tugela

​Maybe you should get glasses then.

​Until it gets old. Current cameras can do up to 120 fps footage now, but other than the routine test clips people do, it does not appear to be used much.

I said that the XC10 cannot match the C100/300 because the sensor is completely different, not any other of the extrapolations you are choosing to make. Mt statements to that effect were, are, and will remain true, irrespective of how you choose to twist it. It is a different sensor with different properties and characteristics dude. FYI, an 8mp sensor inherently cannot resolve fully at 4K because of the effects of debeyering. At best it will have around 70% resolution. In order to maximise resolution you have to collect a larger pixel sample size, and none of these Canons can do that. ​I know the difference between resolution and sharpening, and trust me, there is no way in hell that most of that HD footage is going to look anything but soft, sharpening or no sharpening. The detail simply isn't there. Look at the foliage in the clips, not the large objects. Those fool you, because your eye locks onto the macro object rather than the detail. Foliage is the acid test. With the XC10 it is mostly just green blobs. No sharpening can recover from that. The camera apparently is inadequate or the operators don't know what they are doing.

​I would rather see it from actual users than promotional material which has been heavily altered. Certainly if we look at the HD user footage of the XC10 that has been put out so far, it is pretty clear that resolution is an issue in that mode.

​I didn't say anything of the sort. Try reading my response again, you will find that it is accurate. Don't extrapolate to things that were not said.

​It doesn't have the same sensor tech as the C100/300. Those have a larger sensor and lower pixel count than the one on the XC10 (I am guessing that the C300/100M2 use the same sensor). They also have DPAF, and there is no mention of that in the XC10, so it probably doesn't. The sensor performance and characteristics of the two will be completely different. Also, the XC10 has a single DV5 processor, whereas the C300 has dual DV5 processors. That means it will have superior processing capability, which has to affect the IQ otherwise there would be no point in the C300 having dual processors. The C100 uses a single DV4 processor (which is the older generation) running at a different bit rate and codec. So it is different from the other two in that respect as well.

​You can output 4:2:0 as 4:2:2 if you want to. After all, this is what pretty much every camera that has a HDMI output does. There is nothing special about it. What it does do is give you more latitude when grading since there is more color information, but if you are not doing that then 4:2:0 is fine. This camera is being marketed as a portable news camera, and that sort of footage is used as is after transcoding. XF-AVC isn't supported everywhere. Some people have to transcode it until their NLEs support it. Maybe that will happen soon but apparently it hasn't happened yet in some cases. I am not that familiar with C100/300 footage, but if the resolution is as bad as the first clips from the XC10 are, then I would be very surprised. There is no way that it has the same performance as the senior cameras, since it is a different sensor size and pixel pitch. The only thing the same between the cameras is the codec, and I don't consider that to be "compatibility".

​I am not angry at it. I am disappointed because of what it signifies. Although I had no intention of buying one because of the form factor, the implementation reinforces the idea that Canon simply do not take consumer/prosumer video seriously. The DIGIC in the camera is the next generation of processors that are going to be used in all Canon consumer products for the next 2 years. In other words every consumer camera that Canon releases in the next 2 years is going to have the same soft crappy video they are so famous for. That makes me sad. It should make you sad as well.

It isn't a second camera for a C300/500 since the image quality is dramatically inferior. That pretty much destroys it's supposed main advantage. Shooting in HD limits you to 50 mbps at 60p, and 35 mbps at 30p. Something like the NX1 can shoot HD at 80mbps at 60p, and 60 mbps at 30p, using a more efficient codec. Some of the bandwidth of the XC10 will be sacrificed to support 10 bits and 4:2:2 as well, so relatively speaking even more resolution information is lost. The Canon codec isn't "broadcast approved" either, it is simply a format that can be readily transcoded, that is all. But so can all of the other codecs out there.

​Sigh.....look at this then, the backlit trees, especially the "graded" material around 1:20 which enhances it:

​No amount of editing is going to fix that dude. Getting back to the quality of the footage. It is soft, just like all the other examples of HD footage that is showing up over the last few weeks from new users of the camera. It isn't YouTube that is doing this, it isn't the shooters that is doing this, it is the camera. Full stop. I was quite surprised about that. While I had serious doubts about the form factor and design of the camera, I never the less expected that the footage at least would meet modern standards, but the evidence so far is that it clearly does not. I have given this some thought and I believe I know what the problem is. The new Digic processor can do 4K at high bit rates, but for HD it is probably still using the old encoding engine from the Digic 5/6 family, which as we well know produces soft footage that is effectively 720p resolution. The slightly higher bit rate accommodates the 4:2:2 output, but the resolution is no better than Canon's previous consumer/prosumer camcorders, in other words lacking by todays standards. More shortcuts and lack of competitiveness from Canon it seems. You want to judge the camera by your prior expectation that it was going to "pleasantly surprise" us. I prefer to judge it based on the footage people are producing with it. For me, it is "surprising", but not in a pleasant way. We have not seen to much 4K for this camera yet, but the HD output that has appeared so far falls below todays standards, it is last generation quality while the world has moved on. To be blunt, there are much better options than this thing considering it's price point and market. IMO the RX10M2 is probably going to outperform it, based on what we know about the RX10 and extrapolating that. Time will tell with camera as well of course, but I think it is going to prove superior to the XC10.

Excuse the last post, but the editor on this web site is horribly bugged. Anyway, that clip is VERY soft. I guess if you are used to using Canon cameras it might seem ok because most of them shoot what is effectively 720p resolution footage, but compared to modern cameras from most other manufacturers it is lacking. One more thing, don't wave the camera around like that, it is terrible to watch. Most of the XC10 clips I have seen on YouTube, both the 4K and especially the HD ones, seem to have poor resolution.

​I did a series of shots a few weeks back with all of my old cameras capable of doing some sort of video, with a mind to making a youtube movie showing the issues with them and how video has evolved over the years. The last two sets of clips were the NX1 in HD mode and 4K outputted as HD in post. All of the clips were shot at default settings. Aliasing was common in the HD clips, but the same scenes shot in 4K had none. Other than that both sets looked similar when conformed to HD. So, the advice I would give is shoot in 4K and conform that on output to HD, and it should solve the issue the earlier poster was whining about.

​Hasn't been a problem for me. There is aliasing when you shoot in HD, but the same shot in 4K downsized in post to HD shows none of that.

​Shoot in 4K and deliver in HD. Aliasing isn't a problem then.

​For the Samsung 45mm F1.8: Resolution: Chromatic aberration: For the Canon 50mm F1.8: Resolution: Chromatic aberration: The Samsung is clearly the winner. If you are buying a ~$1500 body, an extra $100 on a lens is trivial.

​Yup, the form factor is the biggest turn-off with the A7 series.

​The Samsung 15-50mm S lens is only a few hundred more. Remember, it is a faster lens than the Canon, and faster lenses increase in price very rapidly. The S lenses are comparable to Canon's L lens range, and those cost in the region of $1.5-2K. The closest equivalent lenses optically for comparative purposes are the 16-35mm F2.8 L or 24-70mm F2.8 L, and those lenses cost a lot more than the Samsung. Regarding the 45mm F.8, it is optically a much better lens than the Canon 50mm version (an important consideration when you are using a high resolution sensor such as that on the NX1), and it has better build quality. An extra $100 is not a deal breaker, you get what you pay for in that particular case. When you compare equivalent lenses, the Samsung versions are generally cheaper than the Canon analogs, or offer more features for about the same price.

​I'm guessing because what you shoot today might only be used a few years from now, and the expectations will be for the standards then, not the standards now.

​There don't appear to be dropped frames when I step through the original as far as I can tell.

Anything that uses a mirror in its light path is probably going to be less than ideal for video, so I don't see the 5D4 can possibly win this contest as a video camera. An A7s mark II will kick the stuffing out of it.

​I doubt the camera can shoot at 240 fps in 1080p. The sensor read rate is 240 fps, but that would leave no time from processing, so the maximum practical read rate is probably 120fps at 1080p and less at 4K. Since 4K would need ~4X the processing, it would work out to 120/4 = 30, or what we currently get). That is likely the limit of what the hardware can do short of dropping significant quality. It might be possible with a crop though, since the camera can effectively disregard a large chunk of the data. 4K60p will require the next generation of hardware IMO.

​No it isn't. The direction photography is taking for most people is lighter and smaller, which is NOT the direction FF takes them. You are confusing what YOU want with what most people want. It is not the same thing. Unless you want razor thin DOF or extreme wide angles (and most people neither want nor need that) FF does not offer significant advantages over crop sensors. Crops sensors on the other hand have better reach, something which most users would find more valuable. For the average user something like the APS-C size is the ideal compromise between large and small sensors, not FF.

​APS-C cameras outsell FF versions by a large margin, and for good reason. The idea that APS-C is dead is absurd.