Jump to content
Andrew Reid

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

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, tugela said:

 It is aimed at the wannabe amateurs and "I can barely make it" pros for the most part.

Perhaps.  But then again, I say as a documentarian, so what?  From the POV of my reality I think I disagree with your assertion.

I guess, by certain perception, I'm in the "I can barely make it" camp.  As it happens, I've never been beholden to the idea that certain gear is inherently not-good-enough simply because of the market it's being sold to.  I rent when I need to and I shoot with many of these contemptible "toys" when I need to.  My opinion is that a tool is a tool.  I'm not going to bring a "knife to a gun fight" nor am I going to do the opposite.

It's curious, I think, how some people perceive themselves as superior in an (supposedly) artistic medium simply because they have more expensive pro tools to do the craft.  Does anyone else find that odd?  Especially these days?  That sort of elitism was curious even a decade ago.  Now, it really doesn't make sense.  Anyone with $3K can access more than good enough IQ/audio/post for a production that, with skill, will look around 90%+ as good as anything.  That's NOT rhetoric.  I'm convinced it's just the truth. 

What am I to believe?  The defensive opinions of industry professionals threatened by the gear democratization, or my lying eyes when I see the work of Kendy Ty or a Ruslan Pelykh?  You tell me, because there are a lot of people out there kicking ass with cameras that wouldn't even cover the cost of a friggin' camera battery from a few decades ago.

What get delivered is what counts.*

But, as far as I'm concerned, if I artistically need to use an iPhone or an Alexa to cross a finish line, that's what's gonna happen.  And for what I'm doing, it's been leaning toward the former rather than the later for years now.

Finally, I'd even argue "amateurs" is exactly a pejorative.  If anything, by the original etymology of that word, it probably has more merit and artistic integrity these days than "professional."

* ( For reasons only they can justify, a lot of corporate work I do actually wants the allure of "real" gear around during the process. )

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
10 hours ago, tugela said:

The hybrids are primarily for consumers who want a single camera that can do both jobs very well, and can switch from stills to video mode and back again at the press of a button. They are not really intended for professionals, even though marketing materials might portray them that way. The marketing is not aimed at professionals since they (we hope) know better, but is intended more for advanced amateurs who want to appear "professional". That is why you see Blackmagic cameras all decked out with giant rigs and professional lenses in their marketing materials for example. It is aimed at the wannabe amateurs and "I can barely make it" pros for the most part.

In order to be considered an adequate hybrid, a camera has to excel both in stills and in video, not just one while doing a shitty job in the other.

Does that statment make you feel good about yourself, being above the wannabe amatures and "I can barely make it" pros?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@fuzzynormal some are intimidated by the fact that gear has become very accessible. Maybe these "pros" fear that people will realize the amateurs can now obtain the same equipment ? Lets not forget how artistic and innovative the amateurs have been in the past lol. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It hit me like  brick late Friday, The XC10 is the reincarnation of the Canon Scoopic! http://www.webtfg.com/sync10.htm

That camera was a request by NHK for a simple to use newscamera with better handling that an Arri or a Beaulieu. Both difficult to use alone and the Beaulieu was not the most trustworthy camera ever build. My hearth in 73 was between both the Canon and the Beaulieu, about 2k$. But I was giving access to a 16BL for free (my best price) at a local college along with a Nagra II if I recall and a nice wooden with splinters spring loaded tripod and head.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To get the best out of this when shooting UHD you need to keep your aperture <F8 otherwise you soften the image due to diffraction so set your aperture and use a variable ND filter to control exposure. I accept it has a few handling issues (what camera doesn't) but my only real gripe is the lack of a user selectable AF point which should be easy to do as a firmware update............ 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

really love the results I been getting out of the rx10ii. I would love to see a rx10iv with a 28 or 35-85mm (full frame equivalent) lens with a constant 1.4 or 1.8 aperture. And if they can make the zoom and focus system mechanical instead of fly by wire I would give up every lens and cam I own for it. Never realized how useful a bridge camera could be when shooting events

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is the maximum acceptable ISO value on Canon XC10 on f5.6 applying the maximum (305Mbps) 4K bitrate? What is the maximum acceptable ISO value on Sony RX10m3 on f4 applying its 100Mbps? What is the maximum acceptable ISO value on Sony RX10m2 on f2.8 applying its 100Mbps? I am very much interested in your opinion. Thank you so much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 09/06/2016 at 11:17 PM, fuzzynormal said:

I guess, by certain perception, I'm in the "I can barely make it" camp.  As it happens, I've never been beholden to the idea that certain gear is inherently not-good-enough simply because of the market it's being sold to.  I rent when I need to and I shoot with many of these contemptible "toys" when I need to.  My opinion is that a tool is a tool.  I'm not going to bring a "knife to a gun fight" nor am I going to do the opposite.

I think you are understating your skills, Fuzzy.

I watched a number of videos on your Vimeo channel a few days ago and was really impressed. The Audi promo, the B&W music video and the promo for the laptop wireless device stood out IMO.

The quality of the Audi promo in particular was impressive and looked to be shot on a high end rented camera.

Hardly "I can barely make it as a pro" territory :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hadn't check your site here for a few months because of being busy with other things. Glad I did. Wow.  What a great review. And only a few days ago I was wondering if anyone had done a comparison of the Sony RX and the XC10...and voila!!! 

In early May, after reading reviews and seeing video I decided to buy an XC10. To be brief, everything you mentioned just jumped right out at me. I own a C300 Mk II, and matching them in 4k Log is easy. I shoot Log almost all the time, and grading the XC10 yields a beautiful image in color and tone, which post-processing sharpening makes look even more amazing.

This camera is everything you say it is---and more. And the more I shoot with it the more it knocks me out. Canon have a winner with this camera, and I suspect it will grow considerably in acceptance as more and more people overcome their biases and give it a fair try. 

This is being written post June firmware update--which, IMO, did only a marginal improvement of the sluggish auto-focus. And the camera still fixes on backgrounds in certain instances and no amount of coaxing will make it fix on the proper object-- even when you put it in MF and program one of the buttons for one-shot. But this happens only occasionally, and when it does the lighting is usually not the best.

The loop combined with the joystick work great, and the loop gives added stabilization to hand held shooting. And did I say the image quality was beautiful--clean, and sharp and the Clog amazing???

At times I use a variable ND in combination with the internal ND---it gets pretty harsh under a bright Texas summer sun--and combining the filters on a very bright day works a treat. Often I end up "riding" the ND filter on the lens and the combined ND filters pretty much cover 99% of harsh outdoor exposure issues in bright sunlight.

Add a couple more buttons, improve the AF and a few other tweaks and produce a second iteration and I"ll buy it in a heartbeat. 

I can't wait for the C300 mk ii firmware upgrade and Clog 3--which is supposed to be easier to grade and not as flat as Clog 2. I'm hoping Clog3 and the XC10 Clog will be easier to match than Clog 2.

Andrew, thanks again for this great review. I plan to read over it several times to get all the the many points you made. Thanks for sharing your knowledge so generously. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On June 4, 2016 at 5:43 PM, Andrew Reid said:

The ones who are confused clearly were like me when I didn't own an XC10, just looking at the specs and even the JPEG resolution (for reasons only they can know!) and thinking that it is an expensive, odd product, lagging behind Sony in the specs race.

Try one, get to know it, look at the images, you will be surprised like I was what a lot of fun it is and how great the images can be.

I'll upload some footage, still shooting with it.

Better all-round cameras? Maybe, but 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.

Exactly. This is almost totally a video camera with the courtesy of photos in a pinch. But once you load in some  Canon Log footage to your NLE at 305mbps, see how robustly grades, how sharp and clean the Log image can be made, how beautiful the colors are, and how it sits well along side of the C300 mk II image---you feel fortunate you can get a camera for under 2k that will produce an image that grades and looks like that.

I do lots of talking head educational videos, and skin tones and skin color is gorgeous, with beautiful detail without looking harsh. The outdoor video---for a person with skill it makes beautiful landscape shots and anything you want, and it's surprisingly good in lower light---and with a small amount of effort it creates beautiful DOF shots with beautiful Boca. The reason you can shoot 4k with these other cams is because their bit rates are cruddy, 8bit --that fall apart. The XC10 does all this high bit rate 422, etc, IN camera--no rig, nothing to schlep around. With the XC10 you'll be getting high quality footage while the rigged up people will be fiddling with equipment and not coming out with footage that can approximate the XC10. Rigs are a burden and an albatross. Why schlep them around--just to look "professional?"

You'll never appreciate this camera by looking at some cursed piece of paper. For someone with a degree of skill, who loves beautiful color, and sharp clean imagery, this seems an ideal camera for all sorts of purposes. Highly underrated, especially by those who have never taken the time to really try it. Image and color and grading compared to Sony---the Sony doesn't can't even come up to the plate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On June 6, 2016 at 9:50 AM, IronFilm said:

Exactly, given how bad the XC10 is at photography  (only jpegs!!) then it is totally fair to compare it with the Sony X70. Or even the Sony AX100

I shot Sony cams for a decade. I still own an X70, and it is a fine camcorder, very good 1080, but image, color, and grading can't come close to the XC10---not even close; dynamic range, robustness of codec, stabilization, usability in most instances, etc--not even close. In reality, they are apples and oranges, like all cameras, with strengths and weaknesses unique to them, but for high quality 4k footage you can grade, is super LUT friendly, etc, the XC10 is a bargain--- the x70 is not even close with its 4k at 60 mbps. 

Share this post


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

Exactly. This is almost totally a video camera with the courtesy of photos in a pinch. But once you load in some  Canon Log footage to your NLE at 305mbps, see how robustly grades, how sharp and clean the Log image can be made, how beautiful the colors are, and how it sits well along side of the C300 mk II image---you feel fortunate you can get a camera for under 2k that will produce an image that grades and looks like that.

I do lots of talking head educational videos, and skin tones and skin color is gorgeous, with beautiful detail without looking harsh. The outdoor video---for a person with skill it makes beautiful landscape shots and anything you want, and it's surprisingly good in lower light---and with a small amount of effort it creates beautiful DOF shots with beautiful Boca. The reason you can shoot 4k with these other cams is because their bit rates are cruddy, 8bit --that fall apart. The XC10 does all this high bit rate 422, etc, IN camera--no rig, nothing to schlep around. With the XC10 you'll be getting high quality footage while the rigged up people will be fiddling with equipment and not coming out with footage that can approximate the XC10. Rigs are a burden and an albatross. Why schlep them around--just to look "professional?"

You'll never appreciate this camera by looking at some cursed piece of paper. For someone with a degree of skill, who loves beautiful color, and sharp clean imagery, this seems an ideal camera for all sorts of purposes. Highly underrated, especially by those who have never taken the time to really try it. Image and color and grading compared to Sony---the Sony doesn't can't even come up to the plate.

Hey Toms, I just received my XC10 a couple days ago and had my first go with it yesterday. Since you seem pretty experienced with it and c-log, I have a question or two you may be able to help me with. You seem to appreciate the 4K coming out of this camera... Why wouldn't you... It's gorgeous. But as Andrew's review states, the 1080p is some of the best around with some added features like the 5-Axis ibis and auto functions. So, with that being said, I edit only in 1080p, is it better to shoot with the more robust codec of the 4K and convert to 1080p before I edit, or just shoot in 1080p? Also, I am new to c-log, and I thought you were supposed to ETTR c-log, but with my zebras set to 100, most ETTRd footage ended up overexposed without the latitude to pull it back down in post. ETTC consistently looked good, but I don't want to limit my DR if there is a better way... Any tips?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think one thing that is significant but has not been discussed at all is the issue of stealth. Most people see you shooting with the XC10, with its tiny form factor, they just think you're doing a few snap shots.  They have no idea you're shooting high quality, robust 4k. Pick up a camcorder like the X70 and all of a sudden that's an attention getter and can cause problems in certain instanced in public. 

No one ever bothers me with the XC10...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, mercer said:

Hey Toms, I just received my XC10 a couple days ago and had my first go with it yesterday. Since you seem pretty experienced with it and c-log, I have a question or two you may be able to help me with. You seem to appreciate the 4K coming out of this camera... Why wouldn't you... It's gorgeous. But as Andrew's review states, the 1080p is some of the best around with some added features like the 5-Axis ibis and auto functions. So, with that being said, I edit only in 1080p, is it better to shoot with the more robust codec of the 4K and convert to 1080p before I edit, or just shoot in 1080p? Also, I am new to c-log, and I thought you were supposed to ETTR c-log, but with my zebras set to 100, most ETTRd footage ended up overexposed without the latitude to pull it back down in post. ETTC consistently looked good, but I don't want to limit my DR if there is a better way... Any tips?

For me, down rezed 4k always turns out better 1080p than just shooting straight 1080p. But the 1080p is beautiful as a Ding an sich. Mostly, I just use it for slo-mo. 

Regarding C-log, there's some debate about the exposure issue, I shot C-log over exposing with iffy results, but Jem Schofield recommends shooting C-log with 18% grey at about 31 IRE, and white at 62 IRE.

If you don't have a wave form to help you expose 18% grey, I'd recommend putting your Zebra at 70% and not letting your highlights in C-log go over that. You'll find your lowest exposure setting in Log will then be between 10 or 15% IRE. Too bad the XC10 doesn't at least have a histogram...waveform would be better.

Jem Schofield discusses log exposure and reading a wave form in one of the video tutorial he does on the Canon C100 cinema camera. you can find it on youtube pretty easily.

When I expose that way I always get better results so far. If you have a Ninja II, or some external monitor you can get a good idea of how to expose using a gray card by checking the monitor's waveform. C-log exposed correctly should show the exposed gray card at just over 30 IRE when you fill the cameras image with the gray card shot under the light you're going to be shooting in. If you get the gray card exposed  correctly and then use a white card you'll see the white automatically shows exposure at just over 60 IRE.

I find the XC10 censor just a bit bright. So when I shoot in TV mode I adjust the exposure compensation down about 1/2.

I often grade C-log by hand with FCPX and Color finale--and get results that makes me happy with minimal angst.

I'm sure others here with more experience will have more to say about exposing LOG. A wave form or histogram will give you some sense of what proper exposure that works for you is, and then you'll be off to the races. Hope this is helpful.

PS: I just noted you're a regular here--so sorry for going over all kinds of stuff you, no doubt, know better than I. But it might just help someone else with the same questions but not the same level of skill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks a lot. This is extremely helpful... And just because I post a lot here, just means I have too much time on my hands. Ha. Actually, I am here to learn and get better, so I appreciate the detailed response. Thanks again... I love this little camera. 

1 hour ago, tomsemiterrific said:

For me, down rezed 4k always turns out better 1080p than just shooting straight 1080p. But the 1080p is beautiful as a Ding an sich. Mostly, I just use it for slo-mo. 

Regarding C-log, there's some debate about the exposure issue, I shot C-log over exposing with iffy results, but Jem Schofield recommends shooting C-log with 18% grey at about 31 IRE, and white at 62 IRE.

If you don't have a wave form to help you expose 18% grey, I'd recommend putting your Zebra at 70% and not letting your highlights in C-log go over that. You'll find your lowest exposure setting in Log will then be between 10 or 15% IRE. Too bad the XC10 doesn't at least have a histogram...waveform would be better.

Jem Schofield discusses log exposure and reading a wave form in one of the video tutorial he does on the Canon C100 cinema camera. you can find it on youtube pretty easily.

When I expose that way I always get better results so far. If you have a Ninja II, or some external monitor you can get a good idea of how to expose using a gray card by checking the monitor's waveform. C-log exposed correctly should show the exposed gray card at just over 30 IRE when you fill the cameras image with the gray card shot under the light you're going to be shooting in. If you get the gray card exposed  correctly and then use a white card you'll see the white automatically shows exposure at just over 60 IRE.

I find the XC10 censor just a bit bright. So when I shoot in TV mode I adjust the exposure compensation down about 1/2.

I often grade C-log by hand with FCPX and Color finale--and get results that makes me happy with minimal angst.

I'm sure others here with more experience will have more to say about exposing LOG. A wave form or histogram will give you some sense of what proper exposure that works for you is, and then you'll be off to the races. Hope this is helpful.

PS: I just noted you're a regular here--so sorry for going over all kinds of stuff you, no doubt, know better than I. But it might just help someone else with the same questions but not the same level of skill.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Finally, I note some are making reference to the guys at The Camera Store in Canada. I ran across their "review within a review" that ever so perfunctorily touched on the XC10 near the end of the video. The review was such a joke I don't see how anyone could consider it worth mentioning, let alone regard as "authoritative" in any way--unless you're a Sony fanboy and love hearing Canon bashed. It was quickly clear to me they were not sufficiently familiar with the XC10.

The Camera Store review format went as follows: the camera guy shooting the review used the XC10 to shoot the review of the other cam, and then he was to review the XC10 he had just used at the end---thus, a review within a review.

In response to the review I commented that I had found the XC10 to be a really fine a video camera and that the review was very poor and simply wrong in important ways--uninformed. TCS shot back seeking to justify their shoddy excuse for a review by saying while he was happy I had gotten good results but that both he and the camera guy who did the review "hated" using the XC10. Furthermore, he continued, saying he had edited the footage of the XC10 that was used to shoot the non-XC10 review, and he thought the XC10 4K "looked like up-rezed 1080p....and that I should refrain from using words like "uninformed" when referring to what I could only surmise was the competence of the Camera Store folks.

I answered back by saying the reason I used the word "uninformed" was that the guy who "reviewed" the XC10 obviously had it in for the XC10, knew little of what he was doing with the camera, and either out of ignorance or malice, had left out almost all the really terrific features and uses of the XC10---all of which Andrew takes the care to mention in his review. It was clear they were slanting the review against the XC10 and/or had taken almost no time to get familiar with it. In short, it seemed clear to me they were reviewing a product into which little care, thought, or imagination had gone. After seeking to explain my use of the word "uninformed" in closing I finally mentioned that it might be good to be somewhat more judicious in their use of a highly impactful word like "hate."

I did not know Andrew's review at that time, nor Maarten Heilbron's excellent and thorough hands on review, if I had I might have referenced them in my response to TCS....but, probably not.

I don't follow these guys a lot, but I have gotten a general sense they tend to be really pro-Sony---but it's just a sense. I could be wrong. It matters not, and I could care less, but when people say things I know to be misleading and clearly meant to discourage others from even looking into what I know to be and excellent product, I gotta speak up. 

Besides recoiling at the sight of most Sony color, skin tone, and image quality and wishing I could shred S-Log into tiny pieces and serve it to some denizen of the deep who would take it to the bottom of the Mariana Trench and keep it there, I have nothing against their cams whatsoever. To be completely honest I really wish Canon had a few more of the bells and whistles you always find on a Sony spec sheet. Alas, they don't. But Canon excel at, IMO, the few most essential things, without which, the bells and whistles are rendered all but meaningless: image quality, color science, skin color and skin tone, and...ease of use. Game over. And for those who cite the Camera Store review I can only say two things: 1. If you consider that authoritative you're digging deep. 2. Consider a real review, like Andrew's or, for video hands on, check out Maarten Heilbronn's on youtube and HONESTLY consider all the points he makes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@tomsemiterrific I have read that some users of the XC10 use the native 500 ISO, even in full daylight, to get the cleanest image, when possible. Have you noticed this to be true? Yesterday, I really needed some added ND in this bright summer sun we've been getting this year in the Northeast, but I imagine the built in ND may have sufficed at the lowest ISO... Especially with this lens, which seems to be a couple zooms in one... A 24-70mm f/4, a 75-240mm f/5.6 or a 24-240mm f/5.6, and then ride the ISO or fader ND for exposure. It took me a few minutes to get the hang of it, but for run and gun it seems it could be the best way to utilize it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mercer said:

@tomsemiterrific I have read that some users of the XC10 use the native 500 ISO, even in full daylight, to get the cleanest image, when possible. Have you noticed this to be true? Yesterday, I really needed some added ND in this bright summer sun we've been getting this year in the Northeast, but I imagine the built in ND may have sufficed at the lowest ISO... Especially with this lens, which seems to be a couple zooms in one... A 24-70mm f/4, a 75-240mm f/5.6 or a 24-240mm f/5.6, and then ride the ISO or fader ND for exposure. It took me a few minutes to get the hang of it, but for run and gun it seems it could be the best way to utilize it?

This camera is meant to be used in automatic modes. Andrew is spot on about that. Only use manual in controlled shooting circumstances, interviews, etc, where you're in full charge of lighting. 

I prefer TV mode for outside shooting. In full manual I tend to program the ISO to the wheel and ride it. But outside the in-camera ND is not sufficient in bright sun like we have here in Texas. If you rely only on it you will miss lots of shots due to over exposure.

The best result I get with the least angst in harsh sun is to put the nd on, shoot in TV mode, and add a Tiffen Variable ND on the lens. I try to minimize riding the  shutter on the wheel in TV mode by making quick adjustments with the Variable ND. The results I've gotten has worked just fine and I lose very few shots due to exposure issues. I also set my Zebra to 70 IRE and that helps me gauge my highlights. Setting the Zebra at 100 IRE--well, once you hit that you've already screwed the pooch and shot a lot of unusable footage.

As far as a clean image, C-log will not allow you to shoot below 500 ISO. But all the other modes allow you to shoot at very low ISO--150, etc. If clean is what you want avoid C-log, especially in darker shots. But that's little worry in bright outside shooting. There is issue is blowing out your highs. Ergo, I always shoot in C-log outside, and it does a very credible job of preserving highlights and details in brighter areas like clouds, etc. 

Again, it's really too bad Canon did not include a histogram or waveform in this camera. I rely on the waveform a lot to get good exposure. Make me a little crazy that Canon do not do some very simple things, like include a waveform in the EVF of the C100 mk II as well as the LCD. I'm always having to take my eye from the EVF to check the LCD for exposure on the waveform when shooting hand held. What a waste of time and energy---and then you lose your shot. Fap!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On July 5, 2016 at 4:36 AM, Miklos Nemeth said:

What is the maximum acceptable ISO value on Canon XC10 on f5.6 applying the maximum (305Mbps) 4K bitrate? What is the maximum acceptable ISO value on Sony RX10m3 on f4 applying its 100Mbps? What is the maximum acceptable ISO value on Sony RX10m2 on f2.8 applying its 100Mbps? I am very much interested in your opinion. Thank you so much.

Mikos, the XC10 can produce useable footage up to 5000 ISO in my experience. It's not a low-light monster--and no one should expect it. But it does better than expected for sure. I find the sensor on the bright side and in TV or Av mode  I stop down the exposure compensation a bit. 

But I ask  who cares about these details, which are negligible, when the image and color of the Canon is so much better.

IMO Sony skin tone/color always looks overprocessed and unnatural--that's why I left Sony after struggling for years with their color space. I couldn't believe they put the footage out they did to promote the FS5. Skin tones looked really artificial--too much magenta for sure---and so much blotchy imaging bereft of detail--just a mess.  

I never owned a Sony that can approximate the XC10 for image, color, and tone. Plus, the Canon is so much easier to use--menus so much simpler.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, tomsemiterrific said:

This camera is meant to be used in automatic modes. Andrew is spot on about that. Only use manual in controlled shooting circumstances, interviews, etc, where you're in full charge of lighting. 

I prefer TV mode for outside shooting. In full manual I tend to program the ISO to the wheel and ride it. But outside the in-camera ND is not sufficient in bright sun like we have here in Texas. If you rely only on it you will miss lots of shots due to over exposure.

The best result I get with the least angst in harsh sun is to put the nd on, shoot in TV mode, and add a Tiffen Variable ND on the lens. I try to minimize riding the  shutter on the wheel in TV mode by making quick adjustments with the Variable ND. The results I've gotten has worked just fine and I lose very few shots due to exposure issues. I also set my Zebra to 70 IRE and that helps me gauge my highlights. Setting the Zebra at 100 IRE--well, once you hit that you've already screwed the pooch and shot a lot of unusable footage.

As far as a clean image, C-log will not allow you to shoot below 500 ISO. But all the other modes allow you to shoot at very low ISO--150, etc. If clean is what you want avoid C-log, especially in darker shots. But that's little worry in bright outside shooting. There is issue is blowing out your highs. Ergo, I always shoot in C-log outside, and it does a very credible job of preserving highlights and details in brighter areas like clouds, etc. 

Again, it's really too bad Canon did not include a histogram or waveform in this camera. I rely on the waveform a lot to get good exposure. Make me a little crazy that Canon do not do some very simple things, like include a waveform in the EVF of the C100 mk II as well as the LCD. I'm always having to take my eye from the EVF to check the LCD for exposure on the waveform when shooting hand held. What a waste of time and energy---and then you lose your shot. Fap!

Ha, I clicked down to the native ISO and never even tried going lower than 500... Now I know I can't. Really great info here. I only used it for about an hour or two, but even with my short time with it, I already remember that fun feeling it was to shoot with my t2i or eos-m... For that alone it's great.

@Mattias Burling has a few good review videos of the XC10 and I remember being impressed with the Wide DR as well. A lot to ingest... Looks like I have some work ahead of me... The fun kind. Thanks again, I may pop into this thread with more questions though... Hope you don't mind?

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...