Jump to content
Andrew Reid

Canon XC10 4K camcorder

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, hijodeibn said:

Well, I think the comparison is valid, certainly the C100 is a cinema camera with incredible features, but the XC10 also can replace it in many situations using the right external elements, like for example adding a good external recorder, but the issue is the ghosting, I can`t live with that, also the size of the XC10 is so right, it looks like any other camera, in the other hand the C100 attract too much attention from random people, if a XC20 is released without ghosting I will be probably moving to that, but I don`t think this issue is going to be fixed soon, canon C300 mk II, yes the latest canon cinema camera, also has the same kind of ghosting than the XC10, just harder to find, but still there…..

Yeah, I really hope they make a better version of this camera. Wish I could justify owning this, the perfect little camera for picking off b roll outdoors. 

On 4/9/2017 at 5:22 PM, docmoore said:

I borrowed a XC15 from my LCS for a day ... when I returned it they had a GH5 that I picked up.

Played with the files out of the XC15 this afternoon and there is much to laud in them. Just

difficult without a couple extra programmable buttons and more than one ND setting.

 

Bob

Private.

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

I'm giving mine another chance by abandoning shooting in LOG. Already the colours are a lot better and the mushiness in fine detail is gone. So far I'm using the profile 4 with sharpness and contrast down a notch or 2.Will try and find some blue skies and see if the banding has improved........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/10/2017 at 2:17 PM, jydurocher said:

Wow! Comparing apple juice and wine!

Oh you don't EVEN want to bring up XC10 stuff on here LoL. There are lots of people that lost their ass on that lovely, little, bastard, piece of crap, what the hell, stupid, why the hell, video camera that could have been pretty damn good, if Canon was not Doing what Canon does best. Gimp the living shit out everything they make, on purpose, to sell you a better one next year. :frown: Well that is their plan, but sometimes the Newer one is no better or worse. :confused:

Canon has a hell of a different mindset than Panasonic, who I think really does try to make everything they make as good as it can be made, at the time, for the price point. I think they really do care about the end user. Canon, they just want your damn money. If you own a Canon, they have some great stuff, you are basically their sort of life long piggy bank.

I think in reality Canon is TOO Damn big of a company. They are not hungry, and that makes it bad for customers. Why the hell don't they have a FF Mirrorless camera. Why? Why doesn't Nikon either, who is about to go Belly up!  Nightly Rant over LoL. :blush:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

Oh you don't EVEN want to bring up XC10 stuff on here LoL. There are lots of people that lost their ass on that lovely, little, bastard, piece of crap, what the hell, stupid, why the hell, video camera that could have been pretty damn good, if Canon was not Doing what Canon does best. Gimp the living shit out everything they make, on purpose, to sell you a better one next year. :frown: Well that is their plan, but sometimes the Newer one is no better or worse. :confused:

Canon has a hell of a different mindset than Panasonic, who I think really does try to make everything they make as good as it can be made, at the time, for the price point. I think they really do care about the end user. Canon, they just want your damn money. If you own a Canon, they have some great stuff, you are basically their sort of life long piggy bank.

I think in reality Canon is TOO Damn big of a company. They are not hungry, and that makes it bad for customers. Why the hell don't they have a FF Mirrorless camera. Why? Why doesn't Nikon either, who is about to go Belly up!  Nightly Rant over LoL. :blush:

Depends what you're doing. If you're shooting a 4k landscape, this actually a better camera than a lot of other options. Green actually looks like green. Skin tone is the best as well. Built in lenses have their perks. 

Loads of people are buying the FS5, but the c100ii puts out a much nicer looking image. It all depends what you're doing. 

Im not sure why people write off color as not being a feature. 🤔

All of this makes me think the 1DC is probably the smart buy. 

11 hours ago, Shirozina said:

I'm giving mine another chance by abandoning shooting in LOG. Already the colours are a lot better and the mushiness in fine detail is gone. So far I'm using the profile 4 with sharpness and contrast down a notch or 2.Will try and find some blue skies and see if the banding has improved........

I found the log to work nicely if ETTR. You also need to sharpen in post because C-Log has no sharpening. 

Have you tried WIDE DR with the new firmware? Does that have noise reduction applied baked in? 

Share this post


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

Depends what you're doing. If you're shooting a 4k landscape, this actually a better camera than a lot of other options. Green actually looks like green. Skin tone is the best as well. Built in lenses have their perks. 

Loads of people are buying the FS5, but the c100ii puts out a much nicer looking image. It all depends what you're doing. 

Im not sure why people write off color as not being a feature. 🤔

All of this makes me think the 1DC is probably the smart buy. 

I found the log to work nicely if ETTR. You also need to sharpen in post because C-Log has no sharpening. 

Have you tried WIDE DR with the new firmware? Does that have noise reduction applied baked in? 

LOG + ETTR 'was' the problem for me - sky tone pushed too far up the curve then falling apart when pulled back down the slope in grading. Even when exposed properly for LOG ( i.e not ETTR) it would band like hell with the slightest tonal adjustments. I've just loaded up the latest firmware so I need to test all the profiles again even though Canon hasn't stated they have made any major changes to image quality. It was obvious from looking at footage with a lot of fine detail  that there was a lot of NR going on even at native ISO's.

Share this post


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

Xc10 was a dissapointment. Its positive features were crippled by the negative. I think it was done intentionally

That camera had the potential to be Great. It had a great Codec, it need a constant aperture lens, and the mike situation the 15 had, and those two thing alone would have made it well worth the price. They had way more technology at their disposal at the time and purposely gimped it.

It could have been a smash hit with the form factor, and they could not have built enough of them fast enough if they did a few things more to it..

Hell Sony did the same stupid shit with the VC 10-VC 30. Hell VC 30 was the coolest thing since sliced bread, and with Aliasing, a stupid codec from hell, etc, it could have been a runaway hit. I would still have one to this day if they didn't gimp it. The whole concept of it was cool as heck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My xc10 has a constant aperture when I set it to 5.6 or smaller - shallow DOF is not the answer to all situations. But - it's parafocal, has a very good range, is small and has a very effective image stabiliser all of which may have had to be compromised to get a constant 2.8 aperture. It's biggest let down for most though I suspect is that it has a 1" sensor which mean's it can never be 'cinematic'.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Idk, I really liked that camera. Still wish I could have justified keeping it, but it was losing its value way too quickly for me for my wallet. 

I would set Zebras at 70, shoot in cLog and never had any issues. I did miss shallow depth of field and hated the focus ring, but man did I enjoy the images. 

Ben's short time with the camera, resulted in some of the nicest footage I've seen from it, so much so I borrowed the "film burns" idea from one of his first XC10 videos in my recent 5D3 Raw test video. 

Anybody who says the camera is horrible never used one. When it's exposed properly and not pushed too far in post, the camera is as cinematic as they come, with beautiful color. If I was a wealthier man, I would still own it. If they ever go below a grand on the used market, I'll buy another one. 

Share this post


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

My xc10 has a constant aperture when I set it to 5.6 or smaller - shallow DOF is not the answer to all situations. But - it's parafocal, has a very good range, is small and has a very effective image stabiliser all of which may have had to be compromised to get a constant 2.8 aperture. It's biggest let down for most though I suspect is that it has a 1" sensor which mean's it can never be 'cinematic'.......

Huh? Tell that to all the Super 16mm filmmakers out there. Jackie with Natalie Portman was shot on 16mm last year buddy. If you have a good story to tell, you could shoot it on any of the cameras spoken about on this forum. Stop rationalizing your own creative deficits. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Kubrickian said:

Huh? Tell that to all the Super 16mm filmmakers out there. Jackie with Natalie Portman was shot on 16mm last year buddy. If you have a good story to tell, you could shoot it on any of the cameras spoken about on this forum. Stop rationalizing your own creative deficits. 

I was being sarcastic.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

That camera had the potential to be Great. It had a great Codec, it need a constant aperture lens, and the mike situation the 15 had, and those two thing alone would have made it well worth the price. They had way more technology at their disposal at the time and purposely gimped it.

Dude the form factor was revolutionary. I'll take that with an ef mount any day of the week ! But the guts of the thing were crippled on purpose smh. Someone had to have known the level of noise reduction was too intense

 

8 hours ago, Shirozina said:

My xc10 has a constant aperture when I set it to 5.6 or smaller - shallow DOF is not the answer to all situations. But - it's parafocal, has a very good range, is small and has a very effective image stabiliser all of which may have had to be compromised to get a constant 2.8 aperture. It's biggest let down for most though I suspect is that it has a 1" sensor which mean's it can never be 'cinematic'.......

I don't know about "never be cinematic". If you know cinematography you can make anything look cinematic. Cinema has little to do with the camera and everything to do with what you put in front of it

Share this post


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

Absolutely not. Log on that camera is a disaster of spatial and temporal noise reduction. 

I love it, gorgeous image and colors.

I was taking out some old b-roll for my latest YouTube video the other day. And it wasn't the first time I went, "Wow! Which camera did I shoot this on?" and it turning out to be the XC10.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was really interested in this camera but it just seemed to fail in a few areas (for my needs).

It could have done with a wider and faster lens (f1.8-4) and hence better lowlight.

The limited ND filter seemed a bizarre choice. If you are going to include an ND filter it makes sense to have a usable one!

PDAF would have been a great choice or a lens with a better MF feel.

Here's hoping that an XC20 comes along with those features.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I took my XC10 on hols with me to Bali and took it out for an hour or so on a few different occasions. Here's the first of those:

 

I shot in EOS Standard for all of the usual reasons and graded it with a custom LUT designed to simulate Ektar 100 film. Stuck a bit of grain on there as well, which kind of survived the vimeo compression but not quite. This was HD - I'm impressed again by the files in terms of their gradeability... as long as the ISO is low, which it was here. I have another video coming up with some nasty high ISO stuff!

 

 

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...