tugela

http://www.gizmag.com/canon-4k-video-c300-m2-xc10/36923/ https://www.slrlounge.com/canon-announces-new-xc10-4k-video-stills-camcorder/ http://www.canonrumors.com/announcement-canon-xc10-a-breakthrough-compact-4k-video-and-stills-camcorder/ http://canon.ca/inetCA/en/products/method/gp/pid/44258 https://***URL removed***/reviews/crossing-the-bridge-canon-xc10-review http://www.dvinfo.net/article/acquisition/review-canon-xc10-1-4k-hybrid-compact-cameracamcorder.html https://www.learn.usa.canon.com/resources/products/xc-10/xc-10.shtml And watch this video at around 8:20, where the Canon rep clearly states what it is for: Facts are a bitch

No, Canon initially marketed it as a hybrid. That is why reviewers were comparing it to hybrids.

It is not the reviews, it is more a case of it occupying a niche that it doesn't fit into. It is not quite a video camera ergonomically, but it isn't really a stills camera either. It was marketed as a hybrid, but there are far better options in the hybrid segment that do both functions really well. The GH4, NX1 and FF Sony cameras for example. That is the problem with the camera. IMO they would have been better off building the electronics into something like the G/XA series and updating that line for 4K instead. Ultimately that is the niche that would actually use the XC10, but even then I expect those users would have preferred the G/XA body. If they had done that in the first place I think the camera would haven been considerably more successful than it has been. But instead they chose to make a stab at the hybrid market, but implemented it poorly so that it does not really fit the bill.

I keep my $800+ lenses for a lot longer than 4-5 years. A good lens is a lifetime purchase. My canon L lenses work on my canon film cameras, my canon DSLR, and my BMPCC. IS works even on the BMPCC with speedbooster. The Samsung lenses will be paperweights in a few years. Total false economy. I suspect there are going to be better lenses for all cameras in a few years anyway, as lenses become more integrated as complementary electronic components in a holistic imaging system. In many ways, most lenses around today are still holdouts from the past. It will be the sort of transition that the avionics industry went through, when wireless flight became adopted. With or without the bit rate hacks? I imagine that blacks are among the first to go when compression is applied, so higher bit rates should preserve them better.

That is a bit weird, I wonder why they did that? I would have thought the option to record HD to CFast at a higher bit rate would have been attractive to many users. If you are interested in maximizing quality you are probably not going to quibble over the (relatively) small premium you would pay for the faster card.

Umm....they can introduce evidence that puts your credibility in question, which that essentially was.

Six that we know of. There could be a lot more for all we know. I think the problem with this whole saga is that there is very little information and all of it comes from people with a personal stake in the matter who may or may not be fully forthcoming. We just don't know.

I would guess that you don't see the flaws on the Canon due to the poor resolution on that camera. The 550D is essentially 720p resolution, and soft even at that. It would be hard to compare the relative lens performance unless you mounted them both of the NX1. I have shot some stuff with my Canon zooms using the NX1, but not having an electronic lens is a problem. It is also hard to get critical focus with the Canon since the throw distance is so small. Fine adjustment of manual focus is an order of magnitude easier with a native NX lens.

What we need is an electronic adapter that will pass signal through. Is suspect that it is not so simple in the case of NX though. I would guess that most of the mainstream lenses, such as Canon and Nikon ones, have dumb electronics and it would be just a simple signal passthrough. The NX lenses may be partially intelligent and operate off codes sent to/from the camera rather than just a signal. That would represent a fundamental system incompatibility and make an electronic adapter considerably more expensive to produce..

They use those cameras because that is the brand they have been brought up on, the brand their network supplies etc etc. I doubt any of those guys have even used anything else. Never underestimate pavlovian conditioning when it comes to consumer choices.They are not making the choice of one over the other because it is "superior". If you have always used a Canon, or a Sony, or a Panasonic, or whatever, you are probably going to continue using that brand, no matter what, because it is familiar. Inherent superiority has nothing to do with it. The cold reality is that most modern cameras are adequate for those applications. When you start reading nonsense with terms like "organic", "filmic" and "cinematic" when describing sports footage, you know that you have just encountered someone who has been consuming way too much cool-aid

I think it is more indicative of how pro's value the name plate than anything else. You can't be a real pro unless you have a Canon. we have heard that often enough. If you use anything else you lose respect among your peers.

Somehow I don't think that you will get much in the way of funding from crows.....

The issue with that panel discussion is that it is a bunch of people trying to recreate the work of their heroes from the 60s (or whenever), because that is what they grew up with and learned as the "right way". Whenever these debates are held, it is pretty much always about copying someone else's style, and never about having one of your own. IMO those sorts of people are basically hacks, and they lack enough creativity and vision to forge their own path, so instead they follow. Perhaps skilled technicians, but technicians none the less, not artists. Still making stuff up I see. It never ends does it. I suppose you are one of those people who think that if you say something often enough it becomes true.

The argument has never been that 4K is the only thing that is important, it has been about the idea that 4K is unnecessary and even undesirable. For me personally, the acid test is when friends watch footage I have shot on my TV, and all of them, without exception, are blown away with the resolution and detail. Now, no doubt my filmmaking skills are no where near the level of many here on this forum, but for me the proof of the argument is pretty clear in the comments of my friends. That is why I say over and over that the individuals who keep slagging 4K are living in a cocoon and are out of touch. I think it is somewhat disturbing that these are people who potentially produce content we might watch, and they just don't get it.

Write speed specs change depending on the size of memory available on the card even within a particular brand/model. the Lexar Professional 633x cards for example have write specs of 10 MB/s for the 16GB card, 20 MB/s for the 32-128GB cards, and 40 MB/s for the 256-512GB cards. Likewise for 1000X UHS-II cards, which range from 40-80 MB/s depending on the memory size.

He is referring to those who buy cameras as an investment to pay for their grandchildren's retirement, not those who buy cameras to shoot with.

Keep in mind that the write specs of a lot of these cards are pretty dubious, particularly if they are a generic brand.

You mean you are talking about magic. Physics is physics. Ignoring that and believing something to the contrary is what magic is.

It is basically the same camera, other than an updated processor.

My RX100iii never froze, jammed or needed battery pulls. Had it since the day it was released in Canada. A user issue perhaps?

I could ask the same question of you. You were claiming that it was recording higher frame rates, with the implication that it was actually shooting at that frame rate until someone pointed out that was not so. My point was that not only was it not shooting at the higher frame rate, it was not encoding at that rate either. It is actually shot (and recorded) at 30 fps. The "120 fps" is fake, and is achieved simply by changing a flag at the header. The camera could equally well generate "1200 fps" for example, but it would still be the same footage as 30 fps.

Yes. It is somewhat mystifying that they have not modernized their XF/XA lines. Even though they get occasional updates, they are still basically the same cameras from 3 years ago. Things have moved on a lot in the field in those three years however, so the low end pro camcorders are badly out of date now.

The hybrids are primarily for consumers who want a single camera that can do both jobs very well, and can switch from stills to video mode and back again at the press of a button. They are not really intended for professionals, even though marketing materials might portray them that way. The marketing is not aimed at professionals since they (we hope) know better, but is intended more for advanced amateurs who want to appear "professional". That is why you see Blackmagic cameras all decked out with giant rigs and professional lenses in their marketing materials for example. It is aimed at the wannabe amateurs and "I can barely make it" pros for the most part. In order to be considered an adequate hybrid, a camera has to excel both in stills and in video, not just one while doing a shitty job in the other.

Keep in mind that these are supposed to by hybrids, not pure camcorders. The XC10 is a piece of crap for stills. If you were to go out and have the option of carrying one camera for all of your imaging, the RX10III does it all, whereas with the XC10 you would need at least another camera. That was always the big problem with the XC10. The image quality was ok in terms of color, and fine for HD, but resolution not so much when you were looking at 4K. The stills capability is a sad joke. You also require relatively expensive media to access the advanced end of the video spectrum, and, with all due respect to Andrew, having a giant loupe attached to the thing is awkward. If you want a one stop shop and you are traveling/hiking/generally mobile, the RX10III is the better camera.

Not really. Even though your file says "120 fps", it is actually being recorded at 30 fps. It is being shot at a lower bit rate and then conformed to a higher bit rate for playback. You could conform it to whatever playback speed you wanted to in principal, it would just be a matter of setting a flag somewhere. There is nothing to suggest that the camera can handle shooting at the higher frame rate however. The critical limitation is the amount of information the camera can handle RECORDING, not doing playback. I doubt that the processor could handle the amount of raw data coming off the sensor to record 4k at 60 fps.