Jump to content

Canon XC10 4K camcorder


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

They have been using it for quite some time with great results. Definetelly shows a segment where the camera is great. This is mainly a "film maker" forum. But we sometimes seem to forget that no

I am slowly getting round to finishing my mammoth XC10 review.... expect it this week!

Still haven't had time to shoot anything for more than 30 min. Hopefully next week. So I took it for a quick run when I went to the store. Wanted to see how the XC10 worked under really bright condit

Posted Images

I was about to bitch about the lack of objective reviews for this camera...particularly in light of that idiotic post by The Camera Store.

But, as if on cue, up pops a (much) more rounded write-up from DVInfo.

http://www.dvinfo.net/article/acquisition/review-canon-xc10-1-4k-hybrid-compact-cameracamcorder.html

Key line for me: "While the XC10 allows full manual control, it’s really optimized to operate in a partially- or fully-automated mode: it’s a camera designed to be working within three seconds of pushing the power button and getting the shot..."

Guess it's time to rent the thing. (25% off rental promos are up in full force.)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

tugela, which ones have the grid pattern? I see some images have weird black specs. I've also been able to produce color banding similar to canon still cameras. The problems i've found have been trying to push c-log and wide dynamic range past 800iso. The standard color profile works much better for higher iso shots. 

I'm not trying to convince anyone to buy this camera, it's not for everyone. I just see a lot of bashing of it and think it's a lot better than people think. Cameras are tools and in this price range they all have compromises.  I've been close a couple of times to selling the xc10, especially after pixel peeping between the nx1 and xc10. But when I look at the images in motion I prefer the color and dynamic range of the canon. It's also very easy to shoot with which for me is the most important factor right now. If I was shooting in a controlled environment that might be different. In the end content is king.

The first one of the first set is the most obvious. It is comprised of regular blocks, I'm guessing 8x8 pixels. Mostly in the out of focus regions.

The image of the succulent is composed almost entirely of obvious macroblocks.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was torn between the Canon XC10 and the Sony PXW-X70 and ultimately chose the X70 because of the 10-bit CODEC and the fact that most of my other cameras are Sony.  I also got it used for $1,700 and the XC10 is still new (expensive).  However, if I had seen an XC10 for $1,700 there's a good chance I would have bought it.  In any case, both cameras are similar to me.

I've been shooting with the LX100 a lot and I'm really impressed. If you asked me how close it's image is to the X70 I'd say very close.  Then I started doing some shoot with them side-by-side.  Whoa.  The X70 producer a much lower contrast image than the LX100.  I keep coming up against this in consumer cameras.  On their own, they look very nice to me.  The more money you spend, it seems, the better cleaner low-contrast image you get (not taking away from the LX100 BTW!).  As soon as I shot RAW with the Canon 50D (from a guide I bought on this site) everything changed.  I now spend a lot of effort getting to that with ease of use, great audio, etc.  The BMPCC has been great, but is NOT a camera I could hand to an actor and say shoot, say.  

As a photography nut, I value shallow DOF, especially for portraits.  However, I've been noticing that really shallow DOF in video is a bit distracting.  That as been my recent conclusion too little DOF in video can make the footage look artificial.  I have to work a bit to get shallow DOF in the X70 (which would be the same in the X10) but it's just enough to isolate the subject and give the viewer a sense of place.

Further, I lose focus shooting really shallow DOF in anything but the most controlled scene ("stand here and do that").  So, in most cases, I want the camera to auto-focus 1st, get DOF later.  That isn't to say I don't want to manually focus when I can.  And on that, again, the X70 puts other cameras I've had to shame.  I can press the focus zoom button and toggle between views WITHOUT shaking the camera.  In fact, I can adjust almost every important camera setting WHILE shooting and not taking my eye away from the viewfinder (which is very difficult with a DSLR).  It's been an eye-opening experience, working with a modern, low-end professional camcorder. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

A couple more 60p clips. These were shot on the standard profile with sharpness turned down a couple of notches. I think for 60p footage it may need the sharpening turned up a little bit more. Also the last shot of the fence is because the lens had gotten pretty wet. I think someone who actually knows how to use resolve could make these pop a lot more. I just adjusted curves a little bit.

https://vimeo.com/150069194

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

my recent conclusion too little DOF in video can make the footage look artificial.

Yes.  Why people are chasing this aesthetic is kind of strange.  f5.6/s35mm is what typically works for most films, so to go shallow, I don't get it.  I can see using it for certain scenes if that's the way you want to effect your image to fit a particular narrative, but for overall?  eh...

Link to post
Share on other sites

The first one of the first set is the most obvious. It is comprised of regular blocks, I'm guessing 8x8 pixels. Mostly in the out of focus regions.

The image of the succulent is composed almost entirely of obvious macroblocks.

 

Ummm... no macro-blocking, nope. That is the way shallow DOF looks on a S16 sensor. In comparison, a S35 sensor has a much larger area, while S16 of XC10 is closer to the "traditional" 2/3" PDW sensor. Very nice for TV news or mini-docs. 

Portrait Zimmermann_01.jpg

Portrait Zimmermann_02.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Ebrahim Saadawi

I am hearing horror stories with the FS5. Very disappoiting indeed as we thought it'd be a C100 MKII + 4K and HFR!

-The catastrophic corner tearing/macroblocking. Reall image defect in all modes and even in the Uncompressed output so not XAVC-L

-The inability to use a monitor while recording!

-The inability to record simultaneously to two cards 

-Noise above 3200 ISO. It's much more noisy than I expected, 

-The really under-expected 8 second HFR buffer IQ

-Hunting Autofocus 

-Chopped of DR due to bad shadows in the XAVC-L codec drops down 2-ish effective stops. 

 

Strangely, the a7sII/A7rII produce better/cleaner images side by side. And the C100II seems to bee much better camera. 

The FS7 on the other hand is a real class-act. MUCH better camera for not much more money really. But holding both, the FS5 is a better design, a beautiful design actually, perfect ergonomics, shame it isn't paired with the FS7 quality images. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am hearing horror stories with the FS5. Very disappoiting indeed as we thought it'd be a C100 MKII + 4K and HFR!

-The catastrophic corner tearing/macroblocking. Reall image defect in all modes and even in the Uncompressed output so not XAVC-L

-The inability to use a monitor while recording!

-The inability to record simultaneously to two cards 

-Noise above 3200 ISO. It's much more noisy than I expected, 

-The really under-expected 8 second HFR buffer IQ

-Hunting Autofocus 

-Chopped of DR due to bad shadows in the XAVC-L codec drops down 2-ish effective stops. 

 

Strangely, the a7sII/A7rII produce better/cleaner images side by side. And the C100II seems to bee much better camera. 

The FS7 on the other hand is a real class-act. MUCH better camera for not much more money really. But holding both, the FS5 is a better design, a beautiful design actually, perfect ergonomics, shame it isn't paired with the FS7 quality images. 

Like with the XC10, I wouldn't believe all those horror stories you hear about it on the web. If you have any specific questions, feel free to send me a PM. By the way, the FS7 also has some deficiencies in comparison to the F5 / F55, they are just not as obvious. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

most of us aren't shooting films though!

Nor am I, most of the time.

Now, I use a 5d for interviews with a wide open 50mm, but extreme shallow depth of field for other video shots, like b-roll?  still don't quite get it.  To me, in most instances, it seems like too much.

what can I say?  I like the dof look of f4-f5.6 s35mm. 

I suppose I've been conditioned for it, but I'm not alone. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

indeed I hear you, just wanted to play devils advocate, I think theres lots of video forms where it does work though, weddings or portrait videos, promos (focus pull to something with a logo for example) or interviews as you say

I think this a good example for what the XC10 can be really useful for: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPRC3WXx2wE And this video by Canon is definitely much better than the one they used to release the xc10, which was kind of a total boomer. 

And this is an example of a narrative usage, I must say I would not particularly choose  this camera for this type of project, but it can be used: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDjwIX2kuXM 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am hearing horror stories with the FS5. Very disappoiting indeed as we thought it'd be a C100 MKII + 4K and HFR!

-The catastrophic corner tearing/macroblocking. Reall image defect in all modes and even in the Uncompressed output so not XAVC-L

-The inability to use a monitor while recording!

-The inability to record simultaneously to two cards 

-Noise above 3200 ISO. It's much more noisy than I expected, 

-The really under-expected 8 second HFR buffer IQ

-Hunting Autofocus 

-Chopped of DR due to bad shadows in the XAVC-L codec drops down 2-ish effective stops. 

 

Strangely, the a7sII/A7rII produce better/cleaner images side by side. And the C100II seems to bee much better camera. 

The FS7 on the other hand is a real class-act. MUCH better camera for not much more money really. But holding both, the FS5 is a better design, a beautiful design actually, perfect ergonomics, shame it isn't paired with the FS7 quality images. 

I've spoken many times on this forum about issues with the XAVC-L codec. I've used it vastly on the FS7. 

In a nutshell, it's rubbish. Macroblocking and tearing is severe, especially in the higher luma range. Very severe. 

The XAVC-S on the A7S II seems much better.  Isn't this codec supposed to be worse than XAVC-L? ;) 

This codec on the FS5 is a massive deal breaker for an otherwise interesting camera. A firmware update to XAVC-I would make it an absolute mini beast, but we know that's not going to happen! 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've spoken many times on this forum about issues with the XAVC-L codec. I've used it vastly on the FS7. 

In a nutshell, it's rubbish. Macroblocking and tearing is severe, especially in the higher luma range. Very severe. 

The XAVC-S on the A7S II seems much better.  Isn't this codec supposed to be worse than XAVC-L? ;) 

This codec on the FS5 is a massive deal breaker for an otherwise interesting camera. A firmware update to XAVC-I would make it an absolute mini beast, but we know that's not going to happen! 

 

well given the recent firmware updates from Sony if we keep complaining the xavc-i will come sooner than later...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Theoretically it should even be possible on SDXC, at least with SanDisk Extreme Pro cards...

Yep even with uhs-i U3 cards 200mbps is possible. Even though theoretically 200mbps of XAVC-i should be about equal to 100mbps of XAVC-L, practically it will be much better. 

Anyone knows if FS5 supports UHS-ii ? 

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...