tugela

I find it amusing when this guy is described as an "actor". Just goes to show that the paycheck at the end of the day is not indication of skills at the craft.

Does this help?

The problem is that those companies are dominated by old conservative dudes who grew up in the stills world, and don't understand how the imaging paradigm is changing in the modern world. That is why they always seems to be so far behind the user base in their way of thinking.

That is because the "wow" factor is the beach at the end (which is overexposed still anyway). If the path had been properly exposed then the final scene would be less impressive. Marketing. The XC10 has a Digic DV5, which is the video equivalent of the Digic 7. It is NOT an inferior processor, it is actually a better processor than the one in the 5D4. I think he is referring to the idea and process for doing it in camera, not the concept of HDR itself. My interpretation of that is there is no advantage in using the 5D4 as a hybrid over native crop cameras when shooting 4K. You might still get the FF look in HD, but that is probably going to be regular Canon mush, so not competitive with competitor models that do full sensor readouts. I have one question. Does it have dual processors or just one? If it has only one it probably will not perform as well as the 1DXII. I am guessing it has two, since it seems that most recent enthusiast cameras from Canon do.

I am guessing that is a bracketed composition, not a single shot

I am not "talking negatively about a camera I don't own". I am giving a realistic assessment which in my opinion is correct. This is a product aimed at enthusiasts, not professionals. Most ENG teams I have seen have real cameras, not this thing. I don't have a big "issue" with the output. It is fine for HD work, the original video people were putting out was too soft for 4K but since then I have seen stuff that looks more appropriate. I put that down to either operators deliberately killing the resolution for some reason (people do that), or maybe just bad lenses on some of the early models. Build quality...maybe it has been improved since release, but the early ones had issues based on reviews. Not unlike my G30, which was one of the first to be sold. Definitely stuff that did not fit all that great on that camera, but more recently I have played around with the same model in store that had none of the issues. I think that is a bit of a problem with Canon, you don't really want to be an early adopter with them because you get all the teething issues. In my opinion, any piece of professional equipment should be built like a tank. If it is not, then it is a consumer product, no matter what marketing spin is put on it.

Which explains why it is listed under the "Consumer and Home Office" tab as well on the Canon site. Clearly they did not get your memo. As I have explained to people who use the NX1 on those boards, the camera was marketed as a "pro camera" to appeal to the sensibilities of advanced amateurs, because they are willing to spend a premium in the belief that they are using a "pro" product. But that is about where it ends for the most part. It is marketing hook line and sinker to lure in those susceptible to vanity. The XC10 marketing spin is no different. Most people who buy gear like this are advanced amateurs. That is who the marketing is really aimed at. I doubt that too many real ENG crews use this camera, in spite of what the advertising would have you believe.

From what I read, the construction is somewhat flimsy. For example, the camera that The Camera Store used for their review apparently had it's lens fall off (they showed it in their annual year end summary video). So stuff like that would be remedied I expect. A "pro" camera should be able to take a certain amount of abuse and keep on ticking, and it is not clear if that is true of the XC10. They might like a $2500 price point, but in reality the camera should be selling at around $1500, considering what it is. I expect their sales volume might be quite a bit better at that price point. I think they probably rationalized it in terms of it being a "pro" camera, when the market it should really be aiming at is the G40 crowd. With a XC15 they might structure it that way, with the old XC10 being priced in the mid 1K range, and a more "pro" version (the XC15) at the $2500 price point, much like they did with the G30/XA20/25 cameras (which were all basically the same camera, but with different levels of bells and whistles added to the shell). It is also not consistent with their general consumer sales strategy, where they will include improvements as a motivation to buy the next model, rather than, say, do a firmware upgrade of existing products. Firmware upgrades only happen with the really high end stuff targeted at the true professional market, not the products intended for consumers.

Unlikely. That would require a new sensor and probably significant rejiggering of the electronics. That would be more along the lines of a significant upgrade and probably it would be called an XC20 in that case. It is more likely to be more refined build quality and a firmware update. The "5" designation usually (in Canon's case) means the same internal parts, but with a few added external features, such as connection ports and such. Maybe extra buttons or something like that.

As they say, a poor workman blames his tools. Maybe before you try using sophisticated tools you should figure out how to use them correctly first.

Nope. Rolling shutter is a function of processor capabilities. Canon will not have a next generation processor out for probably at least another year, so the best you could hope for is something similar to what current Canons can do.

There you go again, proving my point. Only because of the bit rates, which is in part related to the storage media options on the cameras. My guess is that the a9 series will have much higher bit rates available when it is announced in a month or two since it will have advanced storage media on board. Probably the successors to the current a7 cameras will have similar capabilities. If the have the next generation of processors, chances are they will be shooting 4K60p as well.

The video tools are not added to stills cameras because Canon are, well, tools. They are quite capable of doing so, since their consumer camcorders have all that stuff, they just don't want to. As for encoding, hardware encoding will be limited by the thermal envelope of the camera. Canon likely underspecs because they don't want overheating related service returns/complaints, but the specs can go a bit faster before the processor craps out. That is why ML were able to do slightly higher bit rates. As far as 4K is concerned, the latest processors from Canon (Digic DV5/7) have a 4K encoder built in, but using it causes the processor to overheat. The technology used in the processors is apparently not the latest. To control that they have to build a fan in, which is not feasible or desirable in a stills camera. Hence no hardware 4K encoding. Instead they use the inefficient mjpeg approach, which can be done in software with less processor workload, and this is done solely to fit in the thermal envelope. So far the Digic 7 has only been used in a point and shoot (which obviously does not have 4K enabled, even though it is probably capable of doing it). It sounds like the 5D4 will be using the same software approach for 4K, using dual processors (I'm guessing Digic 6).

No you have not. Being like Donald Trump and saying something over and over again does not make it true.

I am not so sure that many people like it. I suspect that sales are not that great.

The reason for the weird codec is that their processors can't handle 4K encoding in hardware without a fan. So they have to compromise to be able to include 4K. The basic problem for Canon is that their processors are technologically way behind compared to what is used in Panasonic/Sony/Samsung cameras. That is the main reason for the laggardly adoption of 4K.

No, the aperture is wide open in stills mode in live view. To see what it will look like with the aperture closed, there is a button on the lower front right side that you need to press to preview the actual image. That is what that button is for, it activates the aperture to the set value. Normally it is wide open unless you are actually recording.

Yes, because the physical aperture size for F4 (for example) at 18mm is different from that at 200mm. The camera needs to adjust as you change the aperture, even if you have constant ISO selected, because it needs to increase aperture as the focal length increases to keep the amount of light hitting the sensor the same due to the narrower field of view. Flickering exposure changes should not happen if you are fully manual. There are two reasons why it may be happening (1) you have something in auto mode that you don't know about; or (2) in very detailed areas (typically vegetation) you get micro-aliasing that will appear as rapid exposure changes when you pan. The solution to (2) is to reduce your resolution in some way, such as minimizing the sharpening. Sharpening artifacts are pretty minimal on an NX1, but they will aggravate the situation described, so if you are going to be panning it is best to drop sharpening way down. Incidentally, the flickering may not be apparent on all viewing devices since some (especially TVs) may introduce their own internal sharpening, which of course will make the problem manifest itself again.

The only reason that piracy is a problem is that production companies gouge consumers. Take DVDs/BluRays/UHD BluRays for example. The cost of production is the same, the cost of the media probably a few cents difference, but the price difference to the consumer is huge. It is that kind of thinking in marketing that encourages piracy. If things were priced more reasonably the incentive to go to the trouble of pirating something would be greatly reduced. Without piracy the percentage of people who would actually watch/listen to creative content would drop dramatically. Distribution is a form of advertising. The problem is that that producers need to figure out how to monetize what they do without creating artificial closed markets where they can monopolize things in order to create fat profits. Successful artists have that all figured out. The ones that bitch about all of this are those who are unsuccessful and those who stand to make a killing in a monopoly (such as the labels).

It may be that 1600 is the sensor's native ISO, so you don't see a rapid fall-off in S/N until you hit that point.

The reason you don't see it in live view in stills mode is because the aperture is wide open all the time. In video it is stopped down to the set value, and that is when the adjustments are made. With an electronic lens this is done independently. A true cine lens will have mechanical gearing to do it, but that is a more expensive option. Consequently modern electronic lenses designed primarily for stills just use the independent control. If it is really an issue for you then try using an old mechanical lens, although you will of course lose autofocus. There was a thread about two months ago discussing this very issue, that you participated in, so you should know all of this already.

The aperture adjusts as you zoom to get the correct amount of light for a particular f value, since your angle of view changes. This does not happen immediately since it is controlled electronically. It happens in stills mode as well, you just don't notice it because by the time you take your picture the adjustment has been made. One of the prices you pay for a purely electronic lens. They likely all do it, not matter what manufacturer makes them. The only ones that won't are those that adjust the aperture mechanically through direct gearing to the zoom.

There are a few ways around that. Firstly, you can allow it to find focus with CAF, then touch SF, and the focus point stays where it is. Alternatively, while in CAF, if you have mapped focus lock to the AF/ON button, you can press that and it will enter manual focus mode, with the focus point at where ever it was when you pressed the button. To release the focus lock, just press the button again, and it will go back to CAF.

Focus changes with autofocus will happen with any camera. Manual focus is pretty simple, if you compose in stills mode and then hit the record button. The focus by wire approach used in the S lenses allows for much more accurate fine focus adjustments than (for example, since I have them) Canon lenses. I have never had exposure drifting happen in manual mode. It can happen in an auto mode, because then the camera is actively compensating for whatever is at the metering point.

I wanted a hybrid, because that is what is suitable for my shooting. I have been a long time Canon user, but for whatever reason Canon have decided not to make such a camera, that is the reason for my dissatisfaction with them. Making something like the XC10 and trying to pass it off as a "hybrid" when it is really a camcorder disguised as a hybrid pisses me off. Why could they not have just made a real camcorder if that is what they wanted to do? The thing probably would have been a lot more successful and appealed to a wider market if they had. They already have all the components they need in the G/XA form, just put the dam electronics in it for Pete's sake. Instead they produce crap like the G40 and XA30/35, which are just slightly updated versions of the old G/XA cameras.