Jump to content
Andrew Reid

Canon XC10 versus Sony RX10 III. The Canon is underrated!

Recommended Posts

14 hours ago, mercer said:

 The step less exposure wheel let's you ride the exposure as you follow your talent in and out of different lighting scenarios.

Compare that to the "stepless" version in the Sony RX10 ii where it is actually not stepless, even if you click it on. It will still change exposure in steps. Talk about great design there...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
EOSHD Pro Color for Sony cameras EOSHD Pro LOG for Sony CamerasEOSHD C-LOG and Film Profiles for All Canon DSLRs
5 hours ago, hmcindie said:

Compare that to the "stepless" version in the Sony RX10 ii where it is actually not stepless, even if you click it on. It will still change exposure in steps. Talk about great design there...

Yeah, just to be clear about the XC10... the exposure stops aren't stepless, but there aren't jarring exposure steps in the video... it looks like a smooth exposure change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, mat33 said:

So just got my XC10, and it definitely has a cool s16 aesthetic.  IS is probably a bit better than olympus E-M1 IBIS but need to do some further tests, and onboard audio is a lot better than GH4 that it replaced.

 

 

Let us know how you get along with it. After getting the camera, all I wanna do is talk about it... And obviously shoot with it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, kidzrevil said:

@hmcindie you sure you dont have a defective model ? I own an rx10 ii and have never ran into that isue

Oh? I mean, if I click the ring to be stepless then yeah, the steps go away and the aperture ring goes smooth... but the exposure change itself is still in steps. You can just turn the ring smoothly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, mercer said:

Quick question about C-Log, just to make sure my camera isn't faulty. At ISO 500, in c-log, the image is darker than ISO 500 in WideDR... Is that a normal byproduct of C-Log?

yes, C-Log employs a different gamma curve that maps 18% gray at 32% IRE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, mercer said:

Quick question about C-Log, just to make sure my camera isn't faulty. At ISO 500, in c-log, the image is darker than ISO 500 in WideDR... Is that a normal byproduct of C-Log?

Log modes are always darker. 

For instance, Slog2 is much darker than Cine4 on the A7S. The information is shared more across the curve. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The LeViteZer 360 gimbal was originally developed for 360 video cameras but works nice on other setups too. Tested with Canon XC10 at sea, installed on monopod. No post stabilisation used, but experimented with different in camera stabilisations.

 

Big thanks for Canon Finland for loaning the XC10.

 

Ps. I like this camera a lot, but there is one downside, I could not find 30 fps on this camera ? only 25 and 50 fps, maybe I missed something?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, IronFilm said:

Switch from PAL to NTSC.

I was trying to find that, but did not.

When now trying to find how it could have been changed, I only find "Specifications are given for PAL version of the camera. NTSC version available in appropriate regions" http://www.canon.co.uk/for_home/product_finder/digital_cinema/cinema_eos_cameras/xc10/specification.aspx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On August 5, 2016 at 5:30 AM, mercer said:

Quick question about C-Log, just to make sure my camera isn't faulty. At ISO 500, in c-log, the image is darker than ISO 500 in WideDR... Is that a normal byproduct of C-Log?

Canon maps C-Log at 32% IRE for 18% gray. When I shoot that way I get noise in the darker parts of my footage--makes me a little crazy. So, generally, I try to shoot at 40% IRE for 18%, and top out at 75 or 80% for 90% white and I get much less noise in the darker areas and still preserve my highlights pretty well. 

People have different ideas about this, but there is a general consensus about not starving Canon sensors regarding light. I know Shane Hurlbut shoots Canon Log at higher IREs than Canon recommends and likes the results. For a long time I was confused about how to best expose C-Log--mainly because I had  such a horrible time making Sony S-Log look like anything decent. But Canon C-Log is much easier to grade and, though I'm sure I'll get a lot of disagreement on this, I think C-Log is pretty flexible regarding exposure. Just don't blow out your highs (keep them below 80 IRE and you'll probably be fine.

I do a lot of shooting in TV mode, especially out of doors or where I have little or no control of the surroundings. Rather than adjusting exposure compensation I leave it where I would normally shoot non-Log gammas. I find this footage grades well, preserves the highs adequately, yields low noise in the blacks, and works great with C-log 3 709 LUTs you get from Canon for their C300 Mk II. In contrast, when I adjust exposure compensation to yield 18% gray at 32 IRE (or thereabouts) I get noise in the darker areas of the image.

You may find you don't like the results, but they can't shoot you for trying. :glasses:

PS

As an afterthought consider the sensors of the C100 Mk II and C300 Mk II are large and better, pound for pound, regarding low-light. So exposing Log 18% gray at 32 IRE yields a reasonably clean image in low light most of the time. So, it seems to me the XC10 with its smaller sensor might require exposing the image at higher IREs than the C300 mk II to yield similar results. Is this reasonable thinking--or what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey guys - this thread and the other XC10 one have piqued my interest sufficiently that I have one arriving on Friday (I thought about waiting for the XC15 but decided there weren't enough differences important to me to justify the extra cost). One thing I haven't been able to find out so far is if it has frame guides for 2.35:1 etc. Please say it does!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

shot this with an rx10ii and loved the super 16mm aesthetic. I really wished they made the xc15 with a constant aperture but you can't have it all I guess. I love the footage you guys have been posting up here of the xc10 especially @mercer . I know this thread is about the rx10iii vs the xc10...honestly I would avoid the rx10iii and get the rx10ii for the constant aperture and in body ND filter ! Overall I love the image of the sony rx bridge cameras...I just bought a tiffen ultra contrast filter so hopefully that helps with compression and noise in the shadows

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, kidzrevil said:

shot this with an rx10ii and loved the super 16mm aesthetic. I really wished they made the xc15 with a constant aperture but you can't have it all I guess. I love the footage you guys have been posting up here of the xc10 especially @mercer . I know this thread is about the rx10iii vs the xc10...honestly I would avoid the rx10iii and get the rx10ii for the constant aperture and in body ND filter ! Overall I love the image of the sony rx bridge cameras...I just bought a tiffen ultra contrast filter so hopefully that helps with compression and noise in the shadows

 

Thanks man!!! I love the XC10, so much so I am investing in Canon glass and picking up either an 80D or a used C100 for shallow depth close ups.

As always, it's cool to see you working the DR on that Sony, and I still love that smash cut to your Kidzrevil logo. Btw, what's the story behind Kidzrevil?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×