Canon's Pocket Cinema Camera ?

optitek said:
Well I've been on the tech side of motion picture for over 30 years. I'm rarely wrong these days haha....
I also understand you are trying to sell your camera and making sure it is presented in the best possible manner. I don't have a horse in this race so no pressure really...:beer:
Click to expand...

What? For one, I have two of them. 2nd, I don't need two of them anymore. 3rd..Maybe you should ask what I'm asking for the camera. Might shock ya! 4th.. I'm fairly confident 9/10 people in on DVXuser understand what the XC10 is about and has to offer them on a personal and professional level (you're the 10th in that list). 5th..No right minded camera geek solely judges a camera based on "paper specs", and I don't give a duck about how long you or anyone has been in the "Motion imagery" business, either behind the camera or whatever you claim to be. I didn't come in here to praise the camera so I can sell a camera. If someone wants to buy a 2nd camera that is sitting around, I have one. I came in here to talk about an underrated camera that has served me pretty well on many projects. You seem to walk into threads and bash cameras that you personally have NEVER used. Think about that. You're talking game when you haven't even played the game. SMH....
 
There is a good reason for the specs disclosure, especially in the electronic imaging realm. You need to understand these specs in order to save time and money on testing cameras that are completely unsuitable for your needs. I understand these specs and am trying to share this understanding here. But yes, go ahead and test every single camera on the market that seems to fit the bill. Your choice really...
 
optitek said:
The frustrated engineer in me I guess... If we combined the form factor of the XC10/15 with some additions like a removable handle, removable VF and a focus wheel AF override, combine that with the BMPCC4K sensor with the RAW and low light option, the MFT mount, that would make a really good camera that may take the industry to the next level...
How is that for wishful thinking? ;-)
Click to expand...

I agree.
 
optitek said:
The frustrated engineer in me I guess...
Click to expand...

Yes, but frustrated engineer sounds like a great starting point for something constructive—as long as the engineer part comes out on top!

I'm saying something similar to what you're suggesting here in my post #12. We seem to agree that the companies able to deliver what we want aren't always interested in doing just that.

That's why I think BMD deserves a bit of special consideration and kindness. It's easy to play the cynic and say that all companies are for profit and whatever BMD is doing, it's just because that works well for them in order to make money. But in my mind, looking at what they're doing in hardware and software, I find it very difficult to see that they're playing the long play, trying to rip off customers. I think Grant and BMD genuinely want to create something great for their customers, but that they're flying a bit at the seat of their pants and trying to learn as they go.

Canon has resources and know-how, but they're moving at a glacial pace and I'm not sure they're going in the right direction.

My problem is that I've upgraded my personal camera as far as it goes: it used to be a 1Dc and now it's 1Dx mkII. It doesn't matter if I throw money at the problem—there is no other camera out there that is an upgrade over the 1Dx mkII, no matter the price. That should give Canon pause.
 
Working on the constructive part as we speak. I consider these short comings an opportunity. It's a bit naive thinking that BMD is not in it for profit. They are however a new comer with a bit of tarnished reputation -past QC and maybe some unfulfilled promises, shipping delays issues - we should agree on that I hope. That new comer status and the past mistakes force them to thread lightly, especially price wise. They traditionally do throw a lot of money into advertising so that part is here to stay. That price point sensitivity of their product most likely limits their engineering /design resources and potential for the final product. I understand all that. But I don't agree with that.
I think it's a wrong strategy, albeit a financially safe one, at least in the short term. Or, being a new comer they may lack the competence and the market understanding. Most likely it's a combination of both- engineering prudence and the lack of market understanding. Making the best product possible is IMO the best strategy in their case. It is my opinion, but not my money....
 
optitek said:
It's a bit naive thinking that BMD is not in it for profit.
Click to expand...

Yes, reading my post I think I did a poor job of framing my thoughts. Of course they're in it for the money—as all companies are. I didn't mean to imply anything else. But even so, among all companies there are a lot of different approaches to making money. Some companies are more ethical than others, some are aggressive and some are cautious.

What I'm more interested in is asking myself: is this company making the best product for their customer that they can? It was more along those lines I was thinking: I don't think BMD is trying to short change their customers. For the price they are demanding, across many of their products, the customer gets great value in my mind.

But yes, as I wrote in another thread: I would have liked a BMDPCC 4K for $4995 better, assuming the increase in price was reflected in build and choice of components.
 
optitek said:
The frustrated engineer in me I guess... If we combined the form factor of the XC10/15 with some additions like a removable handle, removable VF and a focus wheel AF override, combine that with the BMPCC4K sensor with the RAW and low light option, the MFT mount, that would make a really good camera that may take the industry to the next level...
How is that for wishful thinking? ;-)
Click to expand...

Personally, I would prefer an S35 sensor over an m4/3, but then you basically described the C200.
 
Reel it in, people. Parts of this thread have moved from helpful discussion to useless pissing match. One and only warning.
 
My XC-10 thoughts

My XC-10 thoughts

optitek said:
C200 is at least twice the size, with unsightly LCD screen, fixed EF mount, double/quadruple the price, so not really....oh yes, no focus wheel either.
Click to expand...

I acquired the very first US customer C300 back in January 2012 through an arrangement with Canon USA that I won't get into here (paid full price, but got it early). That camera served me incredibly well. Picked up a 10 hour C300 MK II at a ridiculous discount a year ago, and I love it - but the kind of worldwide work I do it's a bit much to haul around outside when shooting exterior doc footage in Jordan when it's 110 degrees. Enter the XC10. Incredible codec options. Same color science as the MK II... though not quite the same it is still a bit of a revelation - I think I paid $1500 for it year ago. It has served me so well. I wouldn't change a thing on that camera.
 
Last edited:
optitek said:
C200 is at least twice the size, with unsightly LCD screen, fixed EF mount, double/quadruple the price, so not really....oh yes, no focus wheel either.
Click to expand...
Sorry you feel that way.....the C200 is selling a ton.

Jim Martin
CinemaWorks
 
I agree with optitek that cameras are still clunkier than they should be.

1496234734000_IMG_807063_large.jpg

Something like the VG900 is more my ideal

194e283f389ed435dcbda05e2f0c336f.jpg

the C200 is selling a ton
Click to expand...

Yeah, I would not be surprised. It's one of the least bad. So basically I'm saying that most camera bodies are awful, which sounds arrogant. But I'm just basing it off what I've seen in the past. So maybe it's more like a question, to the camera companies: Why can't you make more of them like that?
 
We've been shooting a good part of our documentary with the Canon XF-405. If you like the form factor if the VG900, the 405 has Canon WDR color science and shoots 4K (UHD) 60P and is small and light. The only bad part of it ergonomically is the battery removes from the bottom, meaning it will interfere with longer length tripod plates. But other than that, we are loving the ergonomics. It's essentially the C200s .MP4 section in a much smaller form factor

.XF405.jpg
 
Yeah, exactly. The Canon XF-405 is another fine example. Why they don't make more like that but with an interchangeable lens mount I don't know.
 
I personally think that the camcorder/flip out screen form factor is old and spent. Not to mention everyone equals it to consumer products. This pocket cam form factor is the next gen cameras. I just can't figure out why it's not available yet. Real disruptive, industrial looking pretty and functional, flexible design would surely give them an edge over the competition, if nothing else by it's looks...
 
I dont really agree about 'handy cam' being dead.

What are the fundamentals?
Stability
Ability to manipulate controls

Stability ideally three points of contact
two hands and face or shoulder

Manipulation, one hand on lens.

The pocket form does not allow this as one cannot get a third point of contact and still see the screen.

The XC10 (with viewer) does allow this, which is why it is so nice.

Stable camera examples..
(stills) DSLR, eye in finder, hands on camera - stable three points of contact
Rollie/Hasselblad, camera on tummy, two hands on camera - stable three points of contact
motion DSLR with chimeny finder eye in finder, hands on camera - stable three points of contact - but CofM creeping forward
XC10 angled up finder moves the mass back - better than mDSLR with chimney finder
Shoulder cams, of course.
 
Last edited:
morgan_moore said:
I dont really agree about 'handy cam' being dead.

What are the fundamentals?
Stability
Ability to manipulate controls

Stability ideally three points of contact
two hands and face or shoulder

Manipulation, one hand on lens.

The pocket form does not allow this as one cannot get a third point of contact and still see the screen.

The XC10 (with viewer) does allow this, which is why it is so nice.

Stable camera examples..
(stills) DSLR, eye in finder, hands on camera - stable three points of contact
Rollie/Hasselblad, camera on tummy, two hands on camera - stable three points of contact
motion DSLR with chimeny finder eye in finder, hands on camera - stable three points of contact - but CofM creeping forward
XC10 angled up finder moves the mass back - better than mDSLR with chimney finder
Shoulder cams, of course.
Click to expand...

Three points of contact. This is exactly how we've been shooting off of rolling, pitching boats in 15' swells with the XF-405, right hand on handle, left hand cradles the bottom of the camera and shove the whole thing into your shoulder. Right hand can start and stop record and feather the servo zoom, left hand can handle manual focus and ride iris. We just don't have the budget to rent the Tyler Mount Mini Gyro or the Perfect Horizon so by getting a small chase boat, piloted by an experienced racer, we are getting very usable shots by simply getting in close to the racers, perhaps 10-20' away, which we didn't think we'd be able to do. The surging and rolling of our chase boat makes it a challenge to get rock steady shots, but the way we are cutting each race, it's really all about highlights so we are good. In a way, I like the handheld better than the Tyler Mount would give us, handheld definitely has more energy albeit it's not nearly as smooth. But for how we'll edit it, cutting between drone and Go Pros on the boats, three points of contact is working.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top