GH4 GH4 vs Canon XC10

R

rc444

Well-known member
I just wanted to know if anyone has used both the GH4 and the new Canon XC10 and if so, how do the two of them compare against each other image-wise? The XC10 has a much higher bitrate of 305 mbps compared to the GH4 and is 4:2:2 8 bit UHD with 1" sensor, though it does come with a fixed lens. Meanwhile, the GH4 films in both C4K and UHD in 4:2:0 color space internally. Interesting to see what people think of both cameras.
 
I used booth cameras for jobs and I can easily say that the XC10 is picture wise far superiour to the GH4. As you said the XF-AVC is recorded in 305mbit 4:2:2 which help reducing compression artifacts (moscito noise). The signal processing is also better on the XC10, there is very minor moire and the 8-bit codec on the XC10 has less banding problems compared to the GH4. Body wise the XC10 is also nicer to handly for my personal preference - the handrip is rotatable, the functions which are not on direct buttons are easy accessable via quick menu. Regarding the fixed lens: It works very nice, especially the stabilizer is a real wonder and if you don't mind having bigger apertures, but the lens is a real 4K lens and delivers crisp images. Post production wise the XF-AVC codec is much nicer to edit than the h264 4K codec from the GH4. For example in Premiere CC XF-AVC 4K clips play better than GH4 4K h264 clips. The GH4 4K clips need a higher spec editing machine. I've written an extensive Canon XC10 review on my website for more information at http://gadgetflux.net/canon-xc10-review/ .
 
It really boils down to what the OP wants or plans to shoot. I own both cameras and each camera has something pro and con against each other. While Steve links to The Camera Store which destroys the XC10, those are just opinions. I've filmed lots of good looking stuff on the XC10. I've filmed lots of good looking stuff on the Gh4. Both cameras have also been the camera not to use on certain things. But the XC10 is capable of delivering a very nice image in a pretty solid codec. It's just not a low light street camera.

If price for performance is a attribute, I would say the Gh4 easily wins in that regard.

But like I said/asked. What do you intend to shoot mostly with either of the cameras?

Now, if Canon made an XC20 while keeping the sensor, but made the body just a bit bigger and had a 24-200 constant 2.8 lens, the discussion would be over. Canon needs to look at the RX10II and figure out how to mount a comparable lens to the XC10.

So if someone approached me and said I had to leave either the Gh4 or the XC10 behind, I would probably keep the Gh4. I just think it possesses more ability to capture the image in varying conditions.

Maybe my advice is to pick up a used Gh4 with 12-35 Lumix, shoot for a few months and hope the Gh5 is a stellar release.

Honestly, right now is probably the worst time to think about a camera purchase with 2016 coming. Maybe try and rent each camera and see which works for you and your style.
 
I haven't used the GH4, but I did buy the Canon XC10 earlier this year... and returned it a week later. It's not terrible. There are some really nice things, but there are some equally annoying things. I was looking to upgrade from a 5D Mark ii, so all my comments are driven by comparing the XC10 to the 5Dii.

Pros: It's super compact; great for discreet shooting. 4:2:2 internal which is wonderful for green screen work. Nice ergonomics with the hand grip, and the IS lens is OK. Having a run-and-gun camera was nice after working with a rigged up 5D. The XC10 has face-follow autofocus, though it's too slow IMO.

Cons: The hand grip, while nice, is too small! You always have one finger hunting for a place to rest (without resting on a button). The headphone jack is IN the hand grip (?!). While the lens does not have constant aperture, it is parfocal. If you zoom in on a subject, it stays in focus. There is a single built-in ND filter, and it isn't strong enough for shooting outdoors. I had to turn it on and really close up my aperture in order to get good exposure. And lastly, the viewfinder was annoying. Basically, I didn't use the hard, plastic loupe because it was uncomfortable and covered up the touch screen.

I ended up going with a C100 and love it - a solo shooter's dream. While there's no 4K and it's not super compact, I absolutely love all the controls & monitors. Today if I were to get a 4K camera, I'd take a long hard look at the Sony RX10 ii.
 
What do you intend to shoot mostly with either of the cameras?

I'm looking to shoot corporate videos, documentaries and short films.

dustylense said:
It really boils down to what the OP wants or plans to shoot. I own both cameras and each camera has something pro and con against each other. While Steve links to The Camera Store which destroys the XC10, those are just opinions. I've filmed lots of good looking stuff on the XC10. I've filmed lots of good looking stuff on the Gh4. Both cameras have also been the camera not to use on certain things. But the XC10 is capable of delivering a very nice image in a pretty solid codec. It's just not a low light street camera.

If price for performance is a attribute, I would say the Gh4 easily wins in that regard.

But like I said/asked. What do you intend to shoot mostly with either of the cameras?

Now, if Canon made an XC20 while keeping the sensor, but made the body just a bit bigger and had a 24-200 constant 2.8 lens, the discussion would be over. Canon needs to look at the RX10II and figure out how to mount a comparable lens to the XC10.

So if someone approached me and said I had to leave either the Gh4 or the XC10 behind, I would probably keep the Gh4. I just think it possesses more ability to capture the image in varying conditions.

Maybe my advice is to pick up a used Gh4 with 12-35 Lumix, shoot for a few months and hope the Gh5 is a stellar release.

Honestly, right now is probably the worst time to think about a camera purchase with 2016 coming. Maybe try and rent each camera and see which works for you and your style.
Click to expand...
 
xc10 is the worst thing I have ever seen/laid hands on, the lens is awful, the design is awful, its soft, the only thing it has going for it is canon colours, the XC10 is Canons christmas cracker joke, as in if you buy it the jokes on you and you just wasted money on something that fails in almost every department, id rather shoot on Canon 600D than that pile of crap.
 
Filmautre said:
xc10 is the worst thing I have ever seen/laid hands on, the lens is awful, the design is awful, its soft, the only thing it has going for it is canon colours, the XC10 is Canons christmas cracker joke, as in if you buy it the jokes on you and you just wasted money on something that fails in almost every department, id rather shoot on Canon 600D than that pile of crap.
Click to expand...

This kinda made me laugh. I have never used the XC10...but your description of it is pretty hilarious.
 
Filmautre said:
the XC10 is Canons christmas cracker joke, as in if you buy it the jokes on you and you just wasted money on something that fails in almost every department.
Click to expand...

Epic Fail!!!
Ha ha ha LOL!!! This is just sooo hilarious!!
The christmas cracker analogy is just too funny for words!!!
 
Early reviewers of the Canon XC10 missed the fact that this camera produces nice 16mm film-like images, has a real-4K parfocal lens with image stabilization, Log mode, robust codec, 1 stop inbuilt ND filter, and it is very easy to use. But above all, it produces nice clean images with film-like rendering of the highlights. The effect of this early reviews was an immediate lack of interest on the camera. Some even chose it as the worst camera of 2015.

We should be more careful with some reviewers out there, people that know some things about the technical stuff, but just lack the basic good taste to judge the images properly (they seem to love Sony's persistent TV/VIDEO look across their camera lineage).

Andrew Reid, though a little bit too late, makes some interesting observation in a recent post:

http://www.eoshd.com/2016/06/canon-xc10-versus-sony-rx10-iii-the-canon-is-underrated/
 
Not sure what the video above has to do with 16mm film... Bad looking footage with a LUT slapped on it. To me personally, the only digital camera that really resembles 16mm film is Digital Bolex (and maybe BMCC/BMPC/BMMCC to some extent). This one is far, far from it.
I agree xc10 has some interesting features (good codec) but the current price is ridiculous for what it offers.
 
Apart from the robust codec's, C-LOG and of course canon colour - there really isn't anything about the XC10 that would make me jump at one.
The IBIS is only available to the HD mode too.

Its going to be one of those cameras, that once its hits a low price point it will gain traction, but at its current price, its just silly.
 
I have a canon C100 and XC10. Canon XC10 is a very good camera! Images similar to C100, ergonomics is very convenient. Do not read stupid comments - write them those who are not familiar with XC10! The camera has a lot of advantages! On the diaphragm wheel can be assigned to more exposure and ISO. A touch buttons assigned there for 15 pieces! Read the instructions, or hold the camera in your hands, and you will understand that the super camera!
 
It seems that those who have and use the XC10 like it a lot. It is expensive though.
But I really wonder whether the XC10 or the GH4 is better in low light in both HD and 4K. The same goes for auto and manual focussing. Has any one used the both?
 
I wrote a comment criticizing the XC10 earlier in this thread last December. At the time I was looking for a new A-cam, and the XC10 was too limiting. Fast forward 6 months and I now own an XC10, and as a B-cam, I positively love it! 422 color, great IS, and being able to tap anything on the screen for follow focus is great. It has face detection, and if multiple people are on camera, just tap who you'd like to be in focus and it will track them. Best of all, it's small. I see myself taking this with me most places. Used ones in great condition regularly appear on B&H for $1600-$1700. This was much easier for me to stomach than $2500 for a new one last year.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top