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.
Completely agree, plus you get the top-LCD.... which I wonder why the original review omitted that as a "pro" seriously biased and disgustingly canon-fanboy review. People just need to look at images irrespective of what they were shot on. You'll remove all subjectivity as looking at some of his "Pro"'s for the canon, it's pretty obvious which are technically incorrect and completely subjective:
Superb live-view quality and touch screen LCD, which is bright and vivid both indoors and outdoors
Sensible menus and clean presentation of on-screen shooting info
Simple and effective controls layout
Compact 24-240mm zoom doesn’t physically extend very far at the telephoto end
Balanced and robust build quality
Lovely Bolex feel to the manual zoom ring
AF doesn’t look electronic, it is almost entirely without hunting, jittering or darting off suddenly
Really? If you're going to talk about the "bright and vivid" colours indoors and outdoors let's get some perspective. This is further exacerbated by the following line in the blog "The screen is superb and has better visibility in direct sunlight than the RX10 III’s."
So... at which time of day were these test performed? What was the brightness in lumens being recorded? was it cloudy, sunny etc..? Subjective statements have no factual basis other than "i think therefor..."
Also this comment:
"On the RX10 III you find yourself using full manual controls more as the automatic behaviour isn’t as good, and you find yourself using very high shutter speeds outdoors as there’s no ND." What specific test scenario's were you using? Simply using auto at least as a photographer is something I never do... either shoot in Aperture, Shutter or Full manual mode...
Also, why isn't it mentioned that the RX10iii does 1/32000 shutter speed vs the paltry 1/2000 shutter speed? That is definitely a pro.
3.8fps on the XC10 vs 14 on the Sony? Really...
On 2016-6-4 at 4:32 PM, nikos said:
Hey Andrew,
great review but I would like to correct something...
you wrote "In full HD you get proper tracking and object detection plus touch-screen AF. All this gets disabled in 4K and sometimes the camera will put the background in focus and not the intended subject. It can be hard to coax it in 4K without the touch AF."
this is not true. The touch AF works in 4k. It is disabled only if you enable the rolling shutter reduction mode. If you disable the rs reduction it works perfect.
Thanks again for the review.
In hd maybe but there is no noise up to 5000iso in 4k.
Not bad...
I am still looking to find out what is going on with the resolution in 4k. I think there is a loss in resolution in c-log that dose not exist in standard profile.
But you are wrong about the mobile run and gun shooter. xc10 is far superior because it has very good, actually excellent image stabilization for video. This is one of the big thinks in xc10 and it is surprisingly good.
I know this is a forum for "film makers" but why would anyone buy a Hybrid and expect super stellar film? I have in the past owned an A7ii, and an A6000 and whilst I'm setting aside some money towards an A99ii (as I have some nice lenses to utilise f.28 28-75, 50mm 1.4) I'm currently shooting with a Pentax K1 for planned shots and the RX10iii for every day.... Not lugging around a million lenses and having great telephoto and wide is a big gift to say the least.
Canon XC10 versus Sony RX10 III. The Canon is underrated!
In: Cameras
Posted
Completely agree, plus you get the top-LCD.... which I wonder why the original review omitted that as a "pro" seriously biased and disgustingly canon-fanboy review. People just need to look at images irrespective of what they were shot on. You'll remove all subjectivity as looking at some of his "Pro"'s for the canon, it's pretty obvious which are technically incorrect and completely subjective:
Superb live-view quality and touch screen LCD, which is bright and vivid both indoors and outdoors
Sensible menus and clean presentation of on-screen shooting info
Simple and effective controls layout
Compact 24-240mm zoom doesn’t physically extend very far at the telephoto end
Balanced and robust build quality
Lovely Bolex feel to the manual zoom ring
AF doesn’t look electronic, it is almost entirely without hunting, jittering or darting off suddenly
Really? If you're going to talk about the "bright and vivid" colours indoors and outdoors let's get some perspective. This is further exacerbated by the following line in the blog "The screen is superb and has better visibility in direct sunlight than the RX10 III’s."
So... at which time of day were these test performed? What was the brightness in lumens being recorded? was it cloudy, sunny etc..? Subjective statements have no factual basis other than "i think therefor..."
Also this comment:
"On the RX10 III you find yourself using full manual controls more as the automatic behaviour isn’t as good, and you find yourself using very high shutter speeds outdoors as there’s no ND." What specific test scenario's were you using? Simply using auto at least as a photographer is something I never do... either shoot in Aperture, Shutter or Full manual mode...
Also, why isn't it mentioned that the RX10iii does 1/32000 shutter speed vs the paltry 1/2000 shutter speed? That is definitely a pro.
3.8fps on the XC10 vs 14 on the Sony? Really...
I know this is a forum for "film makers" but why would anyone buy a Hybrid and expect super stellar film? I have in the past owned an A7ii, and an A6000 and whilst I'm setting aside some money towards an A99ii (as I have some nice lenses to utilise f.28 28-75, 50mm 1.4) I'm currently shooting with a Pentax K1 for planned shots and the RX10iii for every day.... Not lugging around a million lenses and having great telephoto and wide is a big gift to say the least.