Jump to content
Andrew Reid

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

Recommended Posts

I have the A6300 and I feel it is useless for professional applications because A) rolling shutter in 4k and B) overheating.

Nobody will buy an XLR adapter for the A6300 because no one who is doing professional shooting will want to shoot with an A6300. They are not competitors. The A6300 is for consumers who shoot a couple of clips of 4k here and 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
17 hours ago, Prandi said:

2. Price CFast card: Transcend 64Gb 2.0 ... 59 $
                                  128Gb ... 100 $
3. XLR? ... A small adapter .... $ 40
Canon basher

The 128G Transcend CFast card is $300 at B&H or €200 at Amazon.DE  What XLR module/adapter can you get for $40?

Actually, I wanted (still I haven't given up completely) to buy a Canon video camera, and I love a number of XC10 functions tremendously: 4K, excellent image stabilization, touch screen, joystick (sic!), tilting LCD viewfinder (!). But eventually it was the 1" sensor for $2000 which prevented my purchase. I am so sorry, I was so disappointed; another year I have to live without a Canon video camera, another year I have to stay with my Sony A5100, since I see no really better camera to upgrade below $2000.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, hmcindie said:

you use an A5100 ... complaining about other cameras

26 minutes ago, hmcindie said:

I have the A6300 and I feel it is useless for professional applications because A) rolling shutter in 4k and B) overheating.

Yea, the A5100 has its limitations, definitely: I use it with an Atomos Ninja2: no overheating, no 30 minute recording limit, it has microphone jack and headset jack. The 1080 image quality (no 60p, unfortunately) is excellent with this combo. The A5100 has brilliant accurate/snappy/shimmer-free a touch to focus function because of the 179 PDAF points at least as great as the 70D/80D dual pixel. It's not 4K, but excellent HD combo. I use a Swivi LCD viewfinder with the A5100, not tiltable, though. I wouldn't say my A5100+Atomos combo is better than XC10; but, the XC10 is better only daylight and all for more than double price (let alone the crazy prices of CFast cards). Andrew recently reviewed the Panasonic GX80 with Blackmagic Video Assist 4K, and I found it quite impressive. If I wanted to upgrade, I'd go in that direction, or something like that. Unless, Canon would be so kind to come out with something reasonable in the meantime. No 1" again for me, please, I don't care if it's Canon/Sony/Panasonic/Nikon.

11 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

what if you want 422 internal 305Mbit 4K and 24-240mm zoom though?! Not much to compete with that in one-body for under $2k, especially not with the colour and ergonomics of the Canon.

Yes, but you, Andrew, evaluated that the AF is pathetic, and MF is very hard to use (unusable). How can you focus this camera then?

Share this post


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

Oh, wait a second, you use an A5100??! And are complaining about other cameras??

I am afraid, most of us here, has never had an XC10 in their hand.
But we can still exchange views and ideas, that’s the forum about.

I don’t buy a camera, like my wife chooses a car.
-Look honey, I want this one, it has such a nice color :-)

If a camera’s specifications are not good enough, why should I use time to test it???
For me the XC10 is a monster, clear mistake from product management.

Not good for photography.

No RAW. It could be a firmware update but Canon would for sure not do it.
The lens is so-so
Weak continuous shooting
No IR flash-sync
No autofocus lamp
Few manual adjustments, everything is in menus
No B shutter

 

Not good enough for professional video work.

The lens is so-so…
There is a On/Off ND-filter, but no control over it.
There is no powerzoom.
No XLR
Strange solution for viewfinder
The bitrate (305 Mbs) is more a sign of bad codec

 

Not interesting for the amateurs either.

Too expensive, especially with the memory cards.
Too much data to work with
Probably very high loss of value.
Too big and strange ergonomics
Too weak for the competition :-)

I doubt, the video file of the XC10 is better than the GH4 with the 14-140 kit lens, and the Panasonic is way better for photography. And, don't forget to check the price.

That is my view on it :-)

Share this post


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

I stand corrected, apologies for the false information. Honestly, I don't regard the missing XLR module a big negative, but it is a fact that the $2000 XC10 Canon professional videocamera has no direct XLR support. I use a Tascam DR-60DmkII ($200) and a Zoom H5 anyway, so I am quite OK with the fact that the XC10 has only a mic jack and no XLR.

You can add XLR support to any camera with an HDMI output.

The Blackmagic View Assist 4K for example has two mini XLRs on it, plus it will be in sync with your recording unlike a separate dual-system audio recorder.

Quote

Nevertheless, you cannot ignore the fact that the XC10 has only a 1" sensor, which is really below today's expectations for low-light applications;

So don't use it for low light applications then!

Right tool for the job and all that.

Anyway it's actually perfectly usable at ISO 6400 in 1080p with Canon LOG or up to 1600 in 4K.

Remember a lot of the time you don't need higher than 3200 or 6400 in low light.

Another case of where just looking at the specs doesn't tell the whole story.

Quote

... when ((much) more) affordable solutions exist that are great for daylight and low-light situation either.

It's the 1" sensor that makes the lens possible at all, in such small packaging. 24-240mm with 5 axis stabilisation is not to be sniffed at. It's a lot sharper than the 14-140mm Lumix you can put on the GX80 and the codec is better - much higher bitrate and 422 colour.

Personally I like the GX80 when it is with super fast glass so I wouldn't both using it as an XC10 replacement.

They're complimentary.

GX80 for interchangeable lenses and XC10 as a Super 16mm style shot-getter.

Quote

The XC10 might be (much) better than an Sony RX10iii, RX10ii, AX100, RX100iv, X70, but definitely it is not a competitor of larger sensor 4K cameras especially not APS-C/S35 (JVC GY-LS300, A6300) let alone the 4K A7 family. I have enough experience with 1" sensors, I've been there, I don't want to go/step back, definitely not for $2000. 

OK I get that there are many people who don't want to own more than one camera, so the one camera they do buy must do EVERYTHING.

Well there is no such camera.

I would not advocate replacing a A6300 and A7S II with the XC10 without knowing how it was going to be used by the shooter in question. I can only put the facts out there. The XC10 can do a lot the Sonys cannot:

- It doesn't overheat during a shoot (A6300 is not suitable as your only camera for anything to be honest)

- It doesn't require any investment in lenses. A6300 may not be $2000 but add up the cost of the lenses!

- Sony's colour does not have what it takes

- A7S II and especially A6300 rolling shutter is much worse than the XC10

- A7S II's AF in video mode is rubbish

- Ergonomics on the Sony bodies are charmless

- Battery life is rubbish as well

So just have in mind what the strengths and weaknesses are before you write off the XC10 just because it doesn't have a full frame sensor or ISO 408,000

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

So just have in mind what the strengths and weaknesses are before you write off the XC10 just because it doesn't have a full frame sensor or ISO 408,000

Yes, sure, but, the XC10 is priced as if it were a full-frame ISO400k :-) 

Anyhow, I am impressed with your reply, thank you so much, Andrew. Keep up your great reviews, it's a pleasure to read them. You are pointing out important facts, your hands-on experiences; I've especially learned a hell lot from your GX80 review, that was phenomenally revealing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This camera is somewhat intriguing as a run and gun solution, but Canon omitting duel pixel AF makes it a no sale for me. If there was a camera in its lineup that's tailor made for DPAF, it's the XC10. 

Maybe they get it right in the mkII. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, David Bowgett said:

The two main guys might have thought that, but one of their other reviewers also took a look at it in their 5DS review and was a lot more positive about it, saying that while there were a lot of annoying issues with the camera's design, the actual video quality was pretty good.

https://youtu.be/QwLZRKfFmUY?t=12m57s

 

The lens and build quality of the XC10  are terrible,a $2000 cam with totally plastic body,can u believe that?

It is ridiculous to use it as a working tool,and it is not underrated,it is a mistake that canon made!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Miklos Nemeth said:

Yes, sure, but, the XC10 is priced as if it were a full-frame ISO400k :-)

You're right, the price is on the high side. But it is a professional camcorder, not a consumer one although it has cross-over appeal. The codec is a professional one, straight out of the C300 Mark II, the image processing is also professional grade, not the TV-consumer sort.

In Berlin the full frame ISO 400K A7S II is over 3000 euros. The XC10 cost me half that, around 1700. So it's more in the NX1 / GH4 league of pricing than high-end full frame. The original A7S isn't 1700 for ready-to-shoot 4K, you have to add the cost of recorder and lenses on top.

If you consider the XC10's 'body' as a 999 euros piece and the 24-240mm lens the extra 700 euros, that means the body is 2000 euros less than the price of an A7S II / A7R II and the lens is 200 euros less than the price of Sony's 10x zoom for full frame, the 24-240mm F3.5-6.3 (notice the slower aperture and much bulkier design compared to the XC10's lens). Indeed, a 1000 body and 700 lens is very similar to the Panasonic and Olympus pricing of higher-end Micro Four Thirds kit.

The closest competitor is the GX80 + 14-140mm F3.5-5.6 Mega OIS. With that you will get similar standard of 5 axis stabilisation to the XC10 in 1080/60p, even slightly better stabilisation in 4K mode. However, the Panasonic lens doesn't have the 'cinema' feel of the XC10's lens, it isn't as sharp or as punchy. The camera doesn't have a LOG profile so you will be down 2-stops of dynamic range and the footage won't pull around in post as much. And good though the GX80 is, I prefer it with faster glass, not the 10x zoom and ergonomically I prefer the loupe-EVF of the XC10 to the small built in EVF of the GX80 or GH4. I've already mentioned the colour and bitrate differences too.

So ok, we can look at the specs all day long, we can all go hands-on for a few seconds in the shop on any camera we like before buying it, but the real proof of the pudding is when you're a week into using it, you've optimised how you use a particular camera to iron out the quirks, you're in the heat of the moment getting the shots you need, this is where the XC10's hidden strengths (which the specs only hint at) begin to come apparent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I admit Sony color is terrible...until you learn how to tweak the picture profiles & grade :)

admittedly the xc10 looks like a fun little camera...would've been even more fun if the price wasn't so overinflated. I hear what you are saying about Canon color & aesthetic but the xc10 is clearly an experiment by Canon with a mix match of ideas. Im sure you can get great images out of it like anything with a lens & shutter these days. Idk just not impressed with what's being pushed on us for $2000

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, The Chris said:

This camera is somewhat intriguing as a run and gun solution, but Canon omitting duel pixel AF makes it a no sale for me. If there was a camera in its lineup that's tailor made for DPAF, it's the XC10. 

Maybe they get it right in the mkII. 

Sure, the lack of Dual Pixel AF is the biggest omission.

The AF system though looks almost 'human' in the way it handles itself. No weirdness, no hunting, no darting off in the middle of a shot for no reason.

It's just a bit ponderous... but apart from that, you can tell it is thinking carefully :) and considering the shot for you so you don't have to fiddle with the manual focus ring on a long zoom lens every time you change the framing - one of the most distracting things, I find, about zoom lenses!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Viet Bach Bui said:

Apples to oranges.

The XC10 should be compared to the AX100 from Sony, not the RX10 II which is primarily a stills camera..

?? Rx10 ii & iii are def hybrid cameras for photo & video. Do your research bro. I think Andrew only made the comparison to the RX series because they are both 1" sensors

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, kidzrevil said:

?? Rx10 ii & iii are def hybrid cameras for photo & video. Do your research bro. 

But they are still more oriented towards stills. Same as A6300 and A7RII which can also do video very well. But whatever the RX10 is, it is not a professional camcorder, which both the XC10 and X70 are.

Btw, the AX100/X70 also have 1'' sensors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Viet Bach Bui said:

But they are still more oriented towards stills. Same as A6300 and A7RII which can also do video very well. But whatever the RX10 is, it is not a professional camcorder, which both the XC10 and X70 are.

Btw, the AX100/X70 also have 1'' sensors.

Exactly. I own both an XC10 and the RX10ii. Apples and oranges. Similar sized sensors, but one is a camcorder that does JPGs and one is a stills camera that takes sub-30 minute video clips. XC10 is made for videography. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When this came out, I was disappointed by the screen doesn't  articulate to the side...like many "camcorders". The ability to handhold/place in unique positions is hindered when you have to plant your head behind the camera. I get to some degree why they went Cfast with high bit rate/depth 4k at the time. But is the ability to record the HD to either card that difficult? Same with RAW stills.
For the talk of it being a pro cam, the recruiting of Jackie Chan for the roll-out seemed muddled. The pre-NAB '16 suggestions from Canon that a big update was coming really seem disproportional to what they delivered. BTW, here  you mention the Video assist as an XLR etc solution. As I posted in the GX80 thread, did you get a good one from the get go?(green hue, dropped frames) Some report the fan noise of the 4k assist to be of concern in close quarters.

All that being said, I applaud you for having an open mind to revisit this cam beyond the specs. Maybe a further exploration of this cams baked footage and C-log after judicious post sharpening is in order.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just show me the footage lol, I hate getting into spec wars. Show me what you can create with the xc10 or any other camera you praise and shoot with. I have absolutely no brand loyalty im just a very hard sell when people start spitting out #'s and tech specs without the footage to back up their claims. A camera in the hands of a Philip Bloom or Whatever is gonna look good because they are great camera operators. What I wanna see is how your footage looks with the xc10 because just because it is a dedicated video camera doesn't mean its a good one. I dont care what its dedicated too to be honest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's funny I've had the opposite reaction towards this camera. Thought it was interesting on paper (4K, 422, decent codec & canon log under $2K had me sold) but in actual use it was a huge let down. Number one issue the lens and specifically the unusable focus ring. I see MF listed in the cons of the review but it can't be stressed enough how shitty it is. It seems Andrew may overcome this issue because he considers the AF to be ace but it isn't DPAF good either imo, and goofy MF is a deal breaker for me. I was also far from blown away by the IQ, but this type of lens just isn't my cup of tea I'm afraid.. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All cameras are good these days.  If you're still a spec sheet nerd, good for you.  The pros I know will use anything that ultimately does the job.  Even cheap "plasticy" cameras with lower build quality.  Hey, sometimes you don't need a camera to last 5-10 years.  Honestly, with the way the market moves, why would you?  The things are practically disposable now.

1" sensor?  Big deal.  Shallow DOF has become wildly overrated and overused.

This camera was on my radar as I do a lot of doc work.  I have no doubt it would look fine the way I shoot.  Ultimately, I decided to go with the GX85 for numerous other reasons, (the fact that I have loads of M43 glass and I need two of 'em)

The other main reason being that the GX85 looks like a simple stills camera and doesn't intimidate anyone or call attention to itself by looking like a professional piece of gear.  That's a huge "feature" for what I need to do.  That need I take very seriously.  And in my mind it offers a HUGE advantage over "pro" gear.  How would you put that on a spec sheet??

Quite simply, if the XC10 solves an important production problem, no doubt I'd buy it.  Certainly others are doing so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...