Canon's Pocket Cinema Camera ?
- Thread starter TheDingo
- Start date
That's what it looks like. It's too bad they are not putting a larger sensor in it.
cpreston
Veteran
As an XC15 owner, I am really looking forward to the possibility of an XC camera with an interchangeable lens mount. My dream would be an EF-M based mount with a speed booster style adapter for EF lenses. Even the current 1" sensor with a special speedbooster adapter for EF-S and EF lenses would be pretty great.
If I remember correctly, there were a couple of rumors about an EF-M mount speedbooster for EF lenses.
If I remember correctly, there were a couple of rumors about an EF-M mount speedbooster for EF lenses.
deltoidjohn
Veteran
Surely it would be much simpler for Canon to simply put an existing s35 sensor in with a standard EF (or even EF-M) mount? That's what people actually want. (Although I'm sure the reason they won't is to protect the Cx00 line)
It'll be interesting to see if this ever comes to fruition or if it's just one of the many patents that get filed and buried.
It'll be interesting to see if this ever comes to fruition or if it's just one of the many patents that get filed and buried.
puredrifting
Major Contributor
From the web page, "If this camera has Fuji X-H1 standard 5 axis IBIS and a Super 35mm sensor, with Canon colour and 400Mbit codec, as well as Dual Pixel AF and handles like a miniature C300 Mark II, but with option for an official Canon Speed Booster to make it full frame, then we are game on."
Yeah, good luck with all of those ;-)
Yeah, good luck with all of those ;-)
combatentropy
Veteran
Do camera companies submit every camera for a patent? I sure hope this isn't why Panasonic seems to be the only one who can make a DSLR with a flip-out screen.
AndreeOnline
Veteran
When Canon launched their XC-10 I was intrigued, but semi-disappointed by it on paper. Later on I got one for cheap, and using it for a bit I've come to believe it's one of the cameras in Canon's lineup that shows the most potential. All depending on Canon's willingness to let it be awesome or not. It's not the camera's fault for sure.
The commentary on the XC-10 was pretty extreme from the beginning, including 'The Camera Store's' review where they even broke the lens off purposefully with their bare hands for effect. The more someone believes that everyone else's opinion is the same as their own, the more silliness and ridicule do they allow themselves. At the end of the day it's the good ol' "this camera doesn't cover my use case at all, so let me tell y'all what I hate about it!!".
–Gee, thanks!
The XC line of cameras splits the difference between my iPhone X on a DJI Osmo and my 1DX mkII on a Ronin-S. So let's start by understanding that it has NOTHING to do with the C100-700 line, or something like Sony's FS5 and the like.
It's a personal travel/family camera that can be used in a large number of situations due to its robust codec, low weight and flexibility. At the same time it has a number of well documented shortcomings depending on what you think the camera ought to be.
I would love to have this in my golfbag on a one-hand gimbal when I'm playing the Ryder Cup course 'Le National—Albatros' in two weeks. Now I'll be using my iPhone on the Osmo and the footage will be crunchy for it.
What I see in these designs is a willingness on Canon's part to address at least one of the things that users believed held the XC-10 back the most: a fixed, mediocre lens. And instead of just providing a larger mount ill suited for the small sensor, they do seem to understand that a booster will be needed to pick up the slack between larger glass and this small sensor. I find this interesting.
Ironically, pleasing the crowd by offering an open lens mount is a mistake. A fixed lens is the correct choice here in order to keep the image circle optimised to the sensor and the weight down. Canon also showed how awesome the image stabilisations can be in the XC-10. But the lens effort needs to be so much better. It should start by trying to cover 22-135 mm and being T3 through that range. If it tuned out to be 24-105 mm T3, that would be fine (equivalence numbers, obviously).
All right, so the bad news is it's still too much of the same XC-10 from back then and the upgrade they're offering is not great if they keep the sensor size the same. It would be cool if Canon was just being sneaky with their drawings and the sensor turns out to be larger in the final design. Then I'd re-evaluate my observations above.
Another major shortcoming of my XC-10 is the low contrast/brightness of the LCD screen. Since the 5D mkII, I've been able to judge exposure by just looking at the back display, but the XC-10 isn't really up to that. Let's hope IQ on the display gets improved.
When I say I see potential in the camera I'm thinking about something like this that splits the size between the XC-10/15 and the C100. Beef this design up, slightly larger handle that could fit a LP-E19 (the 1DX mkII battery), or a mini version of it. Add a button to the handle and preferably another wheel for better operation. Open mount like in these designs, but with a S35 sensor behind it. 3-stage NDs. Raw photos in still mode. A nip here, a tuck there.
That's a camera I could be very happy with. So, horses for courses, I guess.
ADDED: yes, the AF needs to be upgraded to Dual Pixel AF too, but I think there was a solid rumour a while back that that would actually be the case already. That would imply a new sensor as well. So even if the size stays the same, there might still be some IQ improvements. Let's see.
The commentary on the XC-10 was pretty extreme from the beginning, including 'The Camera Store's' review where they even broke the lens off purposefully with their bare hands for effect. The more someone believes that everyone else's opinion is the same as their own, the more silliness and ridicule do they allow themselves. At the end of the day it's the good ol' "this camera doesn't cover my use case at all, so let me tell y'all what I hate about it!!".
–Gee, thanks!
The XC line of cameras splits the difference between my iPhone X on a DJI Osmo and my 1DX mkII on a Ronin-S. So let's start by understanding that it has NOTHING to do with the C100-700 line, or something like Sony's FS5 and the like.
It's a personal travel/family camera that can be used in a large number of situations due to its robust codec, low weight and flexibility. At the same time it has a number of well documented shortcomings depending on what you think the camera ought to be.
I would love to have this in my golfbag on a one-hand gimbal when I'm playing the Ryder Cup course 'Le National—Albatros' in two weeks. Now I'll be using my iPhone on the Osmo and the footage will be crunchy for it.
What I see in these designs is a willingness on Canon's part to address at least one of the things that users believed held the XC-10 back the most: a fixed, mediocre lens. And instead of just providing a larger mount ill suited for the small sensor, they do seem to understand that a booster will be needed to pick up the slack between larger glass and this small sensor. I find this interesting.
Ironically, pleasing the crowd by offering an open lens mount is a mistake. A fixed lens is the correct choice here in order to keep the image circle optimised to the sensor and the weight down. Canon also showed how awesome the image stabilisations can be in the XC-10. But the lens effort needs to be so much better. It should start by trying to cover 22-135 mm and being T3 through that range. If it tuned out to be 24-105 mm T3, that would be fine (equivalence numbers, obviously).
All right, so the bad news is it's still too much of the same XC-10 from back then and the upgrade they're offering is not great if they keep the sensor size the same. It would be cool if Canon was just being sneaky with their drawings and the sensor turns out to be larger in the final design. Then I'd re-evaluate my observations above.
Another major shortcoming of my XC-10 is the low contrast/brightness of the LCD screen. Since the 5D mkII, I've been able to judge exposure by just looking at the back display, but the XC-10 isn't really up to that. Let's hope IQ on the display gets improved.
When I say I see potential in the camera I'm thinking about something like this that splits the size between the XC-10/15 and the C100. Beef this design up, slightly larger handle that could fit a LP-E19 (the 1DX mkII battery), or a mini version of it. Add a button to the handle and preferably another wheel for better operation. Open mount like in these designs, but with a S35 sensor behind it. 3-stage NDs. Raw photos in still mode. A nip here, a tuck there.
That's a camera I could be very happy with. So, horses for courses, I guess.
ADDED: yes, the AF needs to be upgraded to Dual Pixel AF too, but I think there was a solid rumour a while back that that would actually be the case already. That would imply a new sensor as well. So even if the size stays the same, there might still be some IQ improvements. Let's see.
Last edited:
Samuel H
Major Contributor
If they make two very fast primes for this camera (a 9mm f/1.05 and a 32mm f/1.05, which would give me the FoV and DoF of a 24mm f/2.8 and 85mm f/2.8 on full frame), include internal raw video, and sell the whole bundle for <$1500, then it might be interesting. But they're probably going to sell the body for twice that, and try to sell speedboosters so you buy full-frame L primes. Which, right now, means I'm getting a pocket 4k instead.
cpreston
Veteran
There are quite a few reasons why I find the original XC15 very useful and why it has become one of my primary tools that I use on my corporate and doc shoots for b-roll. There are even reasons having an interchangeable lens might solve one of the issues I have with the camera. Andree does a pretty good job laying out the pros and cons. You might even be able to imagine why having a speedbooster type mount might be useful if you thought about it.
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
If one could have a stock zoom like the xc10 and pull it off it would be great.
I don't own an xc10 but like it - maybe I just like the handgrip vs a a7 or gh4 which just feel wrong.
I don't own an xc10 but like it - maybe I just like the handgrip vs a a7 or gh4 which just feel wrong.
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
Canon have M mount? Or thur could make a dedicated zoom?
dustylense
Veteran
I wouldn't knock the Xc10 or XC15 unless you've actually used one. It's a fantastic B-roll or steal a shot camera. The codec is robust. Great Canon color. Actually, I have an XC10 in mint condition for sale on the cheap if anyone is interested. Seriously a great B-roll camera.