Andrew Reid

You may as well shoot 4K and do the Ex-Tele in post by cropping a 1920 x 1080 box out of your 4K frame. This way you can activate it at any time and in any part of the frame. Also your normal shots will be oversampled from 4K to 1080p, rather than pixel binned 1080p straight off the card, which looks far worse.

When you don't want to rig the monitor, you could just use the built in EVF and I am sure in future Convergent Design and others will look at doing smaller 4K recorders with SDI ports. I'd certainly buy one. The C500 and Odyssey are more balanced as they are closer in size and weight. Rigging the Odyssey to the C500 isn't like trying to put it with an A7S. With the tiny camera you have to build a whole rig around it, cage, rails, etc. then it still feels top heavy or imbalanced due to the size and weight difference between the tiny camera and the large monitor. What if you want 4K? Without a recorder I'd say you're better off with a Panasonic GX85. Small, cheap, super steady handheld shots, Super 35 with Speed Booster, 4K internal. I've still got all my Panasonic and Sony stuff.

Good find on the CFast 2 cards. Wow, they have crashed in price. The CFX600 128GB was $250 when it came out. Specs - Read: 515MB/s, Write: 160MB/s There's the CFX650 too, perhaps more future proof with write speeds of over 300MB/s No reason future cameras can't do raw internally now.

Isn't film and music so very middle-class these days? Read the full article

You are easily impressed sir

An EF-M version would be great. They might even sell more than 2 EF-M lenses if they did that. Vintage c-mount glass would look very nice on it, not cheap though. It would be tricky to find a 24-240mm equivalent 10x zoom with AF in compact proportions too I don't particularly like manual focus on zooms, it's a lot to think about when you just want to get the shot.

I can't understand why ISO 800 was chosen, it seems to have been plucked out of thin air as some kind of 'native' ISO. In fact if you look at nearly all the stills cameras, they do their best dynamic range at ISO 100-200. ISO 800 is not where the 1D C and 1D X Mark II give the most dynamic range. Also a LOG profile and a standard image profile need to be exposed differently. Furthermore they have set the test up in a way that doesn't test how the roll off is to the highlights or even how much latitude you can pull out of the LOG vs rec.709 image. Really? Don't think so - rolling shutter in 4K/24p looked unimproved on the 1D X II I tried out at the BVE show in London. CineStyle is not a true LOG profile. I know for a fact that Canon LOG gives me more dynamic range than the standard Canon profiles, let's not pretend otherwise! Quite odd how bad people are saying the HD image is. Bodes badly for the 5D Mk IV. They could have intentionally put a mediocre pixel binning 1080p mode on the sensor, which will probably end up in the 5D Mk IV with the 4K mode disabled.

Shows what a bullshit test it was then.

Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha

Kubrick also said that the best restaurant was not always the one with the longest queue.

I can compare it to an onion if I want. It's my website blog By the way, it's a blog about VIDEO

Clearly you have lived in the US for too long - You can't tell the difference between an advert and a documentary

And no full frame 4K either, possibly no articulated screen, definitely no in-body stabilisation and if they keep MJPEG as the 4K codec, there would be zero reason to pay $3500 for the 5D Mk IV, because by that time a used 1D C would probably cost the same for a superior video spec, superior build quality and superior reliability.

In that case it all makes perfect sense

I am sure the codec will get a nice bump up with the GH5. Colour science from Panasonic can be quite good. CineLikeD wasn't very good, but the GX85 just on standard looks veeeeery nice Skintones similar to Canon and Olympus. VLOG is good, I don't think that needs improving much, but the sensor does - VLOG brought up a lot of noise didn't it? That's the sensor's fault. I'll be disappointed if Panasonic hike the megapixels on the GH4 to 20MP, what we really need is 12MP max and less noise. Some sort of Dual Pixel AF would be great. Bring back the 1.86x crop sensor of the GH2 with wider aspect ratio. Avoid YAGH-like mistakes and do a small compact mini-XLR breakout box powered from camera. Full size HDMI please. SDI is unlikely on a stills camera form factor body in this market. 5 axis in-body stabilisation, surely a given. I think GH5 is looking very exciting, they will have to try hard to mess it up

Why are you guessing when all the info is laid out right in front of you. It's obvious it isn't just a rebranded RED camera! It's a Panavision camera with a RED sensor and codec. Just a sensor and codec does not make a camera. The lenses, ergonomics, colour science and build quality all go on top. If you made a box with a sensor, some wires and a codec, it would be pretty shit I absolutely love the RED codec. Hope they do license it to more companies. Unlikely in my view, but the hope is there I could be wrong but I think RED own quite a lot of important patents to do with RAW compression... Which could explain why none of the others have come up with a decent compressed RAW codec yet. Cinema DNG 3:1 just doesn't cut it by comparison! I can see this being the main route of 8K into the consumer market actually! You don't need it when the viewing distances are longer, like with TVs. ... VR on the otherhand!!

What 4K raw codec will you be working with? I'd probably want a larger drive for 4K raw... a RAID array of HDDs is a viable alternative to some SSDs in my opinion. They can get pretty speedy and will be 8TB+

My camera count is too high due to providing EOSHD content for ungrateful sods like you

@jcs So this is your definition of Shakespeare is it? The boring pot woman is telling the story. Johnnie is just pointing his camera at her and editing out the 'ums and ahs'. She's not so much telling a story as reeling off a bunch of facts about her business. Just as a cafe owner would in an advert for his cafe. As far as the storytelling goes, it is 100% advert, 0% fiction. The great reality distortion field of the modern video industry is that the word "Filmmaker" and "Storyteller" are used with abandon, peppered around to garnish the not very appealing stake which never sizzles. Just a bunch of over-privilaged over-monied middle class egotists going about their self promotion ritual. It's not more worthy than one of us making a cinematography mood piece without any explicit story or characters. For me that is the superior art form and this pottery advert is just completely forgettable trash with a facade of high production values... Just because it's "Real-world" content, doesn't make it on-par with Kubrick's stuff you know?!

Total piece of shit review. I could have done better from using it for 5 minutes in a shop. He had the privilege of a $6k camera and didn't even shoot with the 1080/120p, a major feature. Criticised the screen for not articulating - did he really expect an articulated screen on a pro-Canon body?! In my view he is just pushing these pieces out as fast as possible to garner the traffic, to feed the ads, to feed the ego, to feed the bank account. I much prefer the blog / forum of passionate independent artisans to the 'managed community platform' made for the benefit of some corporate sponsors.

There are so many options out there for manual focus, why would you use the XC10 this way at all? It's designed to be used in auto mode.

Sure, the lack of Dual Pixel AF is the biggest omission. The AF system though looks almost 'human' in the way it handles itself. No weirdness, no hunting, no darting off in the middle of a shot for no reason. It's just a bit ponderous... but apart from that, you can tell it is thinking carefully and considering the shot for you so you don't have to fiddle with the manual focus ring on a long zoom lens every time you change the framing - one of the most distracting things, I find, about zoom lenses!

You're right, the price is on the high side. But it is a professional camcorder, not a consumer one although it has cross-over appeal. The codec is a professional one, straight out of the C300 Mark II, the image processing is also professional grade, not the TV-consumer sort. In Berlin the full frame ISO 400K A7S II is over 3000 euros. The XC10 cost me half that, around 1700. So it's more in the NX1 / GH4 league of pricing than high-end full frame. The original A7S isn't 1700 for ready-to-shoot 4K, you have to add the cost of recorder and lenses on top. If you consider the XC10's 'body' as a 999 euros piece and the 24-240mm lens the extra 700 euros, that means the body is 2000 euros less than the price of an A7S II / A7R II and the lens is 200 euros less than the price of Sony's 10x zoom for full frame, the 24-240mm F3.5-6.3 (notice the slower aperture and much bulkier design compared to the XC10's lens). Indeed, a 1000 body and 700 lens is very similar to the Panasonic and Olympus pricing of higher-end Micro Four Thirds kit. The closest competitor is the GX80 + 14-140mm F3.5-5.6 Mega OIS. With that you will get similar standard of 5 axis stabilisation to the XC10 in 1080/60p, even slightly better stabilisation in 4K mode. However, the Panasonic lens doesn't have the 'cinema' feel of the XC10's lens, it isn't as sharp or as punchy. The camera doesn't have a LOG profile so you will be down 2-stops of dynamic range and the footage won't pull around in post as much. And good though the GX80 is, I prefer it with faster glass, not the 10x zoom and ergonomically I prefer the loupe-EVF of the XC10 to the small built in EVF of the GX80 or GH4. I've already mentioned the colour and bitrate differences too. So ok, we can look at the specs all day long, we can all go hands-on for a few seconds in the shop on any camera we like before buying it, but the real proof of the pudding is when you're a week into using it, you've optimised how you use a particular camera to iron out the quirks, you're in the heat of the moment getting the shots you need, this is where the XC10's hidden strengths (which the specs only hint at) begin to come apparent.

You can add XLR support to any camera with an HDMI output. The Blackmagic View Assist 4K for example has two mini XLRs on it, plus it will be in sync with your recording unlike a separate dual-system audio recorder. So don't use it for low light applications then! Right tool for the job and all that. Anyway it's actually perfectly usable at ISO 6400 in 1080p with Canon LOG or up to 1600 in 4K. Remember a lot of the time you don't need higher than 3200 or 6400 in low light. Another case of where just looking at the specs doesn't tell the whole story. It's the 1" sensor that makes the lens possible at all, in such small packaging. 24-240mm with 5 axis stabilisation is not to be sniffed at. It's a lot sharper than the 14-140mm Lumix you can put on the GX80 and the codec is better - much higher bitrate and 422 colour. Personally I like the GX80 when it is with super fast glass so I wouldn't both using it as an XC10 replacement. They're complimentary. GX80 for interchangeable lenses and XC10 as a Super 16mm style shot-getter. OK I get that there are many people who don't want to own more than one camera, so the one camera they do buy must do EVERYTHING. Well there is no such camera. I would not advocate replacing a A6300 and A7S II with the XC10 without knowing how it was going to be used by the shooter in question. I can only put the facts out there. The XC10 can do a lot the Sonys cannot: - It doesn't overheat during a shoot (A6300 is not suitable as your only camera for anything to be honest) - It doesn't require any investment in lenses. A6300 may not be $2000 but add up the cost of the lenses! - Sony's colour does not have what it takes - A7S II and especially A6300 rolling shutter is much worse than the XC10 - A7S II's AF in video mode is rubbish - Ergonomics on the Sony bodies are charmless - Battery life is rubbish as well So just have in mind what the strengths and weaknesses are before you write off the XC10 just because it doesn't have a full frame sensor or ISO 408,000

The ones who are confused clearly were like me when I didn't own an XC10, just looking at the specs and even the JPEG resolution (for reasons only they can know!) and thinking that it is an expensive, odd product, lagging behind Sony in the specs race. Try one, get to know it, look at the images, you will be surprised like I was what a lot of fun it is and how great the images can be. I'll upload some footage, still shooting with it. Better all-round cameras? Maybe, but what if you want 422 internal 305Mbit 4K and 24-240mm zoom though?! Not much to compete with that in one-body for under $2k, especially not with the colour and ergonomics of the Canon.