Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 31 to 38 of 38
  1. Collapse Details
    #31
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by TheDingo View Post
    Hmmm... For me it sounds like it would be Sony's HD 10-bit LOG footage against Canon's 5-axis stabilizer.

    Sony might have the better looking HD image, but being able to grab handheld shots with a good stabilizer is hard to give up.
    Is Canon's stabilizer that much better than Sony's? I've never used Canon's method so I don't know much about it.

    Also has it been mentioned if the Canon does a full sensor readout in 60fps 4k mode? One advantage I just noticed when comparing the new Canon's to the Sony's is the new Sony models are 29mm on the wide end whereas the Canon's are 25.5mm, which is a substantial difference.
    Last edited by Reality Studio; 09-19-2017 at 08:52 PM.


    Reply With Quote
     

  2. Collapse Details
    #32
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,832
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by NorBro View Post
    I didn't see anything in the features for the Sonys having IS...do they?
    I can't imagine a $2000-$3,000 video camera being released in 2017 not having IS.


    Reply With Quote
     

  3. Collapse Details
    #33
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Long Island
    Posts
    2,911
    Default
    I don't use these kind of cameras, but now that I'm looking through the older ones, you're right; a lot of them do have it.


    Reply With Quote
     

  4. Collapse Details
    #34
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    5,957
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Bassman2003 View Post
    I can't imagine a $2000-$3,000 video camera being released in 2017 not having IS.
    But is Canon's 5-axis IS better than Sony's ?


    Reply With Quote
     

  5. Collapse Details
    #35
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,832
    Default
    No idea. This will have to come out in reviews but all the big three have great IS these days.


    Reply With Quote
     

  6. Collapse Details
    #36
    Senior Member iggy097's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Charleston, SC
    Posts
    151
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Jaime Valles View Post
    Indeed. I travel internationally for many video shoots, and the XF400 looks far easier to deal with customs than the C100.

    At this point I'm just waiting for reviews to come out to see how the high ISO performance looks. If it's at least on par with my C100 then I'm definitely getting a couple of these.
    I thought that too - although I did cancel my pre-order. As much as I want to love this new camera - I don't think the high ISO performance will be as good as my C100. I'm in the market for a 2nd camera now for my C100 - and I was going to order 2 of these XF400's, and sell my C100 mark i, but I think I may just keep the C100 and get a C100 ii.
    It's so hard to beat the battery lives of the C100 and after 2 years of heavy use on my C100, I just turn it on and it works, every time. So reliable.
    I'll wait to see how the battery life and the low light is of the XF400 - and maybe I'll go that route, but I'm guessing the battery gets around 60-90 min on charge - where my larger C100 batteries can get 4-5 hours of off and on use.


    Reply With Quote
     

  7. Collapse Details
    #37
    Senior Member Jaime Valles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    1,851
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by iggy097 View Post
    I thought that too - although I did cancel my pre-order. As much as I want to love this new camera - I don't think the high ISO performance will be as good as my C100. I'm in the market for a 2nd camera now for my C100 - and I was going to order 2 of these XF400's, and sell my C100 mark i, but I think I may just keep the C100 and get a C100 ii.
    It's so hard to beat the battery lives of the C100 and after 2 years of heavy use on my C100, I just turn it on and it works, every time. So reliable.
    I'll wait to see how the battery life and the low light is of the XF400 - and maybe I'll go that route, but I'm guessing the battery gets around 60-90 min on charge - where my larger C100 batteries can get 4-5 hours of off and on use.
    Yeah, battery life on the C100 is ridiculously good. I, too, can record for 4 hours continuously on a single battery. We'll see how the XF400 does on that front. But it's the high ISO that I'm most interested in comparing.
    Jaime VallÚs
    AJV Media
    Video, Photography & Graphic Design: www.ajvmedia.com


    Reply With Quote
     

  8. Collapse Details
    #38
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    544
    Default
    I have an XA30 which uses the same battery as the XF400 and 405. Battery life on the XA30 using BP-828 batteries, which is only an HD camera, will run about 2.5 hours. I suspect that the power consumption on the new cameras might be higher given that 4K requires significantly more processing power. I doubt battery life will be a strong point on the new XF cameras.


    Reply With Quote
     

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •