# Canon XC10 to Get Major Firmware Update for NAB? [CR1]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Mar 23, 2016)

```
<p>We’ve been told by a couple of people that the Canon XC10 will get a major firmware update for NAB next month.</p>
<p>While a few people have been very positive about this unique camera, most people out there that we have talked to have found it to be cumbersome to use. If the firmware is indeed a “major” one, I’d expect usability and image quality improvements.</p>
<p><strong><a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1134581-REG/canon_0565c013_xc10.html/BI/2466/KBID/3296/DFF/d10-v21-t1-x622194" target="_blank">Canon XC10 Camcorder $1999 at B&H Photo</a></strong></p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 23, 2016)

Fingers crossed the firmware update will come with a new modular lens mount!



- A


----------



## mkabi (Mar 23, 2016)

If this is the surprise at NAB... *shakes head*

Oh well... there is still Blackmagic's booth


----------



## jebrady03 (Mar 23, 2016)

mkabi said:


> If this is the surprise at NAB... *shakes head*



DANG!! You beat me to it! I was going to say: Canon's big surprise is that they're still trying to make this product a success, rather than admitting it might have been the worst single product release in the last few years (and that's saying a lot).


----------



## Etienne (Mar 23, 2016)

That guy in Omaha who bought this camera will be happy. Who knows ... maybe the new firmware will generate another sale and the two owners can form a club.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 23, 2016)

Etienne said:


> That guy in Omaha who bought this camera will be happy. Who knows ... maybe the new firmware will generate another sale and the two owners can form a club.



The XC10 is like having a superpower with a crippling limitation. Like being able to fly... _but only if it's to get you to work in the morning._

What amazing next infuriating option will Canon give us?


An 8k rig with no lens or lens mount whatsoever?


A 24-70 f/2.8L IS with the IS switch permanently set to 'Off'?


A new 50mm f/1.4 IS USM with an FX mount?


An FF rig with built in radio functionality... but it's FM through a speaker?


- A


----------



## miz (Mar 23, 2016)

Autodestruction function?


----------



## mkabi (Mar 23, 2016)

See, people (especially on this forum) see that this thing is not selling and start believing that 4K is just not in demand. Yeah well, there was enough of a demand to warrant the creation of this thing... ???


----------



## StenR (Mar 23, 2016)

Since I own and am very happy with my XC10 as very portable professional 4k cam, as a CPS customer and having paid a considerable sum for it, I would certainly appreciate firmware improvements like more than 2x magnification, adjustable degree of noise reduction/smoothing and even more settings accessible directly from the touch screen. Let's hope it's true but hope for new great products as well at NAB.


----------



## scyrene (Mar 23, 2016)

mkabi said:


> See, people (especially on this forum) see that this thing is not selling and start believing that 4K is just not in demand. Yeah well, there was enough of a demand to warrant the creation of this thing... ???



I really don't think anyone here has said that. I've not seen it as a justification for opposing 4K. Mind you, not many people seem to oppose it, just not all that many seem thrilled to have it.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 23, 2016)

scyrene said:


> mkabi said:
> 
> 
> > See, people (especially on this forum) see that this thing is not selling and start believing that 4K is just not in demand. Yeah well, there was enough of a demand to warrant the creation of this thing... ???
> ...



Exactly. I'm no videographer, but 4K is *100% *in demand (it's practically an expectation!). Many camera systems have it now, hell, even phones have some form of it these days.

*But Canon will only give 4K to us with a modular lens mount in 1D and Cinema rigs*. So to offer 4k in a fixed lens / small sensor / ergonomic disaster of a product instead of offering a sub $6,000 4k rig with a modular lens mount angered just about... well... everyone (on this forum at least).

(This is probably also why we can't have a decent chat about the 5D4 without a 'if it doesn't have 4K, I'm going to leave' discussion take over.)

- A


----------



## scyrene (Mar 23, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > mkabi said:
> ...



Wait, that wasn't what I was saying at all! 100% in demand as in 100% of people demand it? I really don't think most consumers are aware of what it is precisely, and very few yet have a device they can view it on full size (leaving aside arguments about stabilisation, cropping, etc. which are for enthusiasts). I do think it will be standard on DSLRs and other cameras pretty soon - maybe in the next 3 years - so I don't think it's necessary for people to get upset about. I just don't think anybody is making the argument here that this odd device is selling poorly, therefore 4K is bad/unwanted. That would be a step too far even for CR!


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 23, 2016)

scyrene said:


> Wait, that wasn't what I was saying at all! 100% in demand as in 100% of people demand it? I really don't think most consumers are aware of what it is precisely, and very few yet have a device they can view it on full size (leaving aside arguments about stabilisation, cropping, etc. which are for enthusiasts). I do think it will be standard on DSLRs and other cameras pretty soon - maybe in the next 3 years - so I don't think it's necessary for people to get upset about. I just don't think anybody is making the argument here that this odd device is selling poorly, therefore 4K is bad/unwanted. That would be a step too far even for CR!



And _I'm_ just saying that people -- as crude and oversimplifying as we can be sometimes -- are not doing that in this case. No one is claiming XC10's sales are proof that 4K is overrated or not needed. Everyone (that I've read from here) is mad that the SLR video revolution Canon created is being held back / limited by Canon pricing those same 5D2 pioneers out of the best features.

- A


----------



## melbournite (Mar 23, 2016)

I'm interested to see what this firmware update brings. As a photographer who does some video, I believe Canon may have had us in mind when designing this camera especially ergonomically. I borrowed it for a weekend and loved many things about it but some things were deal breakers. From memory, they were;
- ISO access (slow)
- F stop only to 11
- Focus magnification x2 (only)
- led small and not hi res
- focus touch doesn't work in 4K (only 1080)
- variable aperture (although I could live with this considering weight and zoom)

Otherwise, I loved the picture quality, the weight of the camera, the menu system, the swivel handle, the dslr feel (coming from a photographer) and battery compatibility with 5DIII. 

ps regarding it getting a firmware update, I also heard this from a Canon dealer earlier this week


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Mar 23, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> Fingers crossed the firmware update will come with a new modular lens mount!
> 
> 
> 
> - A



Yeah, if the firmware upgrades it to an APS-C size sensor and EOS mount and etc....
then it will be a good camcorder and nice value for the money.


----------



## Etienne (Mar 23, 2016)

StenR said:


> Since I own and am very happy with my XC10 as very portable professional 4k cam, as a CPS customer and having paid a considerable sum for it, I would certainly appreciate firmware improvements like more than 2x magnification, adjustable degree of noise reduction/smoothing and even more settings accessible directly from the touch screen. Let's hope it's true but hope for new great products as well at NAB.



Are you from Omaha?


----------



## jeffa4444 (Mar 23, 2016)

We rent really expensive cinematography glass & cameras all the way down to the XC10. At £ 1,500 it is cheap so I really dont get some of the dumb remarks about it clearly some people just like to complain about anything. 
People who rent it just want a bog standard video camera that they can use for 4K recces and for that its perfect.


----------



## Luds34 (Mar 23, 2016)

Etienne said:


> That guy in Omaha who bought this camera will be happy. Who knows ... maybe the new firmware will generate another sale and the two owners can form a club.



I needed that! Thank you, give me a good laugh.


----------



## Bernard (Mar 23, 2016)

I'm not sure what all the fuss is about. It seems like a perfectly decent B cam for event work. It's self-contained, cheap-ish, light, easy to pack, it's got decent battery capacity, and a good zoom.

You can set it up at the back of a room, get some coverage for editing, and you don't have to worry about running past 29:59. The files aren't too compressed, so you can do color correction and mild cropping in post. Almost any assistant can operate it with minimal training. What's not to like?

It's not meant to be an A cam, but it will save you a lot of aggravation when somebody steps in front of your main shot and you need something to edit-in.


----------



## AndreeOnline (Mar 24, 2016)

The best thing about users casually mocking the XC10, is that I know who to immediately write off as clueless posers.

Forum threads read so much quicker when you can auto skip a number of user names right away.

Things like the FCPX launch and a little camera like the XC10 says a lot about humanity in general and internet culture more specifically.

Don't let me stop you—carry on doing what you know best.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 24, 2016)

AndreeOnline said:


> The best thing about users casually mocking the XC10, is that I know who to immediately write off as clueless posers.
> 
> Forum threads read so much quicker when you can auto skip a number of user names right away.
> 
> ...



Most folks are pretty careful in the line they walk here. I personally never mock people, but I do (from time to time) mock questionable product decisions by Canon -- a company I usually defend far far far more than I shake my fist at. 

And yes, I am 100% a clueless poser on the video front. I've been painfully up front about that.

That does not mean that I don't have a fair point to make, so as for carrying on... [cracks knuckles] ..._don't mind if I do._ 

You are correct that most people here aren't knocking the XC10 for the product on its own merits. Folks around here just wanted an interchangeable lens 4K setup in something less pricey than the 1D line. Canon didn't offer it, and people got angry -- so understand that _this XC10 product is the very *symbol* of that decision_, so it should be no surprise that every time we hear news of it, it lands about as well as the failure sound on 'Price is Right'.

- A


----------



## AndreeOnline (Mar 24, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> Folks around here just wanted an interchangeable lens 4K setup in something less pricey than the 1D line.



Of course they do. Because people basically want a C300 mkII for $1495. I see it every day on DVXuser.

Regardless of that, the XC10 remains a very unique product: 


light, adjustable design with rotating grip and tilting LCD touch screen. Excellent on gimbals.
4k Canon Log in Canon's best codec. Essentially the C300 mkII codec, but in 8bit. Intra frame 422 at 305Mbps. I can only assume that lots of people complaining about this camera don't really understand what this means.
Auto focus with face tracking.
ND filter—even if it's too weak to cover all scenarios.
27-75mm f2.8-4, that keeps going to 270mm, with EXCELLENT image stabilisation.
Automatic, easy to use time-lapse mode that produces great 4k movies in-camera.
A number of programmable buttons (there could be more of course)
Available for around what.... $1500?

If you look at that list and summarise it as Canon's "worst product ever"… well, I think it says more about 'you' than the XC10.

And if this camera can get a substantial firmware upgrade—I'd be all over that.


----------



## mkabi (Mar 24, 2016)

AndreeOnline said:


> The best thing about users casually mocking the XC10, is that I know who to immediately write off as clueless posers.
> 
> Forum threads read so much quicker when you can auto skip a number of user names right away.
> 
> ...



Given the fact, that I was one of the few that was mocking the XC10... I couldn't help but feel like I was categorized in the "clueless posers" department.

I didn't mind that very much, but you questioning humanity... really???
You are defending materials.... _materials_ such as the XC10 and Final Cut Pro X, as if you made them, and then calling people (humans) on forums "clueless posers" - do you not see the irony in that???

Unlike ahsanford, I have plenty of video experience... some paid work and some not... not saying I'm a professional. May be a semi-professional, still learning (always learning)... but I have a few videos that I'm fairly confident enough to show off (not saying that it is AMAZING work).

Sample 1 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ecMWKRe11Y

Sample 2 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHolMRaQpjA

So, fellow videographer, now that I have shown you my work... lets see your body of work... yes... I'm calling you out AndreeOnline... if you're going to call people "posers" and "clueless" I want to see the work of a non-poser...

Despite all of that, I feel that I have enough experience and know-how to make comments about technology without having to call people names.

BTW, just so you know... the following is false...



AndreeOnline said:


> 24-75mm f2.8-4, that keeps going to 270mm, with EXCELLENT image stabilisation.
> Available for around what.... $1500?



It is 8.9-89mm f2.8-5.6 & $2000
Is that useable to you?
How about if I told you that it is on a 1 inch sensor?
Do you know what the crop factor of a 1 inch sensor is? 
The crop factor on a 1 inch sensor is 2.7
In fact, thats only photo mode.... the crop factor is 3.067 in video mode.... 

Proof is in the pudding, so here is the source:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1134581-REG/canon_0565c013_xc10.html

Just look at the specs section.
If you multiply 3.067 into 8.9-89mm, you get 27.3-273mm
But don't forget that you have to multiply the crop factor into the f-stop too.
So you have f8.58 to 17.17. Still think its useable? May be during the day - nothing indoors or during the dark without having to crank up that ISO and noise levels.

Good zoom range 27.3-273mm, but its variable f-stop from 8.58 to 17.17... and the key word is _variable_
So as you are zooming from 27.3 to 273, f-stop is automatically increasing and you are wondering why your scene is getting darker.


----------



## AndreeOnline (Mar 24, 2016)

You are quoting the package deal where you get a CFast card and a reader. I'm talking about the price of the camera only. I bought mine for $1200.



mkabi said:


> But to question humanity... really???



When FCPX was released on the Mac AppStore, within the first 24 hours the store was flooded with bad reviews. And this wasn't from beta testers with prior experience. A completely new approach to editing. I could never have read the manual in that time. Much less gained any meaningful experience. And yet... here the reviews were. Fascinating.

I'm talking about this compulsive urge some users have (in a larger context—humanity—since it's a recognisable pattern in many situations) to express opinion about something they know nothing about. In an overwhelming majority it's negative comments.

Anyway... putting the specs aside (I do know them by the way), let's get to the meat of it: so you don't like the camera. OK, fine. For how long have you had it? What are you unhappy with?


----------



## Bernard (Mar 24, 2016)

mkabi said:


> But don't forget that you have to multiply the crop factor into the f-stop too.
> So you have f8.58 to 17.17. Still think its useable? May be during the day - nothing indoors or during the dark without having to crank up that ISO and noise levels.



That's not how that works. The zoom is still 2.8-5.6, even though it's on a 1 inch sensor (for us older shooters, that's roughly the same size as Super 16). You don't need to "crank up that ISO" anymore than you would on any other lens or format.

What people are talking about when they (wrongly) state that it's f8.58 to 17.17 is depth of field, not exposure. Except they fail to take into account magnification. A Super16 sensor is approximately half the size of a Super35 sensor (linear measurement), so the image is magnified twice as much, which means your calculations are off by two stops.

On top of that, having a little more depth of field is a good thing in most situations.


----------



## mkabi (Mar 24, 2016)

AndreeOnline said:


> When FCPX was released on the Mac AppStore, within the first 24 hours the store was flooded with bad reviews. And this wasn't from beta testers with prior experience. A completely new approach to editing. I could never have read the manual in that time. Much less gained any meaningful experience. And yet... here the reviews were. Fascinating.



There is a valid reason for that...
I was one of those that didn't like FCPX after 10 min. of using it. Although, I wasn't one of those that wrote a negative review the day after it was released.

But you know why I didn't like it? (and I am assuming that others didn't like it for the same reason)
Its that singular timeline... 

FCP7 had multiple timelines (so I imagine people coming from FCP7 background would hate it), and you couldn't even turn on/off the singular/multiple timeline. I like layering video... but FCPX didn't allow that.

I know why Apple went that route too... because iMovie had a singular timeline. So if you are an iMovie user (like my cousin), FCPX is a no brainer. But if you are coming from a program like Sony Vegas Pro, Adobe Premier, FCP7, etc. FCPX will iritate you.




> I'm talking about this compulsive urge some users have (in a larger context—humanity—since it's a recognisable pattern in many situations) to express opinion about something they know nothing about. In an overwhelming majority it's negative comments
> 
> Anyway... putting the specs aside (I do know them by the way), let's get to the meat of it: so you don't like the camera. OK, fine. For how long have you had it? What are you unhappy with?



It doesn't have to be online. Next time you go into work, grocery store, where-ever... look around... someone is complaining about something. I'm sure, you have complained about something... even if its about humans complaining...

I didn't know you had to be an owner and you had to have used it to complain about it. What if everyone did that and then Canon said no refunds. You'd be out of $1200 way too often...

Going back to the XC10, look brother... if you like it... good for you.


----------



## mkabi (Mar 24, 2016)

Bernard said:


> mkabi said:
> 
> 
> > But don't forget that you have to multiply the crop factor into the f-stop too.
> ...



Thats how it works. Don't argue. Just accept it.
I don't want to pull out the sources. Too lazy for it, google it.

Even better. I'm sure you have an APS-C or FF since you are on this forum correct?
You can do the comparison on your own. 
Here is XC10 low light footage:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Q79cTZjMwE

You can do the same with your APS-C or FF.
Shoot with 50mm at f/1.8 on APS-C
Or
Shoot 27mm at f/2.8 on FF for a more accurate comparison.

Note video is always in 27mm and ISO 3400-4000... see if you can do better in terms of ISO 
BTW, first scene is a sunset, in front of a parking lot, easy to replicate.


----------



## AndreeOnline (Mar 24, 2016)

mkabi said:


> Thats how it works. Don't argue. Just accept it.



Tread lightly. While focal lengths often gets 'converted' to 35mm FF equivalence, actual f-stop, shutter and ISO correspond to a certain EV—exposure value.

Obviously, if I meter a scene with a light meter and put my XC10 in manual mode, I will enter the absolute values. There's no conversion there. 

But I tried to skip all that. It's no pissing contest and not about prestige. In daily use—what do you think the weaknesses with this camera are?


----------



## AndreeOnline (Mar 24, 2016)

mkabi said:


> There is a valid reason for that...
> I was one of those that didn't like FCPX after 10 min. of using it. Although, I wasn't one of those that wrote a negative review the day after it was released.
> 
> But you know why I didn't like it? (and I am assuming that others didn't like it for the same reason)
> ...



You're just proving my point exactly.

Like this:







??

It's called connected timelines. Since day 1.

I think we're done here. Good talk.


----------



## mkabi (Mar 24, 2016)

AndreeOnline said:


> mkabi said:
> 
> 
> > Thats how it works. Don't argue. Just accept it.
> ...



Obviously, your camera will always say 2.8 to 5.6 and above.

*sigh* Honestly, I didn't want to get into
the FF vs other sensor argument. 
But without sourcing, I'm sure this is common sense... FF is larger sensor correct?
So it obviously has larger surface area than APS-C, Micro4/3, 1inch, etc.?
More light hits it.... so it will obviously affect f-stop, shutter and ISO...

I really don't want to... source this guy, but for this one case:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5zN6NVx-hY

Just watch the entire video, and then tell me different.



> In daily use—what do you think the weaknesses with this camera are?



Really, its the sensor and lens.
Everything else is fine. Canon could've easily put a APS-C sensor in this and made it interchangeable EF/EF-S mount, and it would've been the perfect camera. I would've easily paid an addition $1500 on top of that $2000.

In the world of photography, there are many principles and techniques that translates extremely well into the world of videography. Video is just moving pictures. Thats it. Don't make it too complicated.

There is a reason why the 85mm is the best portrait lens (some prefer 135mm).
You obviously want a good wide angle lens to see the subject in its environment.
You want a macro lens for those really really close, or showcasing moments.
You want a telephoto for places you just can't reach.

You just can't do that with 1 lens.


----------



## AndreeOnline (Mar 24, 2016)

mkabi said:


> *sigh* Honestly, I didn't want to get into
> the FF vs other sensor argument.
> But without sourcing, I'm sure this is common sense... FF is larger sensor correct?
> So it obviously has larger surface area than APS-C, Micro4/3, 1inch, etc.?
> More light hits it.... so it will obviously affect f-stop, shutter and ISO...



Thought experiment:

Point a flashlight to the palm of your hand. Let's say it's a spotlight with no falloff. Notice the illumination of your hand.

Now move the light so that only one half of your hand is lit. Is the half that is still lit by the same light only half as bright now? No. 

Now imagine two sensors, one FF and one 1 inch, both placed under a large cone of the same light source. The exposure value to expose them correctly are the same for both—the illuminance is the same.


----------



## syder (Mar 24, 2016)

mkabi said:


> There is a reason why the 85mm is the best portrait lens (some prefer 135mm).
> You obviously want a good wide angle lens to see the subject in its environment.
> You want a macro lens for those really really close, or showcasing moments.
> You want a telephoto for places you just can't reach.
> ...



Shit dude, you may have to go out there and enlighten most news and documentary shooters. They've clearly been doing it all wrong for decades and should bow to your superior knowledge.

There absolutely are legitimate uses for cameras with an attached lens with a decent zoom range. It isn't Hollywood or high end TV drama, but they aren't the only usages for a videocamera.

Please stop embarrassing yourself. 

...and AndreeOnline, you may have despaired for humanity over FCPX rage at launch, but it was mainly justified. Apple discontinued FCP7 and FCPServer with no prior notice, and replaced it with a piece of software which wasn't compatible with their older system (and people had been spending large amounts on FCPServer facilities just beforehand) and wouldn't speak properly to their Protools/Resolve/Baselight systems because Apple had turned a professional product into a more advanced version of iMovie. You don't need to use the product to know that you've been screwed in that situation. 

Since then, and in response to user outrage they've fixed a lot of those issues, but every post facility I know runs Avid or Premiere nowadays, whereas a fair few were running FCP7/Server back in the day. I do hear it's popular with kids who want something cheap and don't have to work with other people though.


----------



## mkabi (Mar 25, 2016)

syder said:


> Please stop embarrassing yourself.



What was that AndreeOnline said earlier? Something along the lines of "Clueless Posers"?
Well... I'm seeing a few right now.

I've posted my sample footage.
I don't see either AndreeOnlines stuff or Syders stuff.
All talk... No walk.

Syder, if you're a news shooter and/or documentary shooter, and you like the XC10... go and buy it. Who is stopping you? I'm not... he asked me "what do you think the weaknesses with this camera are?"
So I answered it from my standpoint, I can give a rats arse what a news shooter or documentary shooter wants...



AndreeOnline said:


> Thought experiment:
> 
> Point a flashlight to the palm of your hand. Let's say it's a spotlight with no falloff. Notice the illumination of your hand.
> 
> ...



Light doesn't behave like your thought experiment.
How much water can your hand hold, and how much water can a bath tub hold?


----------



## AndreeOnline (Mar 25, 2016)

mkabi said:


> Light doesn't behave like your thought experiment.
> How much water can your hand hold, and how much water can a bath tub hold?



What you should be thinking is more like:

Measure the temperature of the ocean. Use any thermometer you like. Bring a small glass and scoop some of that water up. Now measure the temperature in the glass. 

I'm trying to take the higher road here, but I think this is the last post. It was about the XC10. And this is exactly the reason I stick to forums where most people are professionals.

Take a photo with your smart phone and check the meta data. That sensor is really small. When you look at the exposure information the EV will match up with any other camera. The f-stop, shutter and ISO is a universal measure of incident light.

EDIT: By the way, that video from Tony that you link to shows exactly what I'm talking about. At 6:19 he shows you that the two formats FF/m34 gives you the same exposure value for the same settings, despite sensor size differences.

1/180, 5.6, ISO800 = 1/180, 2.8, ISO200 = EV 9.463

Is this forum important to you? Take a moment to reflect if you want to continue this discussion on its current trajectory.

On another note: you shouldn't "call people out". Let the relevant arguments live and die on their own merit. I would never criticise your, or anyone else's work unless they specifically asked for it.

I do commercial corporate photography and videography for the air navigation service provider in Switzerland. The nature of the footage is such that I deliver to them directly to use in their marketing. I don't put it up on YouTube or Vimeo. Apparently, it's been good enough to finance my other camera, the 1Dc many times over. My homepage is pixla.ch

If you really want to go on doing this, I strongly suggest keeping to the actual subject. Do you actually own the XC10? If now, how many projects have you shot with it?


----------



## Bernard (Mar 25, 2016)

mkabi said:


> *sigh* Honestly, I didn't want to get into
> the FF vs other sensor argument.
> But without sourcing, I'm sure this is common sense... FF is larger sensor correct?
> So it obviously has larger surface area than APS-C, Micro4/3, 1inch, etc.?
> More light hits it.... so it will obviously affect f-stop, shutter and ISO...



Mkabi,

Try these experiments.

1- Take a picture with a full frame camera.
Open it in your favorite photo editor and check the EXIF. Note the shutter speed, aperture and ISO.
Now crop away half the picture (or cover it with a piece of paper) and check the EXIF. Note the shutter speed, aperture and ISO. Tell me if the picture looks noticeably brighter or darker than it did previously.
Now crop away half the picture again and check the EXIF. Note the shutter speed, aperture and ISO. Tell me if the picture looks noticeably brighter or darker than it did previously.

2- Take a picture with a wide angle lens. Note the shutter speed, aperture and ISO.
Don't move the camera and take another picture in the same light with a telephoto lens. Set the shutter speed, aperture and ISO so that they are the same as the first picture.
Look at both pictures. Is one much brighter or darker than the other? We aren't looking for tiny difference here, just big steps.

You now have all of the information you need to figure this out on your own.


----------



## mkabi (Mar 25, 2016)

AndreeOnline said:


> EDIT: By the way, that video from Tony that you link to shows exactly what I'm talking about. At 6:19 he shows you that the two formats FF/m34 gives you the same exposure value for the same settings, despite sensor size differences.
> 
> 1/180, 5.6, ISO800 = 1/180, 2.8, ISO200 = EV 9.463



So you are saying that the GH3 and the Lumix 12-35 f/2.8
is equal to and/or better than the 5D3 with the 24-70 f/2.8?

Except ofcourse for DOF... but in terms of low light... that micro4/3 is going to perform equally or better than the FF.



Bernard said:


> Mkabi,
> 
> Try these experiments.
> 
> ...



I can't help you bros.
Each experiment that you are telling me to conduct... the sensor size isn't changing so obviously the brightness and/or EXIF has no change.

Thats like taking the picture, printing it... then literally cutting the picture with regular scissors to crop it (without seeing scale changes, like you do when you crop on your computer) then asking if exposure changes. Of course it doesn't.


----------



## Bernard (Mar 25, 2016)

mkabi said:


> Thats like taking the picture, printing it... then literally cutting the picture with regular scissors to crop it (without seeing scale changes, like you do when you crop on your computer) then asking if exposure changes. Of course it doesn't.



I think you've had a breakthrough! You are exactly right: there's no magical transformation when you use a bigger or smaller sensor. You still use the same f-stops, your exposure is the same. F:2.8 doesn't become "f8.58", forcing you to "crank up that ISO," as you previously claimed.
If your exposure is f:4.0 at 1/48 and ISO 800 on full frame, it will be exactly the same on any other size of sensor.

You will get more depth of field with a smaller sensor, and that means that you can hold a wider stop (and lower ISO) while keeping your subject within the range of focus. That's the next lesson, I will let this one sink-in first.


----------



## mkabi (Mar 25, 2016)

Bernard said:


> I think you've had a breakthrough! You are exactly right: there's no magical transformation when you use a bigger or smaller sensor. You still use the same f-stops, your exposure is the same. F:2.8 doesn't become "f8.58", forcing you to "crank up that ISO," as you previously claimed.
> If your exposure is f:4.0 at 1/48 and ISO 800 on full frame, it will be exactly the same on any other size of sensor.
> 
> You will get more depth of field with a smaller sensor, and that means that you can hold a wider stop (and lower ISO) while keeping your subject within the range of focus. That's the next lesson, I will let this one sink-in first.



No... there is no breakthrough. You're just not seeing my point of view.
Here watch this: 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5zN6NVx-hY

Then you can be apart of this conversation too:



mkabi said:


> AndreeOnline said:
> 
> 
> > EDIT: By the way, that video from Tony that you link to shows exactly what I'm talking about. At 6:19 he shows you that the two formats FF/m34 gives you the same exposure value for the same settings, despite sensor size differences.
> ...



But let me reword that. Suppose you took a picture with the GH3 with the Lumix 12-35 f/2.8 & the 5D3 with the 24-70 f/2.8. You can have the GH3/Lumix set to 12 mm & f/2.8 and the 5D3 set to 24mm & f/2.8... lets just say ISO 200 & shutter 1/180 (on both cameras) like how Tony has it in that room and same time of day. Which picture will be brighter? What do you have to do to make the GH3 to be same as the 5D3, why?

Bernard don't answer that until you have watched that video.


----------



## unfocused (Mar 25, 2016)

These crop factor discussion come up periodically on this forum. I really hate them because there is so much misinformation bandied about. 

The Northrup video is not wrong, but his explanation is not always very good.

He is discussing crop factor, depth of field and image quality. He's certainly correct that a 2X crop factor means that a 100mm lens will have approximately the same field of view as a 200mm lens on a full frame camera. And it is true that the depth of field will be different.

But, his discussion of exposure is confusing at best. He does clearly state (around the 6:51 mark) that crop factor does not affect exposure. Which is absolutely correct – f5.6 at 1/60th of a second at ISO 400 will yield the same exposure on every camera (assuming the lens, image sensor and shutter have all been properly calibrated). 

But, then he muddies he water by saying that you can get the same image quality (noise) by cranking down the ISO of a crop frame camera. That's not exactly wrong, but it is not exactly right either. I get the point he was trying to make. If you shoot a small sensor at lower ISOs it will compare very favorably to a large sensor at higher ISOs. 

But, when he brings this up he doesn't really offer much of an explanation, which only compounds the problem.

We all know that ISO performance is not linear. A sensor isn't four times as good at ISO 100 as it is at ISO 400. And, at higher ISOs, we all know that image quality can degrade very rapidly when you go up a stop. That's what he is referencing when he talks about exposure, he just didn't explain it very well.

As I said, I really hate these crop factor discussions.They tend to rely on gross generalizations that seldom have much real world value.


----------



## Niki (Mar 25, 2016)

how is the image on this camera compared to the c300 and the c300 mk2???


----------



## Bernard (Mar 25, 2016)

unfocused said:


> But, his discussion of exposure is confusing at best. He does clearly state (around the 6:51 mark) that crop factor does not affect exposure. Which is absolutely correct – f5.6 at 1/60th of a second at ISO 400 will yield the same exposure on every camera (assuming the lens, image sensor and shutter have all been properly calibrated).
> 
> But, then he muddies he water by saying that you can get the same image quality (noise) by cranking down the ISO of a crop frame camera. That's not exactly wrong, but it is not exactly right either. I get the point he was trying to make. If you shoot a small sensor at lower ISOs it will compare very favorably to a large sensor at higher ISOs.



Here's a practical example.
You have a shot of a character in a coffee shop. You want the character and her mug of coffee to be in focus. This means stopping-down your 35 mm lens to f:5.6 on your trusty 5Dm3 (this is a Canon forum, after all). Let's say you are shooting at ISO 800, 24 fps (1/48 shutter speed). If you decide to do this shot with a smaller sensor, like a 7Dm2 (keeping it in the Canon family), you get the same framing with a 24 mm. Now you need f:4.0 to get the same depth of field (approximately). You need to keep shooting at 1/48, because that's the look you've established, so you decrease the ISO to 400.

In other words, shooting with a smaller sensor allows you to use a lower ISO, while keeping depth of field the same.

Obviously, some times your project requires having the smallest amount of depth of field. For instance if you want the "short film about a barista shot by a first time director in 2011" look, then you may need to go full frame and use the fastest lenses you can find, beg, borrow, and steal. If that's the case, get a bunch of ND filters and have fun with it, it's all good.


----------



## AndreeOnline (Mar 25, 2016)

mkabi said:


> So you are saying that the GH3 and the Lumix 12-35 f/2.8
> is equal to and/or better than the 5D3 with the 24-70 f/2.8?
> 
> Except ofcourse for DOF... but in terms of low light... that micro4/3 is going to perform equally or better than the FF.



No, I'm not saying that at all. Generally, a larger sensor will have larger sensels/pixel arrangement that in turn present a larger target for incoming photons, thereby collecting more light.

Canon's 4.500.000 ISO camera has sensels of 19 microns, or pixels 7.6x the size of the 1Dx.

The discussion was regarding the XC10 f2.8-5.6 lens. You wanted to apply the crop factor to the aperture in an effort to "explain" how poor this cameras light gathering ability is. But the XC10 will produce the same EV at a certain combination of f-stop, shutter and ISO—same as every other camera.

This also answers your question that came later. A GH3 and a 5D mkIII will expose a gray card the same/correctly at the same settings. I'm not taking small variations into account where one manufacturer's ISO400 might be another manufacturer's ISO460 (if light levels were calculated in absolute numbers).


----------



## et31 (Mar 25, 2016)

I am not impressed with the XC10, regardless of the UHD recording capability. 
It is a crippled camera (camcorder) that is overpriced. The firmware needs to 
be significant to justify the cost and limitations in features.

If you are on a tight budget and need professionalism, then for a little more money (exactly $1K), 
the C100 Mark I is still the best for versatility, functionality, ergonomics (small footprint like a DSLR), 
and of course, the most important part: quality.
Entry level professional cine-camera all the way!

I shoot with the C300, and having tried the C100, it is almost the same given that it has the same sensor (super 35mm / APS-C), which makes it a fantastic A/B-roll given the output. The C300 has some clear advantages, but, again, when on a tighter budget, the C100 is perfectly coupled with other higher end cameras for professional work at a fraction of the cost. 

Fantastic 0.25 lux @ 24p, and ISO performance up to 80,000, EF mount for ANY Canon or 3rd party lens you want, 4K downscale to 1080p for easy editing, 3 ND filters, rolling shutter is practically non-existent, Wide DR gamma, Canon Log, Cine profiles (download them all from AbleCine), great LCD screen quality, XLR audio, Dual Pixel AF, focus lock, etc., etc.

It still has one of the highest ratings out there compared to all the other entry level video cameras (i.e. the awkward and limited Blackmagic Design 2K/4K camera, and Sony's new FS5, which is not doing so well as of late with its reported internal blunders). 

Don't take my word for it. Go to vimeo.com and check out 100's of beautifully made professional videos with the C100.


----------



## AndreeOnline (Mar 26, 2016)

et31 said:


> I am not impressed with the XC10, regardless of the UHD recording capability.
> It is a crippled camera (camcorder) that is overpriced
> 
> …
> ...



You certainly don't have to be impressed with it—after all, that's very subjective. But how do you feel that it's crippled and overpriced?

The next camera up that does Canon Log in UHD with auto focus costs $16000. This camera is 1/10th of the price.

It should be pretty obvious that the XC10 isn't an alternative to the C100-300 cameras. Maybe it can be in some situations, but I feel it's much stronger as a complement. I use it on a gimbal to intercut with my 1Dc. You could to the same with a C300 or C100.

I'd be happy to use the XC10 as an 'A camera' for family stuff. When hunting kids—or just general doc type shooting—the smaller sensor can be just as appropriate as inappropriate. I find it especially advantageous to have both a large sensor camera and a small one that intercuts well. If anyone is going for their first camera, I'd definitely also recommend reaching for the C100 line. Hopefully the mkIII is out soon.

XC10 isn't perfect. I'd much rather see Canon reduce the focal length to something like 24-150 and max out the optical quality. They have to knowhow to make a good f2.8 for a 1 inch sensor. At least f2.8-4. And if it has a dedicated stills mode via switch: please make those stills raw (but that might need another chip on the inside and then it won't happen).

Of course, the community—especially those not using the camera—has made sure that will never happen. Why would Canon invest resources into a camera everyone gripes about? It's too bad, as it's one of the most promising designs. Building large, clunky cameras isn't that hard at all. Building small competent ones just might be.


----------



## et31 (Mar 26, 2016)

AndreeOnline said:


> et31 said:
> 
> 
> > I am not impressed with the XC10, regardless of the UHD recording capability.
> ...



Exactly, to each his own, but having already tried an array of different cameras that took several months to compare and determine which one was the best (including the XC10), I had to go with the C100 as my B-roll, as the others were not going to cut it; so I am not ashamed to say that "I shoot with the C300" for my A-roll. I wanted to save money by having a less expensive B-roll that had very comparable features to arrive close to the workflow that I need, but the XC10 could not do it (as I describe in the list below). It does not make me biased as you have to professionally try other cameras (like Blackmagic, Sony, JVC, and Panasonic) before settling with the best one and subsequently critique them to understand what are the problems with each one. Obviously, Canon did not want the XC10 to take away from C100 sales, and so they limited its capabilities.

Crippled and overpriced (by several hundred dollars in comparison with other models) in the fact that:
*It was originally $2,500 (those sneaks!)*

1. it has a nice sensor, but the optical elements are dark and not as professional as the Zeiss optics that even Sony puts on their camcorders (JVC has one that starts at f/1.2 and ends at 3.5, and x24 optical zoom from f/2.8-4.5 on the Sony X70 with a 1" sensor for the same price). Optics are what you would find on an entry level lens in a rebel series camera.
2. ND filter issues (ex. Sony x70 has 3 physical ones) when other camcorders like JVC and Panasonic offer them as well but have a better effect. For outdoor work, it is not the best and having to shoot at f/11 in full sunlight is not ideal. 
3. you cannot switch between PAL and NTSC within the same unit (Sony, JVC, and Panasonic can do this for the same price).
4. it does not have XLR audio (Sony, JVC, and Panasonic can do this for the same price).
5. it has a very slow AF system. No Dual Pixel AF. Ouch! This makes my DSLR look good, and that should not be the case here. (Again, other companies have optimized AF speed on their camcorders).
6. has CODEC issues for a lot of people with different software. Obviously, this needs to be addressed for quick workflows. Soy, JVC, and Panasonic are readily accessible. 
7. UHD "4K" is already inherent in Sony, JVC, and Panasonic with 4:2:2 color for less money.
8. distorted image through make-shift viewfinder. 
9. CFast cards add to the high price, so bring the camera price down. JVC GY-HM170 can do UHD @ 150Mbps with SDXC cards for $1,295.00.

I don't know what happened to Canon. They were amazing when they had all of those pro camcorders, like the XF305. They need to bring that series back online for the new generation of sensors. Sony is already several years ahead with their Z100, Z150, etc.

If the XC10 was $1,299.99, then it would make more sense and there would be a better competition for sales compared to other brands featuring very similar features.

I like your argument, and also agree with your statement "building small competent ones [might be hard]", and so Canon did something that no other company did back 5 years ago. Take a look at the C100, C100 MII, C300, C300 MII, C500, etc. 
Perfect size! Not even Sony's FS7 or FS5 are this nice! Now, they just need to work on bringing down their prices. Seriously? $16K for a C300 MII when RED and Sony can do the same and more for $8-12K?


----------



## AndreeOnline (Mar 26, 2016)

Let me put it this way:

I don't read up on other brands, so I don't know what's out there. I'm familiar with Canon and RED and somewhat familiar with BMD and Sony.

What is the XC10's nearest competitor that delivers:


UHD+ resolution
intra frame codec
422
equivalent bitrate (305Mbps)
a log picture profile

*You're not allowed to cherry pick here.* This is what the XC10 has and *your competitor needs to check all boxes. Don't mention cameras that don't.*

I would be delighted if you could create a long list. But consider this:

The C100 and C300 don't qualify. Not the Sony FS5.
RED cameras, the 1Dc and the C300 mkII do. The URSA does as well. Sony FS7 too (and F55, F5 and F65).

Anyway. I really like to see the list of cameras that make the XC10 look bad.


----------



## et31 (Mar 27, 2016)

AndreeOnline said:


> Let me put it this way:
> 
> I don't read up on other brands, so I don't know what's out there. I'm familiar with Canon and RED and somewhat familiar with BMD and Sony.
> 
> ...



Here is a great contender! The *Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH4 Mirrorless Micro Four Thirds Digital Camera* for *$1497*. Interchangeable lens mount. Raw stills and all! UHD and true 4k on SDXC cards - not expensive CFast, 4:2:2, 10-bit output via HDMI, 100-200Mbps (305Mbps is a gimmick - description below), same codec w/others provided, V-Log, 2 cine-like gamma profiles, video flicker reduction, video continuous AF, focus peaking, time code, zebra, manual blacks - shadows - highlights adjustment, xlr audio attachment unit w/ two 3G-SDI ports, 25,000 ISO, articulated high resolution touch screen, and more options.
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
....oh, and this thing is DSLR small! 8)

Finally! Beautiful low light performance on an affordable budget with the lens that you want!
https://vimeo.com/100097834

In general:
1. UHD vs 4k downscaled to 1080p is negligible (in a decade when 4k broadcast is accepted as standard, and the availability of 120GB Blu-Ray discs is readily available in mass quantities and more affordable, then there will be an entire new array of cameras and hardware that blow the current selection away). Downscaled 4K on a 1080p monitor looks amazing, plus, the world is not exactly ready to render 4K video with the required computing and hardware overhaul just yet. Subjective, but still a reality. Hollywood and those with the "budgets" can afford to enjoy this market for now. 
2. Intra frame codec is debatable in terms of advantage. It is still compressed regardless of a technical theoretical advantage, and the only clear advantage is RAW. Export encoding will still compress your frames further when working with traditional codecs that are compatible across all platforms (+ rendering time and cost of hardware will be another further expense). Poor optics on top of that will make any high end codec look like junk. 
3. 4:2:2.....you mean "4:4:4" should be the new improvement of standard, since 4:2:2 is already standard everywhere in many different models of camcorders and pro-equipment for equivalent and less price.
4. Again, bit rates over 50Mbps with a good internal codec and sensor is negligible when exporting to H.264, MP4 codecs, etc. Sony's Z100 had 660Mbps, but it still looked poor when working with it. Again, quality degradation come into play here when you are working with poor glass. I mean, it is a HUGE success story that multi-million dollar movies like Her, Blue Ribbon, Rush, and Iron Man 3 used the C300 for many sequences @ 50Mbps, and the results were broadcasted happily around the world with great results (plus quite a few TV show series and documentaries shot at 50Mbps with no complaints). 
-------> C300 definitely qualifies! ;D, and so does the C100 w/the same 4k sensor as the C300. 

As a side note: 8-bit will cripple your editing workflow when trying to grade or correct beyond its limits, so even a 220Mbps Apple ProRes on an Atomos from an 8-bit source will still look terrible if the source is compromised (compressed HDMI output as opposed to a clean 3G-SDI port). I would like to see more of a 10-bit standard on top of the 4:4:4. It's about time! 

5. Log picture profile: that one I can agree with! More cameras should have it these days.

In general, the XC10 cripples itself with its design flaws. Canon had the chance to blow the market away, but instead, they played traditional politics on marketing. Their C100 Mark I/II baby is something they are not willing to give up. Overall, the optics are not that great and there is a clarity issue (an average joe may not have a problem with it, but a professional will). 

Let's look forward to Canon's XC20. Hopefully then, it will justify a "$2,499" price tag! 
The sales and positive reviews were not there several months ago until they knocked off $500 off the original price. I see where Canon's mentality is at. Nice try, but no cigar!

I'm done with this topic. Thanks for the debate!


----------



## AndreeOnline (Mar 27, 2016)

et31 said:


> Here is a great contender! The *Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH4 Mirrorless Micro Four Thirds Digital Camera
> *


*

UHD+: check
Intra frame: fail
422: check
equiv bitrate: fail (100Mbps)
Log: check

Result: FAIL.

With all due respect, if you don't recognise the benefit of the listed specs—that is fine with me. You should always buy the cheapest camera that meets your needs. Instead of writing how things 'are', make a habit of referring to yourself instead:

"To me, UHD to HD is negligible…"
"I find intra frame coded advantages to be debatable…"
"I haven't noticed a difference in quality going above 50Mbps…"

These are examples that would have cleaned your previous post up quite a bit.

I've really had it with "schooling" in this thread. Either step up and deliver, or step down and hold your peace. I'm asking a very simple question here. The XC10 gets beaten around by people who don't even seem to understand what they're looking at. Canon rightly promotes the camera as 'professional' exactly because of what those specs represent. Maybe the specs make it a niche camera. Nothing wrong with that. We're drowning in consumer cameras that can't reach some of those technical aspects.

Now… ANYONE else who wants to comment on my previous post… just answer the question. I'm not saying there are no alternatives. Let's find out how many there are—and what the price of those might be.*


----------



## KrisK (Apr 7, 2016)

AndreeOnline said:


> et31 said:
> 
> 
> > Here is a great contender! The *Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH4 Mirrorless Micro Four Thirds Digital Camera
> ...


*

Well, I'd actually add a few XC10 'positives' to your list, based on the competitors that are usually tossed my way:

-has an exhaust-port to manage heat 
-mic in AND headphone out
-quality audio pre-amps (compared with DSLRs)
-unlimited run-time without needing an external recorder (I like the simplicity)
-great color, with very little work in post (footage I've downloaded plays well with Edius)
-good low-light performance (seems very good up to the point NR kicks in)
-great in-camera HD in an efficient, quality codec (which, for the most part, is still more important to me than 4K, though I DO want 4K)
-non-horrific looking rolling-shutter

I'm waiting to see what this firmware entails before buying. But even as it stands, none of what's been proposed here and elsewhere measures up.*


----------



## Ebrahim Saadawi (Apr 8, 2016)

Holy Lord discussing video on a photo community. 

Have you guys ever heard of image quality? 

It's a magical term used to describe how the images look, based on a few factors: Resolution, dynamic range, compression, colour reproduction, digital artefacts (aliasing, rolling shutter), motion cadence, among a few other things, 

And, you know why the GH4 is considered lower end vs the XC10? priced higher? 

simple, image quality. 

Compared to the GH4, the XC10 produces images with markedly

-higher dynamic range in Canon Log, and 
-much better colour reproduction and skin tones, with 
-MUCH lower rolling shutter, 
-MUCH MUCH less compression, and 
-no digital sharpening artefacts, and 
-vastly superior lowlight performance. 

Do these show up in the spec sheets? no. 

What does show? 

Does any other camera on the market produce 
4:2:2 305mbps images? Any are approved for Teir One Broadcast aqcuisition by the EBU? 
any of them have Autofocus? 
As good of an image stabilization? 
as good of an image quality? 
unlimited recording time? 
Zero overheating/battery drain issues? 

Please, just stop. The XC10 has some shortcomings but no other camera on the market can do what it does, please stop reviewing specs and shoot with the damn camera or at least get some knowledge on what makes a video camera good or bad.


----------

