Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down

Author Topic: New Canon XC10  (Read 34497 times)

BJL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6600
New Canon XC10 ... and Panasonic DVX200, and combo-cams
« Reply #20 on: April 15, 2015, 12:55:16 pm »

But this wasn't what the market expected.    They expected a gh4 upgrade ...
Well, the new Panasonic DVX200 gets a bit closer, at least by being in 4/3" format (and with a somewhat faster lens: f4.5 at 13x zoom vs f/5.6 at 10x zoom), but the price jumps to about twice what one could do with the more flexible combination of an interchangeable lens still camera with good video (GH4, 7Dii, etc.) and a comparable super-zoom lens.  It seems to me that the far greater sales volume possible for "combo-cams" that also appeal to the "mainly stills, but also good video" market creates a big price gap: double the price for that last step in video performance over a combo-cam with same sized sensor.

(Oh, and there was a minor GH4 upgrade; to better support anamorphic lenses.)
Logged

eronald

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6642
    • My gallery on Instagram
Re: New Canon XC10 ... and Panasonic DVX200, and combo-cams
« Reply #21 on: April 15, 2015, 09:57:09 pm »

The combo-cams are not very ergonomic, zillions of settings, no built-in ND, AF inadequate for video, bad or noisy servo zoom etc etc.

So if you're going to do institutional work, without retakes, you really need something closer to a camcorder in ergonomics. And here the camera companies make you pay. The DVX 200 has got exactly one strike against it, the failure to accept supplementary lenses. 

Sony seems to have hit the 4K sweet spot with the $10K FS7, which is probably the most flexible acceptably priced product presently on the market. We will see if they make some sort of scaled down version which is cheaper.

Edmund

Well, the new Panasonic DVX200 gets a bit closer, at least by being in 4/3" format (and with a somewhat faster lens: f4.5 at 13x zoom vs f/5.6 at 10x zoom), but the price jumps to about twice what one could do with the more flexible combination of an interchangeable lens still camera with good video (GH4, 7Dii, etc.) and a comparable super-zoom lens.  It seems to me that the far greater sales volume possible for "combo-cams" that also appeal to the "mainly stills, but also good video" market creates a big price gap: double the price for that last step in video performance over a combo-cam with same sized sensor.

(Oh, and there was a minor GH4 upgrade; to better support anamorphic lenses.)
Logged
If you appreciate my blog posts help me by following on https://instagram.com/edmundronald

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13983
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: New Canon XC10
« Reply #22 on: April 24, 2015, 01:56:51 am »

According to the interview published on Dpreview, there is optical stabilization in 4K, but no digital stabilization.

Cheers,
Bernard

eronald

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6642
    • My gallery on Instagram
Re: New Canon XC10 ... and Panasonic DVX200, and combo-cams
« Reply #23 on: April 25, 2015, 03:58:05 am »

J,

 Even the EOSHD Canon fanboys are unhappy about the XC10 feature/price combination.  The fact that it is "worth" its price for institutionals won't make people gripe less if they are unhappy with what they bought.

 I agree with you 100% about using pro equipment, and about the FS7 being worth the price of admission. You cannot make me disagree with you here, however hard you try.

 I do have some issues about the FS7, but it is not about price, it is about the feature set; I think the output was specced a bit too closely, and the idea of a clip-on pay-me accessory for ProRes and Raw is idiotic, not because you need to pay, but because the added "I've paid" bulk and power requirement makes the camera harder to use. As you point out, just marketing the F5 or F55 cheaper would probably equally have addressed the market needs, at least on paper, but as you also point out we don't understand these things as we don't work in marketing, we only work in advertising :)

 My impression is  sound is more crucial to me than you -because I do interview and documentary- and sound is becoming an issue; I really wish there were a multichannel recorder with built in wireless reception available, or that the camera did it so you just clip a small short-range lav on *all* the people in a shoot and are ready to go for interview without setting up a zillion of connectors and batteries.

 The GH4 has one advantage over the FS7, for my semi-documentary format. It is really small and transportable; it can be shot handheld easily without a rig, and people not involved in the shoot don't realize what I'm doing. As we all know, there are two things a photographer needs - one is a camera that doesn't scare people, the other is a rig that impresses them :)

Edmund



This little Canon will make a decent high end pov camera.  Sort of a better gopro.   It's ok for drones also, though misses a few marks in no wireless zoom controller, but if your main A cams are Canon this will grade close to your principle footage.

To save time in post is worth the price of admission,  if you like the canon "look" which in my experience has a lot of color bleed, but that's just a personal view.

Though now that the gh4 is selling for half price at $1,299 it probably is a better solution for pov and drones with faster lenses.


Edmund,

I think one out of three of your posts mention price.  

I don't know how to explain this but in motion or still equipment every time you go up 20% in quality you "usually" go up about 100% in costs (usually more) and another 100% in effort.

I'm amazed Sony came out with the fs7 at it's price point.  In fact I think they should have marketed the F5, maybe included the prorezz board and stuck with that camera for a while, but I'm not a camera maker or marketer.

I do know if you took the Sony name off the F5 and put on Arri, nobody would notice, it's that robust and well designed.

The pro world seems to know the F5 because you rarely see them come up used and when they do it's rarely at a discount.

But back to price.   There is no free lunch.

Anyone can take a gh4, with a single lav and a medium sized fluid head and shoot some decent footage.  

All you need is a hand full of nd filters or a fader, though to make the camera professionally useable and produce 422, you need a decent recorder like odessey, a good cage like wooden camera.

Then that yagh interface for better sound shielding, a boat load of arms, a adapter for a power source, a bunch of goldline batteries, velcro and adapters.

At this stage you'll be into about 7 grand or more plus lenses, so there you go, you have your "cheap" FS7 for about a 0 dollar savings because you can buy an FS7 for 7 grand if you look around.

But price is relative.  5 or so years or so ago, I bought a 5d2,  I  tried to make a dslr a motion picture camera which it never was meant to be, spent about 5 grand and never used it because I bought two RED 1's and never looked back.

The R1's then were expensive (relatively speaking) but I've used them for 5 years and they've helped turn our studio a very good profit and continue to do so today and are not obsolete.

In fact if I put them in a case and never touched them again, they've earned there keep.

Every camera has a place, including this little Canon and the users that know how to get the best out of it will rave positively, the ones that don't, won't.

In my experience, the best way to go about pro level construction is to go pro (not the "gopro", but go professional).  Pro equipment is solid, heavy, meant to run under almost any conditions, is rarely innovative, but always useable and "lasts".



IMO

BC


« Last Edit: April 25, 2015, 04:00:11 am by eronald »
Logged
If you appreciate my blog posts help me by following on https://instagram.com/edmundronald

BJL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6600
Re: New Canon XC10 ... and Panasonic DVX200, and combo-cams
« Reply #24 on: April 25, 2015, 02:25:41 pm »

The combo-cams are not very ergonomic, zillions of settings, no built-in ND, AF inadequate for video, bad or noisy servo zoom etc etc.

So if you're going to do institutional work, without retakes, you really need something closer to a camcorder in ergonomics. And here the camera companies make you pay.
I don't know how to explain this but in motion or still equipment every time you go up 20% in quality you "usually" go up about 100% in costs (usually more) and another 100% in effort.
Even the EOSHD Canon fanboys are unhappy about the XC10 feature/price combination.  The fact that it is "worth" its price for institutionals won't make people gripe less if they are unhappy with what they bought.
These three quotes summarize what I was alluding to: obviously specialized video cameras like the Canon XC10 and Panasonic DVX200 are produced because they have advantages over options based on more "general purpose" tools like the GH4 (one that seems obvious to me is that the lens design needs for video are often quite different than those of stills oriented designs), but at some stage, meeting the the last 10% of one's needs come at a far large price than the first 90%, so predictably people will complain, but the reality is probably that there are vastly more customers who are satisfied by the "90% solution", so the economies of scale require the far fewer customers who need that next 10% to pay dearly for it -- so a lot of them will complain, but then pay up.

On specialized lenses: what happens if and when more lenses designed for professional-level video usage, like that in the DVX200 or XC10, are offered in standard ILC mirrorless system mounts?  Maybe a format like "APS-C" is oversized for many such use cases (requiring over-bulky lenses when 10x or more zoom is needed), but dedicated video lenses could be based around a crop to 4K, and so a video mode format around 1" (close to the old 16mm film format) combined with a higher definition still mode.
« Last Edit: April 25, 2015, 02:37:10 pm by BJL »
Logged

eronald

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6642
    • My gallery on Instagram
Re: New Canon XC10
« Reply #25 on: April 26, 2015, 08:24:01 pm »

J,

 I apologize - I didn't realize you were so heavily invested in sound.
 On the other hand, I have the issue of getting things done with a crew of two at most, of which one is the interviewer - me.
 I'd like to find a way of getting things done simply. Some sort of easily setup multichannel wireless system would really help. A bundle of wireless mic receivers and a recorder just means a ton of batteries and wires to watch and feed ...Using small cheap lav recorders rather than bothering with xmitter/recievers on everybody may be the way to go.

Edmund

Last Year we delivered 224 minutes of finished dialog video, about 1/2 scripted, the rest interview.

We own and carry 4 seinhauser single band radio lavs, and 2 dual band Audio-Technica radio lavs for a total of 8 people if necessary, though rarely go past 3 subjects.

Even with the sound equipment we almost always use our sound tech and his equipment who runs to a recorder and mixer and also to every camera, usually multi cam, 2 minimum.

The sound tech is almost a deal breaker when we work the bid, though year before last we did KL, Munich, Thailand and Moscow and used our sound equipment, and on a few scenes hired an assistant tech to set up our equipment, straight to camera.

We also record foley sound, or buy it if needed and we have a sound technician that does the final mix of score, foley, dialog from an OMF file.

We rarely worry about the cameras being noticeable, due to the fact that for commerce we have to release every person that is recognizable (even people walking through frame (which our producer is great at securing) and obviously permit and get location releases.

In direction the goal is to get the subjects comfortable, professional subjects or "real"  around a camera of any size but that's a long reply.

In regards to the FS7 I know little about it, the c300 II we'll test, same with the F5, though probably at the end of the day, we stay with our three REDs, though I'm not sure if I'd purchase another RED.

BTW:  Sony is not the only person to charge extra for prores.  I believe Arri charges a time based liscense to capture and deliver prores.

That's just the way it goes and if they can charge for it, they will.

The only issue with the F5 for prores is it limits the camera to 2k, but it does do full readout of the sensor.

The only issue with Sony is there all over the place and the strategy is hard to understand.   Remember the $100,000 cinealta can now be bought for $12,000 and the FS7 and F5 are so close in feature sets, it's hard to understand why one is double the price, but Sony is unique in the way they cover about everything.

IMO

BC
« Last Edit: April 26, 2015, 08:43:25 pm by eronald »
Logged
If you appreciate my blog posts help me by following on https://instagram.com/edmundronald

eronald

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6642
    • My gallery on Instagram
Re: New Canon XC10
« Reply #26 on: April 28, 2015, 12:33:17 am »

Everyone wants to get it done simply and by the way, entertaining, beautiful, original, unique, informative, worthy of the viewers time, respectful of the talent, at a cost effective price.  

Nothing new about that.

I don't think you have an equipment decision, sound camera, lights.  There are plenty of resources, equipment and workflows.

Respectfully, I think firstly you have a business model decision.

IMO


BC


My business model is not free, but so cheap you don't want to know.

There is a new trend here in Paris which is "we don't buy, we don't hire".

The sound guy on the music video explained to me that he usually gets up early and answers a web advert at 7 in the morning, a bit like construction crew used to do, then he's supposed to turn up with his equipment, and he is asked to work for free, but the "client" will pay an equipment-use fee for all his junk -lavs, wireless mikes, instrument mikes, multichannel recorder etc- of around $120 or so for all of it. I think they will also provide catering. For the customer, this is cheaper than rental, and the equipment walks in on its own legs, and packs itself up and goes home in the evening. Also explains why everyone is happy the rental fees are high.

Friend of mine owns a production company, which has several of its own RED cameras; from my discussions with him it seems on a lot of his projects mostly everybody gets to work for free. Of course he already owns all the equipment :(

According to my friend, the idea is that once people get well paid jobs they will hire their friends for real money, but my feeling is that  thanks to this race to the bottom all the survival-rate mouth-to-hand projects have turned into free projects.

Basically, unless you have a strong established brand, over here you're now competing with free. Maybe in the US it's different.

In web journalism, it is now roughly the same situation, as you probably know. Content is often supposed to arrive for free eg. Huffington Post. I used to be quite well paid as a web journalist -alas no more. Really, in my younger days people didn't expect to write for free.


Edmund

« Last Edit: April 28, 2015, 01:08:07 am by eronald »
Logged
If you appreciate my blog posts help me by following on https://instagram.com/edmundronald

Rhossydd

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3369
    • http://www.paulholman.com
Re: New Canon XC10
« Reply #27 on: April 28, 2015, 01:44:04 am »

Eronald,

What you've described isn't a 'business model' it's a hobby. Unviable to earn a living from and not a stepping stone into the industry either.
The whole TV/film industry isn't addressing the route into it properly and is just starting to have a serious skills shortage as a result of this sort of stupid cost saving.
Logged

Morgan_Moore

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2356
    • sammorganmoore.com
Re: New Canon XC10
« Reply #28 on: May 23, 2015, 05:37:20 pm »

Yo - long time no chime in.

Ive just bought a Gh4 and Yagh box.

I did consider the little canon but..

not really wide enough IMO

no XLR.

dont know about power input.

Simply the Gh4 has power input and XLR input. The short roll time was an issue... but the GH4 can do long roll times if you add a data recorder. Also it has an app that may or may not be able to trigger it.

Usually I hit long roll times because the camera has to be started before the event

S






Logged
Sam Morgan Moore Bristol UK
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up