jydurocher

It's pretty disingenuous to use Panasonic as an example considering their sensor sizes are literally half that of the Canon. Use Sony's A7 series (which only the most recent iteration of included internal 4k, by the way - though sure they at least offered 4k externally before that), and a6000 series - sure. They've been able to make 4k internal happen in a much smaller body, though they still took longer than Panasonic. 

There's significantly more data to process on a full frame sensor in 4k vs an m4/3 sensor. 
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Video shooters are not a huge market for Canon DSLRs and mirrorless. That's why the compromise you talk about has come at the costs of video. That's why they're attempting to develop better photo feartures first. Does that mean they couldn't have developed the technology to do everything you want? Course not. But obviously their focus is and always has been still shooters in the DSLR line-up. That's why they have a Cinema EOS line-up to cater for video shooters.

Sony and Panasonic don't/didn't have the established customer base and were/are much more able to be nimble and take bigger risks. That's why they were able to make such a dent.
 

I hope that Canon doesn't drop the XC_* line. My XC-10 is a little marvel of right compromises.
Wish list is quite simple:
a) Servo zoom (could be an add-on with its own batteries)
b) A wider and faster lens
c) A more complex flash shoe (with audio and HDMI video out) plus a bottom strip with all i/o plus power.
So you would have:
a) XC-10 plus add-on servo
b) XC-15 Never understood the concept
c) XC-20 (the 10, plus the servo and I/O)
d) XC-30 with a wider-faster servo lens and the I/O
The price point is easy to figure out, both the XC-10 and 15 drop by 500$USD
And the new 20 is a couple of hundred more than the XC-10 while the 30 is a $1,000
Stretching the wish list would be a bare XC with a mount, only an on/off button, no side-grip. Only a HDMI and USB plus a back or under plate for batteries and holes galore. Controlled by wi-fi or USB. At $3,000 it would make a killing as an expendable camera.
Going against the Canon faith would be to add support to the new hi-speed SD card, but this is asking too much.

I hope that Canon doesn't drop the XC_* line. My XC-10 is a little marvel of right compromises.
Wish list is quite simple:
a) Servo zoom (could be an add-on with its own batteries)
b) A wider and faster lens
c) A more complex flash shoe (with audio and HDMI video out) plus a bottom strip with all i/o plus power.
So you would have:
a) XC-10 plus add-on servo
b) XC-15 Never understood the concept
c) XC-20 (the 10, plus the servo and I/O)
d) XC-30 with a wider-faster servo lens and the I/O
The price point is easy to figure out, both the XC-10 and 15 drop by 500$USD
And the new 20 is a couple of hundred more than the XC-10 while the 30 is a $1,000
Stretching the wish list would be a bare XC with a mount, only an on/off button, no side-grip. Only a HDMI and USB plus a back or under plate for batteries and holes galore. Controlled by wi-fi or USB. At $3,000 it would make a killing as an expendable camera.
Going against the Canon faith would be to add support to the new hi-speed SD card, but this is asking too much.

I know we are a distrustful bunch, but I can verify I do actually have an XC10, I'm not trying to sell it to you as a rare non-ghosting collectable safari edition, and my younger sister isn't pregnant which is why I'm risking my EosHD credibility and my promising career at dental school :-)
I am just finishing an edit of something that should be suitable to post publicly, so I'll do that when I get a chance. Its nothing groundbreaking just a montage of some travel shots with the family but I was happy with the quality.  I might even set my XC10 to iso20000 and wave it madly in front of a vase or similar to see if I do get any ghosting.
I understand where you are coming from, and that you wish to make sure any prospective buyers don't just get the rose tinted view of the camera.  I also appreciate the ghosting may be a show stopper for some.  But my point is, which I think is valid and also important for prospective buyers to know, is that there are XC10 users out there who are happy with their cameras and that in their real world use aren't bothered by ghosting (regardless of whether their camera produces it or not).
Nice vid by the way. 

Its amazing how the XC10 went from crap-what was Canon thinking, to the XC10 is amazing-how did the internets get this camera so wrong, back to the XC10 is crap-I won't ever believe what the internets tell me ever again.  
In reality, it has very nice IQ in good light, and better than expected IQ in low light given the sensor size and slow lens.  IMO it makes up for any low light deficiencies with the form factor, c-log, lens range and great image stabilisation.
If you use it for what is it intended and play to its strengths, its a nice compliment to a C100.  Its not an A7S but then its probably not really fair to compare a 12 megapixel full frame sensor to a 12 megapixel 1 inch sensor for pure IQ in low light.  In good light, I think it holds it own and is very very easy to match to other C cameras.

As I’ve said before we are in Canon repeating the Scoopic story 40 years later. The 16mm camera was an order from NHK to have a sturdy news camera to compete with the Beaulieu and Bolex of the time. It was sturdy but had that committee feel to it. Using a Beaulieu in Vietnam was playing Russian Roulette, a Bolex died the first day.
The XC10 is in the same category. After almost 6 months using it for what it is, a news reporter video and photo camera, I’m highly please. We don’t do small documentaries but again it would fit the bill if we had too. And I’m sure that some are used as C cameras in big budget production, at the price they’re expendable after all and nobody will notice a 48 frames cut. As long as the card survives, everybody is happy.
To try to express how sick and tired I am of the purist would be an understatement. The XC10 does the job. What I don’t understand is the XC-15, but then again I still don’t get E=MC2 perfectly.
But what I truly don’t understand is the lack of a power zoom or the feeling that the XC line could be an ecosystem on its own. Why not offer on the bottom a replica of the I/O, usb, hdmi, sound and viewfinder out? Or at the flash head, viewfinder out and sound in? Imagine a small Oled viewfinder on top! Not a great engineering feat. But imagine how many 3rd party accessories would come to life.
And what about a choice of lens, the one supplied which does the work, a shorter but faster one and one with a Canon mount.
As is it is an excellent compromise. If you want a C700, then get one. If you are limited in resources, get this. And by the way, hundred of thousands of hours of tv programs worldwide are shot on cameras well below the specs of the XC-10.
 
 

I've just finished filming a short film.  We used 5D Raw, A7s + speed booster, GH4 + speed booster, and the XC10.  The best looking and "organic moving" footage in my opinion came from the 5D Raw and the xc10 in 4k.  The a7s was the 3rd best and the gh4 was the sharpest "out of camera".  We could have comfortably shot the whole thing on the XC10.  

Unsharpened ungraded CLOG frame grabs. Having a 1 inch sensor is no hindrance for a shooter like me...i own multiple cameras and i light my shoots.  I'm invested in canon gear, it uses the same batteries as the 5D3, has good battery run time, doesn't overheat and captures excellent video quality that compliments 5D Raw. I don't have to carry around a 25lb camera bag with various lenses and accessories to be able to shoot dynamically with the xc10.  The only accessory I carry is a variable nd filter.  I like to minize rigging as much as possible and I don't want an xlr input on this form factor, a rode videomic pro is good enough.  The only thing i would like is a constant f/2.8 and true DPAF.  I wouldn't even bother with a C100-300 if it had those 2 features.  




More ungraded frames of CLOG + Variable ND filter of me testing the cam on a poor trapped dog.