[jogiba]

The XC10 has a sensitivity range of 500-20,000 ISO in video mode. Noise is obviously going to be worse than something like the C300 mkII, but even so the camera is usable in dimmer lighting conditions. You can also take 12 megapixel stills with it.


The camera records 8-bit 4:2:2 4K video in the new Canon XF AVC codec. This is contained in a MXF wrapper and the bitrate reaches 305Mbps. This gives approximately 25 min recording time on a 64GB CFast 2.0 card. Digic DV5 processing makes this possible. The codec is new and Canon hope that it will be widely supported in major editing programs very soon. Lower bit rate Full HD can also be recorded to CFast 2.0 or SD cards.


The lens isn’t a constant aperture – it starts at f2.8 at the wide end, but is only F5.6 at full telephoto. Focus is a fly-by-wire affair but the zoom ring is mechanical. The front filter thread is 58mm.


There is a single 1/8 stop (3-step) equivalent ND filter that is built into the camera – this is easier to use than screw on filters.
Autofocus is contrast detection based and not a Dual Pixel CMOS AF type system. In a brief hands-on session I found it to be quite responsive, but not as snappy as a C100 mkII.


The 5-axis image stabiliser is really impressive. The system is borrowed from the XF200 and greatly improves handheld shooting with such a small camera.

The body design looks a bit like Canon bridge cameras of yesteryear. The handgrip rotates so you can find the most comfortable position. There is a large start/stop button exactly where it should be atop the handgrip (take note Sony). It basically looks and feels like a shrunken down C300.


Wi-fi control is built-in to the camera. No extra transmitter or dongle is needed. You simply connect via wi-fi and get full touchscreen control with live preview. It seems far simpler to setup than the wireless options on older Canons.


The audio side of the XC10 is a bit limited. The built-in mics will be good enough for some ambient sound, but for anything else you’ll need to add a mic with a mini-jack adapter, or add an external audio box like a Juicedlink. Canon would do well to offer an XLR audio module similar to Sony’s XLR-K2M for the XC10.


There is no EVF on the XC10, instead you add a clip-on loupe to the rear LCD screen which transforms it into a viewfinder. The image seemed clear but I still prefer the OLED EVFs of newer Sony Prosumer cams. That said, the nice thing about the XC10 loupe and screen is that it can tilt upwards so you can operate the camera looking slightly downwards.


Compared to other hybrid cameras like Sony’s RX10 or Panasonic’s FZ-1000 the XC10 has more professional features, but also a price tag to match. The target audience will probably be existing Cinema EOS users and people who need a small second 4K camera that a producer, reporter or other less experience operator can pick up and still get something usable. For many visual journalists this camera may be all they really need – if they can afford it.


It isn’t clear whether this is a ‘World camera’, or one that is restricted to running either NTSC or PAL. Hopefully we’ll find out soon.


Price is expected to be around £1599.99 and sales start in June. A kit version with a 128 GB CFast is expected to cost around £1999. For more info check out the Canon Europe website.

http://www.newsshooter.com/2015/04/...c10-hybrid-a-4k-companion-to-your-cinema-eos/

 

[bsprague]

Place your (pre) order: Canon XC10 4K Professional Camcorder at B&H

 

[markr041]

Where's the viewfinder?

Place your (pre) order: Canon XC10 4K Professional Camcorder at B&H

And when you do that, do not forget to order the $352 64GB CF card you will need (actually you will need more than one) to shoot 4K, which requires 305Mbps bit rates (because the compression is so inefficient).


Oh, and where is the viewfinder? A "professional" camera without a viewfinder? Really? A clip on viewfinder is available. Don't forget to order that too (there is one listed for $995, but it is not the Canon one).

 

[Ungermann]

The BMPCC does not have a viewfinder either, so not a deal-breaker, but $1K for a viewfinder is a bit steep. I like 4:2:2, but 8 bit only? Is it three times better than what the LX100 can produce? Not interested in CF as well.

I would be much more interested if it were SD-based with bitrate limited at say 150 Mbit/s for 4:2:2 and 60-100 Mbit/s for 4:2:0.

Also, variable speed lens up to F5.6? Meh. Sony has shown that it is possible to create a constant-speed F2.8 lens in this size/zoom class.

But I like that Canon started pulling ideas from JVC (fixed-lens still camera style) and Sony (rotating handle) when they realized they did not have many of their own.

P.S. It is notable that the RX10 does not sell cheaper than half a year ago.

 

[jogiba]

I agree, the price is too high for what the XC10 specs show. I bet there will be 1" sensor 4K cameras from Panasonic and Sony this year with EVF and UHS-II support for low cost SDXC cards like the Lexar 2000x 64GB SDXC UHS-II that is $116.95 at B&H with ultra fast UHS-II USB 3.0 card reader.

 

[Mattias Burling]

I think it will do very well.

 

[Tugela]

The BMPCC does not have a viewfinder either, so not a deal-breaker, but $1K for a viewfinder is a bit steep. I like 4:2:2, but 8 bit only? Is it three times better than what the LX100 can produce? Not interested in CF as well.

I would be much more interested if it were SD-based with bitrate limited at say 150 Mbit/s for 4:2:2 and 60-100 Mbit/s for 4:2:0.

Also, variable speed lens up to F5.6? Meh. Sony has shown that it is possible to create a constant-speed F2.8 lens in this size/zoom class.

But I like that Canon started pulling ideas from JVC (fixed-lens still camera style) and Sony (rotating handle) when they realized they did not have many of their own.

P.S. It is notable that the RX10 does not sell cheaper than half a year ago.

The data rate is "up to" 305 mbps at the highest quality setting. There will be lower quality settings with reduced data rates no doubt, just like every other camera. Some of those will probably be recordable to regular SD cards

 

[Tugela]

I think it will do very well.

It is basically a 4K version of the G30/XA20/25 cameras in a different body style. It would address the same market space as camcorders like the AX100 IMO, but not true hybrids like the GH4/NX1/A7s.

 

[Blasst]

And when you do that, do not forget to order the $352 64GB CF card you will need (actually you will need more than one) to shoot 4K, which requires 305Mbps bit rates (because the compression is so inefficient).


Oh, and where is the viewfinder? A "professional" camera without a viewfinder? Really? A clip on viewfinder is available. Don't forget to order that too (there is one listed for $995, but it is not the Canon one).

The video linked by Joe above says that the viewfinder is included....guess we'll find out for sure down the road.

 

[Tugela]

I think the viewfinder will be awkward to use, judging from the pictures of it we have seen.

 

[markr041]

No stabilisation in 4K mode

See http://www.eoshd.com/2015/04/canon-xc10-should-you-buy-one/

 

[jogiba]

Panasonic offer 4K from a 1″ sensor and longer, faster Leica zoom lens for $799. Canon’s offering differs by lowering the megapixel count to just 12MP from 20MP on the FZ1000 and downgrading the lens. It’s a stop slower at the long end and way shorter. The codec is still H.264 like on the FZ1000 but it records at a file-size busting bitrate of over 300Mbit/s. Canon are charging $1700 more over the FZ1000 for that privilege. When you consider the much higher cost of media as a result – and realise you need CFast 2.0 cards like this for 4K – you are looking at an extra $640 for just 50 minutes of 4K record time.
Meanwhile the Panasonic LX100 offers a larger 2x crop Micro Four Thirds sensor and 4K video from a 2.3x crop portion it. However it has a much more useful super-fast Leica F1.7-F2.8 lens, whereas Canon have gone for reach.

http://www.eoshd.com/2015/04/canon-xc10-should-you-buy-one/

BTW the XC10 does not have an EVF but uses a loupe to view the LCD.

 

[markr041]

That's not a viewfinder.

The video linked by Joe above says that the viewfinder is included....guess we'll find out for sure down the road.

According to the selling site no viewfinder is included http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1134581-REG/canon_0565c013_xc10.html

Sticking that attachment on the LCD screen in any case is not a viewfinder. You can add such an attachment (a loupe, as Joe points out) to any lcd on any camera, like the NX500 for example (as some have done).

Oh, and no stabilization in 4K (did I mention that already?) Seriously, this offering is astonishingly out of touch. At least it takes memory cards ($350 ones) and you can swap batteries...

 

[Blasst]

According to the selling site no viewfinder is included http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1134581-REG/canon_0565c013_xc10.html

Sticking that attachment on the LCD screen in any case is not a viewfinder. You can add such an attachment (a loupe, as Joe points out) to any lcd on any camera, like the NX500 for example (as some have done).

Oh, and no stabilization in 4K (did I mention that already?) Seriously, this offering is astonishingly out of touch. At least it takes memory cards ($350 ones) and you can swap batteries...

Mark,

I know its not a real viewfinder so should have been more specific in my wording. I'll be passing on this hybrid creation anyway.

 

[P&Struefan]

I just hope someone at Canon bungled the posting the YouTube lone girl video with respect to PP or compression. It looks so underwhelming for the prices would-be customers have to pay for the camera and the storage. Extreme highlights are distinctly yellowish or was this a result of poor grading? The image has neither the cinematic feel most DSLR users like nor the crowd pulling "pop" on HDTV screens like the Sony AX100's has.

 

[Mattias Burling]

It does have IS in 4k. It's the 5 axis that's HD only.

 

[bsprague]

I think the XC10 may sell fairly well. Just not on this forum.

An example of where it could see it used is with cruise ship photo crews. If you go on a cruise ship you'll see the staff using big DSLRs to take still photos that never get printed bigger than large snapshots. At various times you'll see the same crew roaming the ship with big video cameras, sometimes on tripods. I'm pretty sure my "consumer" cameras can capture the same level of quality, but they don't have the right brand on them or the right size to make the staff look credible.

I can see the VP in charge of a cruise line's photo/video department finding appeal in an XC10. It is one piece of equipment that does all the jobs and has the right brand for credibility. Regardless of performance, they couldn't use a FZ1000, RX10 or even a GH4. Since they sell snapshots and DVDs, they probably don't care about the 4K or if it is well stabilized in that mode.

Canon is one of the big boys on the block. I'm fascinated that they are caving to the idea that some have merged there photo brain and video brain and enjoy a tool that appeals to both. Users of NX1s, GH4s and even LX100s or FZ1000s may not find the performance and specifications to price ratio appealing, but it is still and interesting camera since it is coming from Canon. It may be that Canon understands that cutting edge performance nerds make up a small market segment withing their traditional global market.

 

[Ken Ross]

Too many issues in a very competitive market. I don't see how this will compete:

* 1" sensor when you can pay less and get a larger, more cinematic sensor

* No VF. In my book that's a loser right out of the box.

* No or poor OIS.

* No RAW for stills when competitors offer this.

* Promo video of questionable quality, already indicating potential issues with PQ.

* Questionable ergonomics.

I'm really not sure what Canon is aiming for here with this camera. I don't see how this can possibly make it in this market.

 

[jogiba]

I think the XC10 may sell fairly well. Just not on this forum.

An example of where it could see it used is with cruise ship photo crews. If you go on a cruise ship you'll see the staff using big DSLRs to take still photos that never get printed bigger than large snapshots. At various times you'll see the same crew roaming the ship with big video cameras, sometimes on tripods. I'm pretty sure my "consumer" cameras can capture the same level of quality, but they don't have the right brand on them or the right size to make the staff look credible.

I can see the VP in charge of a cruise line's photo/video department finding appeal in an XC10. It is one piece of equipment that does all the jobs and has the right brand for credibility. Regardless of performance, they couldn't use a FZ1000, RX10 or even a GH4. Since they sell snapshots and DVDs, they probably don't care about the 4K or if it is well stabilized in that mode.

Canon is one of the big boys on the block. I'm fascinated that they are caving to the idea that some have merged there photo brain and video brain and enjoy a tool that appeals to both. Users of NX1s, GH4s and even LX100s or FZ1000s may not find the performance and specifications to price ratio appealing, but it is still and interesting camera since it is coming from Canon. It may be that Canon understands that cutting edge performance nerds make up a small market segment withing their traditional global market.

The Samsung NX1 kills this camera as a true hybrid still/video camera.

 

[luidoly]

Too many issues in a very competitive market. I don't see how this will compete:

* 1" sensor when you can pay less and get a larger, more cinematic sensor

* No VF. In my book that's a loser right out of the box.

* No or poor OIS.

* No RAW for stills when competitors offer this.

* Promo video of questionable quality, already indicating potential issues with PQ.

* Questionable ergonomics.

I'm really not sure what Canon is aiming for here with this camera. I don't see how this can possibly make it in this market.

Hi Ken:
I am with you on this one, boy I am glad I did not wait for the Canon 4K and did the jump to Sony, I am very,very happy with my AX-33, compact, small,easy to carry anywhere, very good PQ and superb Image Stabilizer for a lot less $$$$ I also noticed the questionable PQ on the Promo video, what a shame.

Thanks,
Luidoly