Andrew Reid

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.

It allows you to get a shot you wouldn't otherwise get, at a speed you wouldn't otherwise be able to operate at. In certain types of filmmaking (documentary, run & gun, mood pieces, street scenes, real life scenes) that is invaluable. I'm not saying you should stop carrying other cameras and just get one, either. I wouldn't replace my GX80 with the XC10 and lose the use of interchangeable lenses, etc. However the XC10 hardly compromises on the image at 305Mbit 4:2:2 vs 100Mbit 4:2:0 or the dynamic range (Canon LOG vs no LOG)

Sharpness: digitally applied Resolution: number of megapixels on the sensor Final image: a combination of sensor readout, image processing, compression, noise and all sorts of things - and yes digital sharpening in-camera or in-post People need to start noticing when an image has been sharpened so they don't mistake this for better resolution. Because it is preferable NOT to have it done in-camera.

The Canon XC10 is underrated on paper, not least by me! Having very little interest in one I decided anyway to give it a try. Glad I did. Read the blog post

I'd take the mirror out.

It does make a difference to a motion picture, as it allows a full frame look in 8K mode and maintains enough resolution (4K) in Super 35 mode for both looks to be utilised on a film. Don't just look at the resolution numbers. It's about lenses as well, the full system.

Everything he says in there is right. The DXL follows the Panavision philosophy to the letter from that article, of giving us true 4K from an 8K chip. It's very much like the difference a Foveon sensor makes to resolution and colour, or the reason the C300's 1080p was so good from that 4K RGB readout. Nice to see Panavision going purist from a digital film emulsion perspective. 8K on the Panavision DXL is all about the quality of the 4K, it won't be shown as 8K.

I didn't ignore it at all. Monitoring the hack process, opened a dedicated forum for it, took my NX1 to London in February and used it at BVE, shot with the SLR Magic PL anamorphics on the NX1 in Brighton and did a big blog post about it. The NX1 is as good in 2016 as it was in November 2014 and it will remain so for the next 2 years as well. Absolutely fantastic future proof camera. The 120fps looks improved from the first firmware in 2014. Quality looks similar to the X Pro 2. Not free of moire but nice and detailed.

Well, it looks like the Arri Alexa 65 has some competition. Panavision have revealed a RED-Weapon-like cinema camera which shoots 8K from a full frame 41 x 21 sensor, to r3d RAW format. Read the blog post

I'd rank them as follows, but my judgement on the 1D X II is a bit second hand so far unlike the rest which I all own (well, the A7R II is sold now but I used it quite a bit) 1. FS5 2. RX100 IV 3. A7S II 4. 1D X II 5. A7R2 Don't forget the Canon C500... a used one is a bargain right now. It does 4K 120fps half-RAW via dual 3G-SDI. It does 4K 60fps full res RAW even. It also does very crisp 10bit 2K at 120fps via dual 3G-SDI. The 12bit RGB 444 2K mode goes to 60fps. Above 60fps to 120fps are Slow & Quick modes not regular continuous recording.

1D C clear winner as it is much cheaper used!

I have both the GX80 and A6300, I much prefer the Panasonic so far.

You're certainly right about the 5D2/3 raw, it's a thing of beauty, some of the best 1080p you can get. If you want even more dynamic range take the OLPF / AA filter out of the 5D3. Should give you an extra stop in the shadows and the colour balance shift is actually quite pleasing, but would be easy to correct from the raw files. I'm thinking of getting a 5D3 again, in a way I do miss that image. I have the 5D2 and it's very good but the 5D3 seems to be where the current ML development effort is centred.

Cute bird I find the noise a lot better in 1080p mode with Canon LOG enabled, you can even go up to 6400 with that combo. In the other picture profiles not to much, 1600 is the max, 800 better. It's just not a good comparison anyway. The A6300 is a completely different kind of tool. It's an interchangeable lens camera for starters. The XC10 is a 10x zoom camcorder designed to be used handheld for the most part, whereas the A6300 is an APS-C stills camera that just happens to have a sensor which shoots very nice 4K video, it won't give a user experience to match the Canon, nor is it quite the shot-getter without the fuss but it will give you the look of Super 35 and all those different looks from various lenses. The XC10's lens is a good all-rounder but nothing special aside from it's small size and useful 10x zoom range.

The 1.3x crop 1080p HDMI from the 1D C is the best 1080p I've ever seen. The 1.5x crop Super35 1080p internally is sharp and detailed, but you can get that elsewhere too so it's not as unique as the 1.3x The full frame 1080/24p is similar to the 1D X and 5D3, almost identical in fact, i.e. mediocre, but would have come to life if Magic Lantern had developed raw for the camera. The 1080/60p is pure shit. So 1.3x crop 4K or the full pixel readout 1080p over HDMI is the way to go on 1D C and the quality of it definitely beats the 1D X Mark II, which I believe still pixel bins for 1080p like a $400 camera.

But is it as good?

Yeah unfortunately you have to turn the camera off for it to charge via USB and it always runs off the battery when switched on, not USB power. Hopefully Panasonic will change this in future.

The colour is very much like the 1D C / 1D X Standard JPEG profile and the files seem to feel nice and chunky this time round.

I swear Panasonic have tweaked the colour since the GH4. I am getting much more Canon-like results from the GX85. New image processor? What short cut would you propose? It's just stupid to have to go into the menu and set 18mm, then go into the menu and set 35mm right at the critical moment when you're trying to frame up a shot. And if you're doing regular zooming, forget about it. Just take my advice and use the Canon version! If you set the camera's stabilisation in the middle of the range for the Nikon version, say 25mm, it wouldn't work optimally at 18mm or 35mm, you'd get jitter.

If you have that kind of money for an OTUS or Cooke, you may as well also get insurance, rent them out and start a shop. I'm considering sending my Cookes off to a rental shop to use and we share the income. It doesn't make sense to buy them to use occasionally and as an investment which sits on the shelf and increases in value... unless you're extremely lucky as I was to find them so cheap used! A lot of people use the term 'investing' in lenses, because they last a long time for shooting... new cameras come and go for ages but some lenses can last decades. I still use my Contax Zeiss, Canon FD, etc. It's not an investment in terms of a return on your money but an investment in images.