Jump to content

Canon XC15


gatopardo
 Share

Recommended Posts

I really hope Canon adds weather sealing and goes with an interchangeable EF-M mount.

They could release the 24-240mm as a "L" EF-M lens.

Can you imagine how beastly that would be? 10-bit with an external recorder and your choice of EF lenses.

It would make for the ultimate mini C-100/camcorder.

 

Oh wait no. That all makes too much sense. Canon fucked their hybrid 5D4. No way they want to make any worthwhile improvements to the XC or EOS-M line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Thpriest said:

Does anyone know if Canon has indicated that the XC15 rumours might be true? And what differences it might have to the XC10?

3 stage ND filter, 24-100 f1.8-4 with the same stabilisation and better lowlight and I'm in ;) 

If they reduce the lens to 24-100, surely they can do better than 1.8-4. I would guess they should be able to do something like a constant f2. The G7x is 24-100 and is 1.8-2.8 and the lens is tiny compared to the xc10.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

Really, quite a strong precedence then

So where is the camera?

Are they hiding it? :)

If they go to the effort of putting SDI on there, but not Dual Pixel AF, I might hand Canon some kind of end of 2016 award for being Best Troll

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Flynn said:

If they reduce the lens to 24-100, surely they can do better than 1.8-4. I would guess they should be able to do something like a constant f2. The G7x is 24-100 and is 1.8-2.8 and the lens is tiny compared to the xc10.

Even better with a lens like that!

Does the XC10 really need an SDI? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Members

Cool, an XLR is very welcomed imo. Another button or two would have been lovely though. And a stronger ND.
The lens was always alraight imo so no prob there.

12 hours ago, Thpriest said:

Mattias, has the latest firmware improved the lowlight as it was supposed to? Thanks

No I haven't. But I was super impressed and totally happy with the old firmwares iso performance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Mattias Burling said:

Cool, an XLR is very welcomed imo. Another button or two would have been lovely though. And a stronger ND.
The lens was always alraight imo so no prob there.

No I haven't. But I was super impressed and totally happy with the old firmwares iso performance.

Come on Mattias, you're just trolling. :) You know that slow lens tended to be the first complaint people mentioned with it. Given how big it is, they should have done something like a constant f2.8. There is no way you're gonna convince me that wasn't possible. It was a joke that Canon constantly hyped that lens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Members
11 minutes ago, Flynn said:

Come on Mattias, you're just trolling. :) You know that slow lens tended to be the first complaint people mentioned with it. Given how big it is, they should have done something like a constant f2.8. There is no way you're gonna convince me that wasn't possible. It was a joke that Canon constantly hyped that lens.

I liked it a lot. Never had any issues with the lens and would not trade the reach, stabilization or size for only 2 stops at the far end and nothing at the wide.
Raising the ISO took care of any lowlight issues.

The lens is a 5 axis stabilized, parfocal and constant aperture 24-70/4, 24-240/5.6 and a 24/2.8. All built in to one small lens.
I surely hope they don't get rid of that for 2 lousy stops at the far end of a lens sitting in front of a 1" sensor. Would make no sense at all imo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suspect most people would much rather have a constant aperture and have it be something like f2.8 24-200. 2 lousy stops are huge, even with a 1" sensor. I do give you credit for being the first positive review of the camera I saw, when it seemed like everyone else was slamming it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Members
17 minutes ago, Flynn said:

I suspect most people would much rather have a constant aperture and have it be something like f2.8 24-200. 2 lousy stops are huge, even with a 1" sensor. I do give you credit for being the first positive review of the camera I saw, when it seemed like everyone else was slamming it. 

Sure they would. I know I would. I would love a 10-2000mm f0.95 small as a coffey mug :)
But I wouldn't trade a constant aperture and parfocal 24-70/4, 24-240/5.6 and 24/2.8 all in one for a 24-200/2.8 if it meant loosing not only the reach. But also the 5 axis stabilization, loosing the parfocalness and being twice or three times the size rendering the camera unbalanced? And probably way more expensive as well.

There is a reason I don't run-n-gun with a 18-35/1.8 and 24-70/2.8 IS as much as I would with the 24-105/4 IS (or 24-120/4 VR if its on a Nikon). 
I would skip the extra stop if it gave me a smaller, lighter, cheaper, constant aperture, parfocal lens with better IS.
Specially on a camera like this which is truly meant for run-n-gun.

IMO,
Indy filmmakers, porno, blocked shots is different. But that's not what we are talking about here. Super shallow depth of field, extreme lowlight and so on is not at all relevant when discussing the XC10/15. For those type of things there are way way better cameras.
This is more for news gathering type of situations. Most one man band news crews I see and hang out with use the XF100 or XA20.
Those are the cameras I compare to.

Link to comment
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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...