/side-by-side?products=canon_xc10&products=panasonic_dmcfz1000

I have been using that camera for three months now...

Apr 8, 2015permalink

lightandday

Are you a had it or a own it ?

Apr 8, 2015permalink

moji

Funny! In the same note why not having another choice added: "I don't want it"

Apr 8, 2015permalink

Horshack

Unlike other posters here I think the XC10 is priced very well, provided Canon includes a 1oz Krugerrand in every box.

Apr 8, 2015permalink

blue hour

I assume some controls rely on the touchscreen-

but you can't use the touchscreen at all

while the viewfinder is attached..

(while on the other hand the FZ 1000 hasn't got a touchsrenn- but a lot of buttons and a terrific dedicated OLED viewfinder)

Apr 8, 2015*permalink

blue hour

FZ 1000, 1inch sensor, 4K video, 20 megapixel stills, $899
25mm-400mm f 2.8-4

XC 10, 1inch sensor, 4k, 12 megapixel stills, $2499
24-241mm, f2.8-5.6

Apr 8, 2015permalink

Just a Photographer

This shows how much Canon can rely on its brand name.

Apr 8, 2015permalink

Gesture

Dare I say the FZ1000 seems like an outstanding value.

Apr 8, 2015permalink

oscarvdvelde

I suppose it is the Log output over HDMI which justifies such price over existing options. 12 MP on a 1-inch sensor means more photons per pixel with less amplification needed for equal image brightness (less noise). But I guess it's far from Sony a7s quality which does that with a full frame sensor (4x more light).

Apr 8, 2015permalink