Buying guides 2015

News Reviews Articles Buying Guide Sample Images Videos Cameras LensesPhonesPrinters Forums Galleries Challenges

Crossing the Bridge: Canon XC10 Review

Published Apr 8, 2016 | Neil Matsumoto and DPReview Staff

1 Introduction

Canon XC10 key features

12 Megapixel 1" CMOS sensor
DIGIC DV5 image processor
Fixed 10x (24 - 240mm equivalent) zoom lens with image stabilizer
Face Detection/Tracking auto-focus mode
Records 4K XF-AVC UHD (3840 x 2160) video to CFast 2.0 cards
305Mbps video codec (4K)
Canon Log (12 stops of dynamic range)
Slow and Fast motion capture
12 Megapixel stills (JPEG only, no Raw)

Hybrid cameras are those capable of capturing both high-quality stills and video. Although they have been around since the release of the Nikon D90 and Canon 5D Mark II, a professional mirrorless hybrid camera is a new category for Canon. When Canon announced the XC10 at NAB 2015, there was some confusion as to what kind of camera it was. Was it a system targeted towards Canon DSLR shooters or Vixia shooters? A drone camera? Or a micro ENG camera? The only thing that was certain was that Canon positioned the camera as one that could credibly be used for both video and still photography work.

The XC10 is an all-in-one compact hybrid camera that features both 4K and Full HD video capture as well as 12 Megapixel stills. It has great ergonomics for handheld shooting, is built around a 1"-type sensor, and includes the ability to record Canon Log, providing up to 12 stops of dynamic range. Optically, it uses a fixed zoom with a 2x Digital Teleconverter and Optical Image Stabilization, as well as a built-in ND filter.

The XC10's lens gives you a focal range of 27.3-273mm equivalent for video capture and 24.1-241mm equiv. for stills. For monitoring, the camera features a touchscreen with Vari-Angle LCD monitor and an included loupe to mount to the LCD for viewing in bright environments. Unlike the 1080p EOS 5D Mark III, the XC10's video workflow options should meet the standards for professional video shooters, offering H.264 4:2:2/8-bit MXF 4K UHD (3840 x 2160) files (up to 305Mbps) to internal CFast 2.0 cards, or Full HD (1920 x 1080) to SD cards.

Its form factor sets the XC10 apart from typical DSLR and compact mirrorless cameras like the Sony a7R II or Panasonic GH4. With its adjustable side grip and loupe attached for continuous run-and-gun video shooting, the XC10 slightly resembles Canon's Cinema EOS cameras, such as the C300 Mark II and the C100 Mark II. With its side grip and adjustable LCD, you can comfortably shoot and monitor your shots at any angle.

Though probably intended for slightly different audiences, on paper the XC10 has a couple of competitors in this space: Sony RX10 II/III and Panasonic FZ1000. All three cameras contain 1"-type sensors and capture 4K video. The RX10 II/III also give you cinematic picture profiles, including S-Log2 which, like Canon Log, extends the cameras' latitude. Unlike the RX10 II/III and FZ1000, which are aimed at stills photographers, the XC10 does not support Raw image capture. Also, the XC10 is by far the most expensive of the three with a retail price of $2,499 (though street prices hover around $1,999).

And if video is your primary format, the XC10 could well be a solid replacement for your DSLR, especially if you need to capture 4K. So the question becomes, can the XC10 be a credible stills camera for people who primarily shoot video but need high quality stills in certain situations? Let's find out.

Tags: review, video, canon, canon-xc10

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Gear in this story

Canon XC10

I own it

I want it

I had it

Discuss in the forums

AmericaCameras Canon XC10 4K Camera with Full Size Tripod, 16GB SD Card & More	$2,170.00
Canon EOS Rebel T5i Video Creator Kit with 18-55mm Lens, Rode VIDEOMIC GO and Sandisk 32GB SD Card Class 10	$649.00
AmericaCameras Canon XC10 4K Camera with Full Size Tripod, 16GB SD Card & USB SD Card Reader Pakcage	$2,178.00
Canon EOS Rebel XS 10.1-Megapixel Digital SLR Camera - Black (Body Only)	$91.99
AmericaCameras Canon XC10 4K Camera with Full Size Tripod, 16GB SD Card & USB SD Card Reader Pakcage with Case	$2,198.00

Get more prices from Amazon

Comments

Total comments: 214

The XC10 is a bit of a joke on both camera review and filmmaker websites. Filmmakers on NoFilmSchool and EOSHD claim it's mainly useful as a pricey drone camera. The Camera Store TV rated it as one of the worst cameras of 2015. The truth is a fixed lens camera with a slow zoom won't appeal to a huge number of people, but who knows? But clearly without RAW capture in still mode this is not a "bridge" to anything but an empty wallet.

1 upvote

for a $2.5K hybrid, that cannot even record RAW on still capture, I doubt it can really be termed a hybrid. A capable camcorder it is, but its not a hybrid by any mean. Any of those with a larger sensor, interchangeable lens mount, and far cheaper can do both quality capture on both Still and Video; those are hybrid for real ..

Edited 2 minutes after posting

2 upvotes

as a run and gun video camera, for reportage, social media, 12mp still is more than fine.

it's amusing that you dismiss the video as "not being required" and then assume that raw/stills needs better images.

if anything i spend more times in reviewing videos in social media versus one of a bizillion images.

1 upvote

The last hybrid stills-video set up I saw was at the Vegas airport; it was a news cameraman on his way back from an assignment and he had 30 or 40 pound Sony ENG camera in one hand and a Nikon D3 around his neck. I'm bet he'd love to trade his rig in for something like this.

4 upvotes

There must be something wrong with the lens in this copy, looking at the testchart these are the fuzziest pics I´ve seen for years.

Edited 2 times; latest 8 minutes since posting

0 upvotes

All Panasonic need to do is a put a twisty hand grip on the GH4 and give it a ridiculously over the top bit rate to appease ignorant broadcasters who think bit rate and IQ are inseparable and they'd have themselves an XC10 killer with RAW photos and interchangeable lenses.

Edited 29 seconds after posting

9 upvotes

@fatdeeman

I agree with you as far as broadcast quality because extreme IQ is simply not necessary in that context, they don't even do 4K and HD is only 2MP. It's for movies on the big screen where a lot of post processing manipulation takes place that it could be useful. I can't imagine using this type of camera for major motion pictures.

Edited 2 times; latest 1 minute since posting

0 upvotes

Absolutely, people have made motion pictures with DSLR type cameras and managed to get decent results and then you have tv stations turning down footage on the basis of bit rate when it's only going to be horrifically compressed anyway.

There needs to be more attention paid to what each camera is achieving with it's codec. Footage from the Sony FS100 at 24mbps grades much better than footage from the 91 mbps 5d mk III. Yet many broadcasters will reject FHD footage that's below 50mbps.

The logic was maybe sound once upon a time when codecs were all close in terms of efficiency but it seems like a horrifically outdated means of judging quality these days.

Edited 2 minutes after posting

3 upvotes

I'm not sure , but, I think having the high MBPS in post is not the only reason for it. I believe it also has something to do with the video signals MBPS is required to be high for Broadcast Transmission purpose's. A weak signal does not transmit and receive well.

0 upvotes

Say what you will about big broadcasters like the BBC and ABC/NBC/CBS, they deliver an extremely high-quality product visualy. My understanding is that broadcasters need much higher quality footage because of the heinous post-processing they do to your video footage. Think about it they have to take your footage injest it into their system and then send it through their broadcast chain it's got to survive being transmitted via microwave, via cable and just plain old over the air. Then once it gets in to the viewers house it has to look good on infinite permutations of television sets from brand-new to 15 years old. broadcasters know what they're doing and have good reasons to ask for what they ask for.

2 upvotes

SmilerGrogan,
they will definitely have you believe that BS and pocket the premium they charge for it. The reality is that these days almost anyone that cares to do so can put out video content on that looks 10x better that what most broadcaster can put out and do so on a dime. And we are just getting started. Ever wonder why major news networks TV ratings/revenues are vaporizing?
I am not sure either if there is a broadcasting police out there that checks all the videos and nixes the ones that were not taken on a piece of equipment with the right rubberstamp.

2 upvotes

The BBC turned down the Canon 5d II as being insufficient for broadcast because it was less than 50mbps. Then someone filmed a series called shelfstackers and were begrudgingly allowed to use the 5d2 due to the extremely tight budget. The results looked indistinguishable from programs recorded with much more expensive "broadcast capable" equipment and in some ways looked superior and certainly more cinematic due to the shallow depth of field possible with a full frame camera.

The makers of House faced similar resistance when they filmed an entire season finale using a DSLR and then the episode received praise for it's visuals.

0 upvotes

Broadcasters don't think iq and bit rate are inseparable.... Broadcasters, in general, are always looking for the most 'acceptable' compromise in compression vs low latency/high quality footage for mastering. This is dependent on a broadcasters specific capacity and requirements. The bbc use VC2 due to it's simplicity.. The dowside? It's BIG, but they have capacity! Agree with them or not.. I personally think that a defined 'Standard' is a good thing, especially for consistency!

As for the chap's splurge about higher bitrates for transmission purpose... Twaddle... It generally comes out of the mast or satellite as DVB/H.264/MPEG-2/MPEG-4 (which is compressed) and either gets to you or doesn't (it's digital i.
e 1s and 0s). How it's mastered has no bearing on transmission at all.

0 upvotes

The 305mbps is an I frame only codec to make editing 4k responsive on modest hardware. It would need every bit of it to compare to say 30mbps HD inter frame H264 with far more compression efficiency. It's far less complex to compress too making the camera cheaper and less heat issues.
That big heatsink and the vent means this camera is designed
not to overheat in 4K. It's not a plot from the evil broadcasters.

This camera looks like a quick turnaround vanilla flavoured workhouse, not so much a `look mum, I'm a cinematographer' piece. There's already plenty of
those.

Edited 3 times; latest 4 minutes since posting

0 upvotes

Some broadcasters may have a clue but not all. Most broadcasters compress the hell out of the over the air product, with a bit rate under 20Mbps. As an example, where I live in Hawaii, the CBS and NBC affiliates are owned by the same company. They convert 1080 to 720, and try and squeeze them on the same channel. The result looks like hammered crap. Sports programming of any type with rapid movement is pixel city. Ironically, they send clean, unconverted feeds to the satellite services, resulting in IQ from satellite that looks infinitely better than OTA.

0 upvotes

Actually a camcorder with decent still pix capabilities, but with a lot of goodies in all areas for video shooting, ideal as a backup unit for reporting purposes. Aiming in news market and various semi pro segments justifies its price as a handy tool.

3 upvotes

Was able to try this on a wedding gig. To be fair, Canon's Log at daytime outdoor shots are good and grades well at 4K. But the price, the indoor, slightly dim shots at both 4K and 1080p are disappointing, not bad, but disappointing. At that price and the performance of my 4K RX100m3, I have to wonder why Canon made this camera in the first place.

2 upvotes

Can't the "dim shots" be avoided with a little + EV?

0 upvotes

+EVs simply raise the ISO and introduces more noise, I'm afraid.

3 upvotes

Another "almost there" product from the MFA's at the big conglomerates. Nice try ladies! Welcome to the BIGs, but...

No thanks!

Back to B school for you. (Really–ALMOST there! Keep up the marketing classes!)

0 upvotes

This toy shouldn't cost more than 700$ for what it offers!

22 upvotes

Please name a few alternatives (costing around 700$ and having similar video features - in my opinion, the XC10 is a camcorder) to that camera.

1 upvote

Panasonic G7, Panasonic FZ 1000, Panasonic LX 100 etc.

2 upvotes

This quote doesn't give a lot of confidence:

'We developed this small 4K camera so that the users themselves can figure out how to use it,' he said. 'We really want users to explore the camera, and we're looking forward to what they come up with.'

Instead of saying this camera is a bridge between DSLR video and the dedicated Canon cinema line, they say, "we made something and are hoping that it gains traction in the marketplace". That doesn't speak well for their product development or marketing teams.

3 upvotes

In terms of product development and marketing sometimes the best way to test a new concept is to make the product and see how the public react to it.
Another way is to create a mock up and let some of the public loose on it at customer clinics. The problem with that, as a senior Ford Executive once said "The public are usually too conservative to understand concepts. They like what they already have, maybe with an extra 5%"
Or Canon could, I suppose, have asked DPR readers to judge it. The trouble with that is that they are still just the public, albeit with a large dose of self importance.

4 upvotes

One big problem with not knowing how your product is going to be used, is that you really can't market it well. And that's bound to have a negative impact on sales.

1 upvote

Unless as a manufacturer you aren't particularly concerned whether this model sells or not. If it does it's well and good but even if it doesn't it's still a valuable indicator or pathfinder for future products.

Edited 8 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

@Revenant: I think that you pointed out a major reason why the camera gets so many negative comments.

1 upvote

Wow the review is published exactly one year - to the day - from their last article touting it as the camera for a new era.

11 upvotes

Do you know what's even more eerie? The same person is at it again and has amassed almost 10% of all comments in this article, just as they did last year when the initial release story came out.

If they're not being paid then they're being very dedicated.

0 upvotes

First expensive camera from canon that is not made in Japan. This is from china, like an experimental knock off . and it shows In all respects.

1 upvote

The Camera Store TV (YouTube channel) did a video where it ranked the worst camera of 2015 and the camera imploded as he tried to pull off the lens. With all that said, if you want C.Log and 422, you can't get it any cheaper.

Edited 2 minutes after posting

1 upvote

LOG without 10 bit is close to useless for any professional application.

7 upvotes

I totally agree! Log is a lot of Marketing buzz, until we get 10 Bit 4.4.4 ! Or better yet, 12 Bit Raw at today's average DSLR pricing!

0 upvotes

I think the likely reason this camera doesn't do RAW is because they are afraid that it might get hacked and it might start shooting RAW videos. I just don't like the intentions behind the reason. It's just terribly not in favor of the customer.

Also, for the skin tones test of the samples, the skin was underexposed. Good luck fixing that in lossy 8-bit.

Edited 10 minutes after posting

4 upvotes

I bet the lack of raw is because that lens is doing some nasty stuff that they fix in firmware postprocessing.

Not having raw actually increases the motivation for somebody to hack it, but this is enough of a specialty that I doubt it's a priority for anyone to hack. I see no mention of it at the CHDK wiki nor at Magic Lantern.

8 upvotes

And if it could, they would sell droves of it.

0 upvotes

This isn't really a 4K camera... it's an outstanding 1080 that lets you master in over-sharpened, artifacted, 4K. That's actually fine; there's a market for that. As for being a bridge, well, that's truly a stretch....

Minor points: For "Slow and Fast motion capture," 720 @120FPS isn't awesome slow motion these days and I don't see any fast motion framerates unless 24FPS counts for that. Also, a "2x Digital Teleconverter" isn't gonna get you 4K on a 12MP sensor.

5 upvotes

I rented the XC10 back in November, and much like the reviewer here, I had a mostly positive experience in using this little camcorder. My wife and I used this camera mostly in good light, so I really can't comment on it's low light performance, but its zoom lens reach was more than adequate for our needs. Also, neither one of us considered the lack of an EVF for this camera to be a negative. As a matter of fact, the detachable loupe was so comfortable to use that it became our default viewing setup for working at normal eye level. Still, we found ourselves wishing for Dual Pixel AF and better control over camera functions with the toggle control when the loupe is in place. So we decided to wait for Canon's next generation of this camcorder in the hopes of adding that one to our kit. :))

18 upvotes

When does Canon pay you? Bi weekly?

7 upvotes

Have you ever used Canon's XC10, EthanP99? Have you ever even seen or held one? I didn't think so! Because if you had seen, held, or used one, you would've had something actually useful to say about Canon's hybrid camcorder instead of trying to bash me for commenting on my real world hands on experience with this camera. Next time, beg, borrow, or rent one of these camcorders yourself so that you can make a comment based on your experience. I'd love to read it. :))

28 upvotes

i hear you
so far, the only thing standing in the way of XC10
is
the Price.

Needs to come off 50%

3 upvotes

Its ok, I dont rent junk.

3 upvotes

I think you'd probably have to be older than 17 to both rent and have an informed opinion about pretty much anything in life.

23 upvotes

The XC10 is a very solidly made little brick of an UHD camcorder that ENG professionals will be able to count on to operate flawlessly day in and day out. Unlike typical consumer oriented video cameras that sacrifice IQ and durability to achieve their small size, the XC10 was designed for extended pro use. The ability to extract decent stills from its files is just a bonus feature of the design. ENG pros routinely pay more for HD camcorders that aren't as capable as the XC10. Price won't be an obstacle for those folks, because they know the camera will pay for itself in less than a week. :))

7 upvotes

To accuse someone of being paid by the manufacturer, just because he didn't have an entirely negative experience with a camera you've decided is "junk", that's trolling in my book. Completely unnecessary.

6 upvotes

Donnie you are right the camera is good if it matches your personal needs. It is good that some people find it useful.

The variable aperture, focus by wire and manual zoom are not such an obstacle for using it as a family camcorder. Taking out two grand for a family camcorder is another question though I hope the Mk II will be cheaper so that some more families can use them.

0 upvotes

the same folks also know
there are options out there
that can pay for itself in days instead of weeks.

be dumb doesnt help in that direction

0 upvotes

As trendy as it is to trash this camera, the XC10 has some extremely compelling features that are hard to ignore. While FAR from ideal, this camera excels where Sony falters in usability.

Features like the form factor, user interface, Push AF, touch screen, zebras, and peaking make it easier for working pros to actually use. The 4:2:2 codec and C-Log are easier to grade and more flexible than S-Log and V-Log in my opinion.

While Canon are justifiably crucified by DPR readers, the main appeal of most Canon products is usability and reliability, rather than bleeding edge technology.

Sony charges $1700 for the AX100 camcorder that has the same 1" chip and jpeg-only stills capability, but significantly fewer pro features and no S-log. For $2000, the XC10 looks to be a better value, but no one seems to trash Sony over the AX100

26 upvotes

not to mention that the XC10 includes a Cfast card and reader which is around 280USD.

13 upvotes

Excellent points. I think the XC10 works for shooters who really prefer Canon color over Sony's.

2 upvotes

partly because Sony made sooooo made nameless-forget-me
video camera, most have already forgotten before
they finish reading the page...

0 upvotes

I swear 99% of people who post in these comments sections have no idea what they're looking at.

The loupe thing is the dumbest feature about this but it does seem like an intriguing alternative to other larger-senor camcorders. I guess the only thing that can be done is to use the HDMI out with an external EVF (presumably then needing a cage around this)? Just makes no sense that this isn't even an option (even, god for bid being smart, using an existing Canon snap-on EVF)?

Edited 1 minute after posting

0 upvotes

So many things wrong with this camera. The price, the lack of an EVF, it doesn't even work with Canon's own EVF-DC1 add-on EVF, no RAW, non-removeable variable aperture zoom, a touchscreen UI that you can't touch if you're using the ginormous viewfinder eyepiece, etc. There are plenty of video-centric reviews that trash this camera, for good reason. Sadly, this is a camera that only a diehard Canon lover can love. Canon just isn't the company that it used to be. Well, at least you can use it with your existing Canon lenses. Oh...wait. Nope.

Edited 3 times; latest 12 minutes since posting

8 upvotes

still waiting for you to show me all these 4k broadcast capable cameras for less than 2K. YOu know .. the ones that offer 200+ Mbps h.264 with 4:2:2 internal recording?

with all the features you mention.

and all rolling in at less than $2,000

oh and also including a cini zoom from 24-240. I forgot that, because even a standard photography zoom from 24-240 is not a cini constant t stop zoom.

your point about the EVF is a good one - and something I'd love to see canon implement on all their cameras.

however what you and others fail to notice is that canon calls this a camcorder.

how many camcorders shoot raw and how many of them have non variable apeture?

let's compare a 4K camcorder just released by sony shall we: the AX100..

- no RAW stills
- low bit rate
- 4:2:0 color
- variable aperture zoom

$1700 USD.

Edited 2 times; latest 14 minutes since posting

14 upvotes

Hi grade bit rate, but sadly everything else is consumer-level...except for the price. The big problem with this camera is that that it's neither here nor there, neither fish nor fowl. It's a frankencamera. Even you state that it's a "novel experiment" and Canon just "threw out there". Yes, it is a rather throw-away product. Which is probably why it hasn't gained much traction, even with the Canon name and marketing machine behind it.

BTW, Canon has been marketing it as a "hybrid camera"...not just a "camcorder".

Edited 2 minutes after posting

3 upvotes

again.. the AX100.. the only + for it is what? the EVF?

MUCH slower bit rate, lower bit depth color, and around the same price.

1700 versus really what .. 2000 or really the same price (because the XC10 includes a card and reader).

so what other camcorder does better with less money?

again, canon lists this as a camcorder.

so what's better?

Edited 2 times; latest 2 minutes since posting

6 upvotes

the Panasonic AG-DVX200 looks great .. doesn't it?

oh wait. it's over 6lbs in weight, $4200 USD and is STILL a variable aperture lens .. what the hell happened there?

and btw.. canon USA has this listed under "professional camcorders" the NAME of it Canon XC10 4K Camcorder

they call it a camcorder.

Edited 12 minutes after posting

5 upvotes

@rrccad for the money of this XC-10 contraption man can but a Panasonic GH4R + a much better zoom lens + an external recorder. In the end man gets a bigger and better sensor, 10 bits, 4:2:2 color and LOG format if desires. A much better everything!

5 upvotes

The bit rate doesn't tell the whole story, the term "broadcast capable" is a bit of a joke really. Plenty of people have re-encoded video just to put it above the 50mbps threshold many broadcasters have for 1080p and it has been accepted.

The 24mbps Sony FS100 absolutely annihilated the 91mbps Canon 5d III because it had a better codec that was better optimised. And yet the Sony was less than half the "broadcast capable" threshold and the Canon was nearly double.

The extreme bitrate of the XC10 is there purely to appease ignorant broadcasters, it's ridiculously excessive and doesn't automatically make it superior to cameras with lower bit rates.

It's a fact that some of the cameras broadcasters reject are capable of much better video than some of the ones they approve.

3 upvotes

Always nice to see a new form factor, but I really wanted to comment that's it very nice to see the recent spurt of camera reviews coming out from DPreview.

6 upvotes

Good experiment, but it will need the new Canon tech to be more convincing... My take.

0 upvotes

New Canon tech...congratulations with your oxymoron.

4 upvotes

I guess he meant Dual Pixel AF, which really was new tech when the 70D was released. It was a new way of implementing on-sensor PDAF, with every pixel consisting of two photo receptors, and therefore capable of both image capture and PDAF, instead of masking off half of some pixels that are dedicated to PDAF.

0 upvotes

Good review, thanks. I was curious about this camera.

It's unique as the only 1" fixed lens camera with a manual/mechanical zoom. I would love to see this (with a slightly longer zoom) in a future model more focused on stills. The fly-by-wire zoom rings are no match for a real zoom ring (and focus rings too, for that matter).

0 upvotes

IMO.. it's a novel experiment to see how it ends up being used.

I suspect this was a camera that canon just "threw out there" to see how professionals use it,etc.

what is interesting it that they showed this off or something very similar at the previous canon expo as a futuristic mockup.

4:2:2 at 300mps at h.264 4k codec is quite alot of data to push.

That certainly takes it beyond the "consumer" grade bitrates which usually top out around 100 mbps for internal recording.

What will be intriguing is the next one, and how they take this potential video / stills camera line.

Interesting review, it must have been hard to write that up keeping far more of an open mind than most of the whiners and complainers in the comment section ;)

why ARE people whining anyways.. if canon wants to toss out a video camera that shoots a little more in the stills department, guess what .. they can afford another camera in their portfolio.

Edited 7 minutes after posting

6 upvotes

It's probably wise for canon to change the name of the version 2, not because the name is bad but it's just smart to have no connection to this "experiment ".

0 upvotes

why? for those people that actually have used one.. the response for the most part has been positive.

I doubt that a video camera that is primarily focused on a compact run and gun, yet broadcast capable video should be "stills" optimized.

do people give a crap that that a C100 doesn't shoot raw images?

5 upvotes

Are you saying that the reviews on the web are from people who haven't used this video camera?

2 upvotes

like the CSTV one?

I'm talking the actual discussions by pros that have used it for real. not "reviews".

there is a difference you know.

but I'm curious .. what's the cheapest 200mps+ 4K 4:2:2 video camera out there and how does it stack up against it?

Edited 2 times; latest 1 minute since posting

2 upvotes

Pro that use it for reals? Like guys who are sponsored by Canon? Where as review sites aren't sponsored by Canon.? That kind of difference?

0 upvotes

@rrccad - A lot of "positive" reviewers have said that it's an "interesting" camera, but not one they would want to own. That's faint praise, at best.

Edited 24 seconds after posting

4 upvotes

actually discussions on EOSHD,etc with respects to the actual camera and real world use.

and also other sites, and people that have actually used it.

or are you saying that everyone that comments on a piece of gear is paid by sony/canon/nikon?

oh please... check your fanboy logic at the door on that one.

and again, what's the smallest, cheapest internally recording 4:2:2 300Mps h.264 video camera out there?

Edited 39 seconds after posting

0 upvotes

You are saying Canon doesn't pay some Pros to use it's gear? That's pretty naive at best.

2 upvotes

you're saying that everyone that comments positively is a paid shill?

care to back that up?

0 upvotes

You know that's not true, unless you are getting paid too?

0 upvotes

"Pro that use it for reals? Like guys who are sponsored by Canon? Where as review sites aren't sponsored by Canon.? That kind of difference?"

so basically here you are stating that everyone that talked positively was paid by canon.

fanboy much?

Edited 11 seconds after posting

1 upvote

a ? Mark means it's a question, it could be a Pro who is paid by Canon or a Pro not paid by canon. But who knows, hence the question mark.
How's the Canon koolaid? It's not healthy you know. It makes people jump to conclusions and defend their koolaid brand.

3 upvotes

@rrccad - "fanboy much?"

LOL, you're the biggest Canon fanboy here! :) I think you actually go into convulsions anytime anyone says anything critical about Canon or their products.

Edited 2 times; latest 54 seconds since posting

4 upvotes

deflect much.. none of you have answered the basic question.. what camcorder offers all you guys are whining about for less money - that also includes broadcast level 4K with 4:2:2 color?

Sony PXW-X70... $2000 + 4k upgrade. ($500)
Panasonic DVX200 - $4200
Sony PXW-Z150 - $3200
JVC GY-HM200 - $2000
AX100 - $1700

most of them are lower grade color at 4K (4:2:0), and all of them are lower specced bit rate (ie: higher compression) at 4K.

all of them are much heavier and larger than the XC10.

Edited 8 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

Being paid to use the gear isn't necessarily the same as being paid to only express positive opinions about it. The reason manufacturers pay professionals to use their gear is (or at least should be) because they want feedback from them, both positive and negative.

0 upvotes

@Revenant

You are right and there is one even more important reason - users follow Pros on their web resources and there they see their professional results clearly labeled to be made with that gear and this is what sells tons of gear. Believe me this is one of the core components of the omnichannel user experience aimed by large companies.

@ttran and rrccad
Guys the camera records less than 100mbs of actually captured visual data in the 300mbs container/codec. So about 2/3 of its capacity are actually unused but provided since Tier 1 requires that.

Edited 2 times; latest 2 minutes since posting

2 upvotes

The camera would have made more sense if it had EOS M mount, not fixed lens.

1 upvote

But would it? The lens on the XC10 is (from B&H) 8.9 to 89mm, f2.8-5.6 (35mm Equivalent Movie Mode: 27.3 to 273 mm)

What EOS-M lens would provide that speed and/or range, given the 3x crop factor? There's a 22mm f2 pancake, but on the 1" sensor that would be, what, 66mm? And so far as I can see the other EOS-M series lenses are slower.

Edit: I do see some fast Rokinon/Samyang, but they're full manual.

Edited 3 times; latest 10 minutes since posting

0 upvotes

You forgot about all the other Canon EF/EF-S lenses out there.

0 upvotes

If you're talking about adapters, then I'd argue that you're moving the camera towards a level of complexity that this camera's not really about. (Though I'd definitely be interested.)

I'm curious: which EF/EF-S lenses did you have in mind?

Edited 12 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

How can they make a 1" sensor produce such poor quality images? Add to that no RAW and I swear I thought this was a late April fools review!

10 upvotes

"How can they make a 1" sensor produce such poor quality images?"

It is made by Canon itself. Most, if not all, Canon sensor are sub-par.

6 upvotes

I hope the video is fine; because the stills do not cut it. Don't think Canon doesn't know that.

This is great to be tested for video and stills!

Shape/size and cost make this... just weird. YMMV.

3 upvotes

It's not any weirder than e.g. the Sony AX100. And the pricing doesn't seem that bad when you compare it to that, too.

0 upvotes

AX100 was released early on when 4K was a novelty, and as such the price (which Sony forgot to drop even after 2+ years now) reflects that it was one of the first "affordable" 4K cameras on the market.

3 upvotes

okay so look at the Sony PXW-X70... $2000 + 4k upgrade. ($500)
Panasonic DVX200 - $4200
Sony PXW-Z150 - $3200
JVC GY-HM200 - $2000

1 upvote

I recently went through hours of footage I took a few years ago while on a fairly adventurous holiday. It was great but technically limited. With a camera like this, I could have made a saleable film. Sure, I could do that with many other cameras but, for the price, this looks like a real easy, manageable proposition.

I'm assuming the sensor resolution was chosen to allow direct pixel to pixel video? I appreciate that and consider 12MP totally adequate for stills, though that video-orientated AA filter pushes things (reminiscent of using my old Olympus E3 - which still made me some money!). I do wonder why there is no RAW option because that is the obvious limiting factor as a "hybrid". However, the nice highlight roll-off goes a long way to compensating for that.

An interesting camera I'd consider for the next big adventure.

6 upvotes

Just a general question,...
how come video cameras often have square shaped sun hoods?

0 upvotes

"I believe the XC10 is an ideal camera for citizen journalists. Currently there’s a new movement of citizen journalists creating compelling video reports that are seen by a global audience 24/7. Driven by social media and video sharing websites, most of this content is being viewed on mobile devices and laptops where file compression is not as big a factor."

- Social media and video sharing websites don't explicitly demand the use of Tier 1 standards that were shaped having in mind the technical limitations or demands for TV broadcasting.

- Tier 1 standards loose much of their sense when viewed on mobile.

So given it is made for "citizen journalists" why should they overpay for this camera?

Will "citizen journalists" carry a second camera for stills? The quality of the jpgs from this camera is lagging behind many mobile phones.

Edited 4 minutes after posting

7 upvotes

what size are most images posted on the web?

in most cases 12mp jpg is way more than enough, and shooting in small jpg is more than fine.

and there's quite a few people that never ever shoot raw to start off with.

next?

as a run and gun video camera, for reportage, social media, 12mp still is more than fine.

it's amusing that you dismiss the video as "not being required" and then assume that raw/stills needs better images.

if anything i spend more times in reviewing videos in social media versus one of a bizillion images.

Edited 2 times; latest 3 minutes since posting

2 upvotes

@rrccad - this might be fine for a camera that is well under $1K. But Canon is asking $2K for this camera. Canon was originally asking $2.5K for this camera. Clearly, they are targeting buyers such as yourself: people who will buy anything that Canon puts out, regardless of price or specs, just because it has the Canon logo on it.

Edited 3 times; latest 2 minutes since posting

5 upvotes

@rrccad

Yes - who needs RAW or a decent DR and natural colors as in RAW and not canon jpgs? Who needs resolution?

Next? Let me guess - you are a Canon user ;) Bingo!

5 upvotes

and again Yanko.. you state that social media does not need 4K / high bite rate or color grading, then why would they need the equivalent functionality in stills?

could you be more hypocritical? hmm?

also .. do you care at a AV100 sony 4K camcorder that also has stills capability doesn't shoot RAW either?

2 upvotes

@rrccad

You seem to need simplified explanations to understand: I stated that social media doesn't need Tier 1 certification for video. This doesn’t mean that it doesn’t need high bit rates, 4k or color grading - there are a lot of cameras that have all of these but aren’t certified for a Tier 1. What it means is that since the price of the camera is so high based on Tier 1 video certification the camera is not aimed at social media reporters as they have cheaper and better alternatives.

I never stated any of the nonsense that you assign as my words before calling me hypocritical. So who is hypocritical now?

Trying to insult someone and calling him a hypocrite is just a display of weak character, poor manners, low emotional intelligence and perhaps accumulated aggression - better deal with these. Further dialogue will be like talking to the TV I guess so I am on to something more positive.

Edited 1 minute after posting

3 upvotes

good points. and you have my apology.

however, for a camera that weighs in at 2lbs soaking wet, versus normal professional video cameras at 6-10lbs, this is very much a small light weight journalist camera.

also .. i have yet to see 12mp jpgs that were not good enough for social media out of ANY camera.

instagram is approximately what.. 4MP?
facebook recommended is approximately 2.4MP?
Google+ is 4MP
Twitter is less than 1MP

so what social media platform could care less about 12mp?

you are reducing your image size down by a factor of 2-3 at least for more social media, thus decreasing noise, increasing contrast and sharpness by default.

my point is that social media is so flooded with images, that no one really looks at them in detail. videos usually get shared more, and seen more.

Edited 3 times; latest 12 minutes since posting

0 upvotes

@rrccard

I too apologize and agree with your regarding social media and still images - many bloggers even use 900x600 as a standard.

I am not a reporter for social medias but if I was one I would like to shoot in RAW convert in a hq way, then resize also in a hq way. Thus I would provide a better images than colleagues using smaller ooc jpg and I should hope for more viewers. :)

DR and colors for example don't benefit from downsizing if they were not so good initially and you can't manage and compensate for them in a jpg as you can in RAW.

This is my personal logic regarding the need of better stills for a sm reporters' camera.

0 upvotes

How the h3ll can dpreview give it an 80%? That's utter nonsense. Pretty much EVERY respected review site trashed this. It was named worst camera of the year on several.

6 upvotes

Read the review and you will see why. The score is justified by what the reviewer found.

1 upvote

First rule of all major review sites. If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything. Just try and get an advance look at a piece of equipment if you have a history of harsh criticism.

1 upvote

Our readership tends to get much more upset by what we say than manufacturers ever do (though it could be that they respect professional boundaries and don't mention it).

Every criticism, no matter how well supported our argument is, is subject to intense scrutiny by commenters and forum posters.

Just because you can think of a mechanism for pressure to be applied to us doesn't mean that it happens or that we wouldn't push back vehemently.

Also, I would expect any stills-focused website to trash this camera. Instead we handed it to the former editor of 'HDVideoPro' magazine and let our in-house film maker examine and grade the footage, to make sure we got a meaningful appreciation of the video performance.

Edited 5 minutes after posting

19 upvotes

This is a standby video camera for some Pros. For most of people using 4k from the smart phone will be enough.

1 upvote

Searching for "XC10" & "worst camera" produces nothing but links back to The Camera Store's drunk-stunt (they never did provide a standalone review...at least, not that I can find) and Jordon Drake's Twitter feed.

Pretty much every extensive review I've read has been in many respects positive, though understandably qualified for certain applications:

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

http://www.videomaker.com/article/r02a/18378-canon-xc10-review

http://gadgetflux.net/canon-xc10-review/

http://www.newsshooter.com/2015/09/25/canon-xc10-review-a-simple-solution-for-everyday-video-journalism/

I'd love to be talked-out of this camera, so if you've got additional links that might do the trick, please share them.

Edited 2 times; latest 7 minutes since posting

4 upvotes

at least it looks like a pro video camera

2 upvotes

It is true, this Canon looks like an real thing. That's about it.

1 upvote

A very generous and charitable review.

1 upvote

CAN you explain how come that this stuff costs 2000 USD ?
Cannot understand....

1 upvote

It has a 1998 dollar Canon logo.
And 1 buck worth of equipment.

Heck wouldn't even pay a penny for this.

0 upvotes

pretty easy. for under 2K where can you find a broadcast quality high bitrate non-consumer 4:2:2 internal recording, compact video camera?

6 upvotes

re: Broadcast Quality

As a working video professional the only thing that appears to be broadcast quality is the high bit-rate CODEC and the color profiles that include C-log.

I have yet to see a side-by-side test against the Panasonic GH4 shooting 4K DCI where the resolution or color from the XC10 come close to what the GH4 can produce. Add on an external 4K recorder and the GH4 produces images of an entirely different order.

Canon has to get it's head out of it's *ss and start producing competitive 4K consumer / prosumer cameras. Hopefully we will see a Canon 4K C200 at NAB 2016, but I'm not holding my breath.

1 upvote

$675 256GB C Fast 2.0 cards for the XC10 compared to SDXC U3 cards for 4K 60p video cameras like the Panasonic AG-DVX200 that cost a fraction of that amount.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1131706-REG/lexar_lsd256cbnl633_lexar.html

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1186716-REG/lexar_lc256crbna3600_pro_3600x_cfast_memory.html

1 upvote

you do realize the XC10 can output 3 times the bitrate as that camera?

1 upvote

Lest it be left unsaid, that graded footage clip is of the band Diarrhea Planet! ROCK!

2 upvotes

If they weren't going to provide RAW files they should have beefed up the video specs. Better focus, constant aperture, etc.

3 upvotes

This camera makes the Sony RX10ii look like a bargain.

12 upvotes

For the foolish. I have some swap land...

...it's WAY cheaper than a $Billion. Therefore and conclusively; 'what a deal!' [Some of you can return to your roots.]

Edited 3 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

In FireFox and Chrome the "Scoring" is not visible, and the score of XC10 is also not displayed in the "recently reviewed" pane on the right.

1 upvote

Hmm. We're not sure how that happened.

It should now work.

0 upvotes

Yes, it works now. Thanks.

0 upvotes

Oh Canon, what happened to you?

5 upvotes

TheCameraStoreTV gave it the award as worst video camera of 2015 and the lens was awarded one of the top three worst lenses of 2015 !
https://youtu.be/Mexs7HvHR2I?t=1316

Edited 2 minutes after posting

25 upvotes

TBH I can't take those guys seriously. They appear to be a couple of hacks.

3 upvotes

+1 for "TheCameraStoreTV gave it the award as worst video camera of 2015 and the lens was awarded one of the top three worst lenses of 2015 !"

Very well said. Especially "the lens was awarded one of the top three worst lenses of 2015". The HUGE Canon lens even worse than Pana TZ100 even both are same SPECed.

No good.

8 upvotes

Are you kidding ? They have 192,308 subscribers and 29,790,184 views to their camera reviews. DPR has 34,261 subscribers and 11,651,577 views. Did you even look at their camera reviews ?

6 upvotes

IMHO, TheCameraStore has far better real world experiences than DPR.

On other hands, DPR's Lab test is good, actually it is the only one which is useful.

Edited 34 seconds after posting

4 upvotes

Who cares what Dpr and Tcs think? What about Kai?!?!?

(Joke. But i love Kai. All these guys bring a useful perspective)

Edited 60 seconds after posting

0 upvotes

Just because something is popular doesn't make it good. In fact the opposite is usually true with the more serious and technical sites being less popular because the masses can't comprehend it.

1 upvote

@Joe

TheCameraStoreTV are working hard, they are real world oriented in their reviews and they are open minded - of course the subscribers will continue to grow.

Have you noticed that despite the much greater popularity they never answer to subscribers with a short and paternal or arrogant tone? These guys have future since they don't have a fixed mindset imo. :)

5 upvotes

There's something to be said for a sober, thorough and thoughtful review.

So thank you, DPreview.

3 upvotes

TheCameraStoreTV are every bit as reliable, if not more, than DPR as reviewers. They don't have fancy setups and DR tests but somehow their estimates seem to always come back right on the spot wrt sensor numbers.
Furthermore, they are almost always the first to deliver the info on new stuff. Ultimately, they need to place orders for the store so they have skin in the game so to speak. They can't be less than completely balls on honest or they would not last a second in the business.

1 upvote

This is a bridge camera? I thought it was a video camera that did stills, and I was baffled by all the reviews that treated it as a strictly stills camera. For its price, though, I'd still rather have a M43 camera or a proper camcorder...

2 upvotes

Finally, a proper video camera that does stills.

1 upvote

Is that a joke ?

13 upvotes

Can't you tell?

0 upvotes

OK, but maybe too much emphasis on stills, which seems to have steered the commentary somewhat off the rails. (And no mention of that crucially important exhaust fan, so it won't crap out in my upcoming North Carolina heat.)

Also, a high-ISO studio test for VIDEO would be really helpful here. From samples I've seen, high ISO video from the XC10 is actually quite good, and the low-light clip provided looks remarkably clean through 3200. (Sony's 1" X70 is also remarkable in this respect, but I find the low DR and clippy highlights of Sony's 1" cameras hard to digest.)

Anyway, I'm curious to see what firmware improvements might be introduced at NAB, but even as it stands, I find the XC10 an extremely compelling, self-contained video camera.

Edited 1 minute after posting

2 upvotes

The video quality seems significantly lower than that of the Sony A6300; as does the still image quality... The 4K footage in particular seems underwhelming here.

12 upvotes

"On the whole, the best summary of image quality on the XC10 is probably 'competent'; in other words, it's about what we would expect from a 12 MP"

I honestly do not know how you guys could write something like that... An old 14Mp Nikon 1 J3 performs way better (just select it in comparison tool and see by yourself).

I understand that, most probably, images look as if the lens was dipped in a soap water because of the super-strong AA filter (further evidence being circular shapes rendered nicely), not because that lens is *that* crappy, but then there are tons and tons of CA. All things considered, stills caps are simply inadequate.

Bottom line, this camera is anything but "bridge" (or, as was correctly pointed out below, "hybrid"). *That* should have been the title of this review, in big red blinking letters, to save a few lost souls who'd think they can shoot decent stills with this... camcorder, I guess.

10 upvotes

Why is there no video showing the camera panning a scene. This is a real test of a camera/camcorder.

2 upvotes

The reasons why I bought this video camera are, broadcast quality video in a compact, self contained package, including a 305-Mbps 4:2:2 video codec, a 24mm-280mm zoom lens, and access to the same color profiles used on Canon's professional Cinema EOS cameras at a reasonable price. The XC10 is capable of delivering very good video results.

10 upvotes

> this video camera

Yeah, you said it.

I wish people stop calling it "bridge" (or "hybrid", for that matter).

8 upvotes

Hybrid is justified. Just as in cycling you can get hybrid bikes that are toughened-up road bikes and hybrids that are lightened mountain bikes, here we have a high-end video camera that tries to shoot stills (rather than the stills cameras that try to shoot video that we usually encounter).

However, we agree that 'Bridge' isn't the same concept in this case and have removed it from the article. (I'd only seen it in the headline and thought it was referring to it having a 10x zoom and looking a bit like an old DSLR-like superzoom).

2 upvotes

I really like some of the design choices they made on that camera, remindsme a bit of the Sony R1, I hope they don't abandon that route just because they messed up with its specs/price.

2 upvotes

"It's important to note that while our studio scene is useful for evaluating resolution and image artifacts, such as compression artifacts or noise, it doesn't give us information about things like motion blur or how well the footage stands up to color grading - things that may also benefit from the XC10's high video specifications."

Brainstorm a new tool to provide us with the missing information, DPR staff, I know you guys can do it.

Does anyone have enough experience with this camera's video files to comment on the workability of 305mbps vs. say, 100mbps?

0 upvotes

We're working on this. Stay tuned.

2 upvotes

Very cool. I'll take full credit for the utility you guys come up with. ;)

0 upvotes

Maybe we'll name it the "Tons o Glass" test to give you credit.

1 upvote

Actually, XC-10 is marketed and sold as a video camera with stills capability. And that explains everything (for me). Actually according to videographers it is not a really good VC either. In this case A7S serves better for the purpose to "crossing the bridge".

3 upvotes

I'm not sure who you've been listening to, but when it comes to people who actually rely on such cameras for a living the XC10 seems to be really quite popular, trumping the A7S in a number of areas.

Sure, it's unlikely to appeal to the readership of DPR, but from what I've heard it a well thought out video camera that just gets the job done.

4 upvotes

No no no

Video makers hate it too primarily due to the lens.
what they want

Constant aperture
Physical focus ring
stepless aperture ring
powerzoom

What it does have
F2.8-5.6 which drives them nuts
focus by wire
no aperture ring steps by on the camera
manual zoom

Then the body
It does have a touchscreen which you can;t use due to the bloody stupid loupe instead of an EVF

Then it has no XLR ports this is a video camera after all.
And for run and gun you can't use it outdoors in seatle. It has a active fan after all which prevents using plastic bags in the rain.

So it's ridiculous how much they got wrong for video. And then it's even worse as a stills camera.

10 upvotes

That's not what I've heard from many, many people. Guess we just move in different circles.

2 upvotes

the people on EOSHD that actually have one, find it quite good..

then again, they are actually using it for video and understanding it's usage. I suspect many aren't here.

Edited 13 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

Total comments: 214

www.dpreview.com

connect.dpreview.com

Editorial content

Product database

Community

About us Work for us Advertise with us FAQ Feedback Interest-Based Ads Privacy Legal

All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved. Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.

Mobile site


Upwardly mobile: Sony a6300 Review Apr 6, 2016	Interview: Canon's Chuck Westfall on the new XC10 Apr 23, 2015	Look Sharp: Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX85/GX80 video preview Apr 5, 2016	Canon XC10: What you need to know Apr 8, 2015

113	* This Week Through Your M4/3 2016.04.09 *
104	PART 2 This Week Through your m4/3 2016.04.09
83	**This week with your A7x, 04/09/2016**
79	GX85 vs. E-M10 II
62	Can you guys explain the dynamic range fervor
53	OM-Ds falling apart
46	Focus issue on my Nikkor 24-70mm F2.8
46	Martial Arts (Leica Typ 109)
43	Verboten topic?
43	Sony Vario-Tessar FE 4/24-70 sharpness comparison...
40	Panasonic 100-400 vs. Nikon P900
36	Panasonic Lumix LX100 - New User Issues.
35	Ranking full-frame Nikons as to best low-light, high-iso performance
33	Quick Bokeh Look @ 75mm: 50-200,35-100,40-150,75mm z/m.z lenses on Em1
33	example photo ruined by "unsharp corners"?
32	♣ ♣ Bootstrap's Sunday 'Scapes ♣ ♣ 10 April 2016
32	* Weekly Wildlife Thread 9th April to 15th April 2016 *
32	Focus settings for "incoming" subject?!
31	GM 85mm f1.4 Focus Noise
31	Is the 58mm f/1.4G supposed to be this soft?


Feather in the Wind by Birdman50 from Random Items - Challenge 5	Fruit for dessert by Nik2 from Artistic Photo of a Feast