Canon new XF100 & XF105

thanks for the info, cowpunk (and previous posters). looking forward to seeing what this thing costs f'real. currently I am in the market for a solid b-cam and I am a militant Canon fan (which Canon products seem to create regularly). WISH I could afford the 300 or 305 :(
 
Does a camera with a single 1920*1080 sensor benefit from 4:2:2 recording?
I mean there are only 960*540 red and blue pixels. The color information could be recorded just as good in 4:2:0.
 
adamrahn said:
thanks for the info, cowpunk (and previous posters). looking forward to seeing what this thing costs f'real. currently I am in the market for a solid b-cam and I am a militant Canon fan (which Canon products seem to create regularly). WISH I could afford the 300 or 305 :(
Click to expand...

In the past I was also a militant Canon fan, but have become more pragmatic as reality and/or mis-steps collided with my idealistic beliefs. Inexcusable focusing problems of the EOS-1D, a seeming relaxation of quality in terms of their "L" lenses, and some positively ridiculous uses of photoshop in their marketing materials (see http://news.cnet.com/8301-13507_3-9822664-18.html) have made me treat their products as worthy of evaluation, but never again worthy of blind faith.

I looked hard at the price/performance of the XF cameras, and would have probably bought into the line, except for the fact that the Panasonic competition was a much better fit for my needs, so I bought into their line. To wit: the XF300/XF305 have a beautiful 20:1 zoom lens, which also has a large 82mm front element that weighs a good deal. I needed the widest wide angle setting, and could get by with much less on the telephoto end, thus the compromises of the HPX170/HMC150 were a triple bonus: wider wide angle, lighter unit, and much lower price. Secondly, I also needed a camera with superior low-light performance. Again, the HPX170/HMC150 offered a superior compromise, trading off absolute resolution performance for superior low-light performance. In the imaging case it was not a total slam-dunk--there was a tradeoff between two factors (resolution and low light), but again the Panasonic line clearly wins on price.

For me, the best things about the Canon were things that were low on my list. Would I have bought the Canon had it been half the price (i.e., between the HPX170 and the HMC150)? It would have been tempting. But at more than 2x the price of the HMC150, and with a lower objective spec on some of my key decision factors (other than price), it was not a contender.
 
It's amazing how tight lipped Canon is when designing a camera. Total opposite of Red. Anyways, this thing has only two good features that I see The fast lens, which is only 10x optical zoom, (I doubt it's constant aperature) and the 4,2:2 color space. If it were in the 2,500 dollar range, I would say it's a decent deal. but at 4k. Thats a joke. Looks like Pani will dominate the market in a few monthes with the Af100.

@michael, the xf300 will beat the hpx or hmc150 in the low light catagory, but I agree with you on the rest. I would have gone with pani as well.

I honestly think you would do better with an xha1's and a firestore. Than the xf100. It would be in the same ballpark money wise.
 
Last edited:
This is what I've been asking for for years. The HV20 imaging engine in a pro form factor. However I would have preferred it 2 years ago on tape for half the current list. I may well consider it As I'm happy with the image quality and 4:2:2 recording would be even better. Does anyone know if this codec can be loaded into Final Cut 6 on a G5. My system can handle mpeg2 just fine, and doesn't even know what to do with avchd. That would be a selling point for me.

If only IRV would mass produce his manual focus ring. Manual focus ring, beachtek or juiced link adaptor, some kind of top handle and a nice sunshade and you have the same thing on HV series. 4:2:2 recording would require a nano-flash which would take you to this price point, but if you already have everything else....

But it is interesting. I would like to ad a professional looking camera that would cut well with what I have, It would be interesting to see a comparison once this hits the streets.
 
dop16mm said:
This is what I've been asking for for years. The HV20 imaging engine in a pro form factor. However I would have preferred it 2 years ago on tape for half the current list. I may well consider it As I'm happy with the image quality and 4:2:2 recording would be even better. Does anyone know if this codec can be loaded into Final Cut 6 on a G5. My system can handle mpeg2 just fine, and doesn't even know what to do with avchd. That would be a selling point for me.
Click to expand...

If your system can handle mpeg2, you should do just fine with the XF codec. I use it on FCP 6 all the time, but I'm running it on a quad-core mac pro.
 
MichaelTiemann said:
I looked hard at the price/performance of the XF cameras, and would have probably bought into the line, except for the fact that the Panasonic competition was a much better fit for my needs, so I bought into their line. To wit: the XF300/XF305 have a beautiful 20:1 zoom lens, which also has a large 82mm front element that weighs a good deal. I needed the widest wide angle setting, and could get by with much less on the telephoto end, thus the compromises of the HPX170/HMC150 were a triple bonus: wider wide angle, lighter unit, and much lower price. Secondly, I also needed a camera with superior low-light performance. Again, the HPX170/HMC150 offered a superior compromise, trading off absolute resolution performance for superior low-light performance. In the imaging case it was not a total slam-dunk--there was a tradeoff between two factors (resolution and low light), but again the Panasonic line clearly wins on price.

For me, the best things about the Canon were things that were low on my list. Would I have bought the Canon had it been half the price (i.e., between the HPX170 and the HMC150)? It would have been tempting. But at more than 2x the price of the HMC150, and with a lower objective spec on some of my key decision factors (other than price), it was not a contender.
Click to expand...

While I completely understand your misgivings about the XF300/305 on price, I think your feature comparison is a bit misguided. The wide angle of the Canon is 29mm equivalent while the HPX170 & HMC150 is 28mm equivalent - not a whole lot of difference. As far as low-light performance, the XF series easily and handily beats those Panasonic contenders with far better noise control.

But I do agree, if you don't need the features that the XF series offers, there really is no point in paying for them. There are tons of options these days for every given budget.
 
maranfilms said:
It's amazing how tight lipped Canon is when designing a camera. Total opposite of Red. Anyways, this thing has only two good features that I see The fast lens, which is only 10x optical zoom, (I doubt it's constant aperature) and the 4,2:2 color space. If it were in the 2,500 dollar range, I would say it's a decent deal. but at 4k. Thats a joke. Looks like Pani will dominate the market in a few monthes with the Af100.

I honestly think you would do better with an xha1's and a firestore. Than the xf100. It would be in the same ballpark money wise.
Click to expand...
AF100 and XF100 are designed for two different markets. First of all a large sensor for run-n-gun work would be very impractical due to focus issues. The other issue is dealing with AVCHD on tight deadlines in FCP or Avid. It doesn't matter if you are using Firestore- it's still HDV, which is exactly half the quality of the new XF signal.
According to the email cowpunk presented the cameras will be 3 and 4 K, so 100 model will a a direct competition to HMC150.
 
g3nov3s3 said:
Does a camera with a single 1920*1080 sensor benefit from 4:2:2 recording?
I mean there are only 960*540 red and blue pixels. The color information could be recorded just as good in 4:2:0.
Click to expand...

Please correct me if I'm mistaken, but I think the quality will be superior as you have CMOS sensor -> Demosaic -> compression. The demosaic-ing algorithm will (hopefully) provide more color information than the compression can offer. So the 4:2:2 should capture more information than 4:2:0.

If I'm not mistaken, the RED ONE works off a single CMOS Bayer sensor and captures at 4:4:4. And for those with the GH13, the 4:2:2 MJPEG is superior to the 4:2:0 recording, both coming from a single Bayer pattern CMOS.
 
robertrogoz said:
it's funny how people who never submitted a single piece for broadcast talk about broadcast world....
Click to expand...
Maybe I can clear this up as I work in broadcasting, and have for several years at varying jobs and varying levels. I have either shot myself or seen broadcast everything from HDCAM to Digibeta, to HDV to MiniDV down to cell phone and security cam stringer footage. It all depends on the content, and application. Until you define what you think "broadcasting" means, and what your intentions are, or what any specific program or station's standards are for the content you intend to supply, the entire argument is pointless. There is no worldwide standard of what is accepted as "broadcast quality" regardless of what someone would like to tell you.

As to these fine cameras, as Barry pointed out more than once, we long ago passed "good enough". What's to be discussed here is comparative issues against other cameras in this range, and if you ask me I think they'll fit in nicely up against the Panny HMC150 and Sony AX-2000. Similar size, features, and price range. Comparing them to cameras like the AF100 or mythical Scarlet don't seem to fit.
 
snowleopard said:
Maybe I can clear this up as I work in broadcasting, and have for several years at varying jobs and varying levels. I have either shot myself or seen broadcast everything from HDCAM to Digibeta, to HDV to MiniDV down to cell phone and security cam stringer footage. It all depends on the content, and application. Until you define what you think "broadcasting" means, and what your intentions are, or what any specific program or station's standards are for the content you intend to supply, the entire argument is pointless. There is no worldwide standard of what is accepted as "broadcast quality" regardless of what someone would like to tell you.

As to these fine cameras, as Barry pointed out more than once, we long ago passed "good enough". What's to be discussed here is comparative issues against other cameras in this range, and if you ask me I think they'll fit in nicely up against the Panny HMC150 and Sony AX-2000. Similar size, features, and price range. Comparing them to cameras like the AF100 or mythical Scarlet don't seem to fit.
Click to expand...
As far as content is a king I agree 100%, since a whole story for KOMO4 in Seattle was shot on iPhone. However for some network television (like Discovery or Versus) there are very strict guidelines as far as equipment. Of course the most watched program- The Deadliest Catch was originally shot in HDV, which just proves the point, that content rules. But being a stringer yourself you probably know better than anyone what is preferred as far as standards- like P2 format and XDCAM at the moment. I don't know why is AF100 mentioned as broadcast cam- it could be, but I would imagine a big sensor would be more of a handicap then help in a news media environment. I think new XF100/105 will fill nicely a gap for high quality, light/portable camera for remote ENG/documentary work. Unless someone carried their equipment for a 5 or 10 thousand foot elevation gain per day, hung with a camera off the vertical 3000 ft face or filmed on your skis on endless 45 degree snow slope, posters will really have no idea what I am talking about, when I say "remote location". I am sure peole like Jimmy Surette (http://granitefilms.com/bio.php) or Tomas Ulrich know pretty well what it is like to be on such locations.
 
Last edited:
Actually, I'm not a stringer. I'm an employee. Local TV, national TV, regional, webcasting, news, sports, blah, blah, etc. etc. But you got my point.

When you mention Discovery or Versus you are kind of proving my point when I noted:

"Until you define...what specific program or station's standards are for the content you intend to supply..."

Hence, applying Discovery's standard (which they violated with Deadliest Catch, and some of Man Vs. Wild , Survivorman, I Shouldn't Be Alive, etc. as you pointed out) to "broadcasting" as a "standard" is a mistake too many people make.

Agree with all else you say on gear. You're completely right from my experience.

Sorry for the diversion in the discussion away from these fine cameras.
 
About The Deadliest Catch:

"The show uses about 50 Sony HDV cameras per season and most of these are lost or inoperable by the end of the run. Saltwater and ice are not good for high definition cameras and tiny viewing screens. Only cameras with LCD viewing screens are used because of safety issues -- it's tough to stay aware of your surroundings if you're constantly looking through a small viewfinder."

So, it was size, weight, ease of use with an LCD monitor, and cost. When you have two options and one option is to not do the show at all, image quality is not a critical parameter. That doesn't mean that a show shot without these restrictions would be acceptable with these cameras.
 
Most of Survivorman is shot with Z1 and HC3 cameras.

Man vs. Wild is shot with a variety. Varicam, HVX200, down to Sony A1 and Panny HD SD9. Main cameraman Simon Reay uses the Varicam as much as possible, but the HVX gets a lot of use.

Ice Road Truckers uses a lot of XD cam, but plenty of Z1, and even the A1 gets use.

Again, sorry for hijacking the thread. The point is I guess that these new Canon cameras would fit perfectly into shows like this, which are very popular.
 
cowpunk52 said:
From Canon's Technical Support Rep:

...Canon has made a corporate decision to allow the dealers to establish pricing. If we were to offer the Manufacturers Suggested Retail Price on our Canon USA web sites, this could be misleading to a potential consumer if a dealer is selling the product for less than or more than the Manufacturers
Suggested Retail Price. Ultimately, the dealers will establish the
prices based upon competitive marketing.
Click to expand...

That, if I may say so, is a bit of BS. First, take a look at Canon's professional camcorder website:

http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/camcorders/professional_camcorders

and note that every camera has a price listed except the 100 and the 105. Presumably they're just too new to have it.

Secondy, Canon hasn't had MSRP on their website for years. What you see there is MAP. Which is kind of pointless since they don't enforce MAP, and let places like B&H sell their gear direct to the customer for less than what than what they sell it to their lower-volume dealers (such as the one I work for). So, even by putting a MAP price that they don't enforce on their website, they're "misleading potential consumers."

Canon is far from the only company out there to do it, but that doesn't make it any less annoying.
 
Captain Pierce said:
That, if I may say so, is a bit of BS. First, take a look at Canon's professional camcorder website:

http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/camcorders/professional_camcorders

and note that every camera has a price listed except the 100 and the 105. Presumably they're just too new to have it.

Secondy, Canon hasn't had MSRP on their website for years. What you see there is MAP. Which is kind of pointless since they don't enforce MAP, and let places like B&H sell their gear direct to the customer for less than what than what they sell it to their lower-volume dealers (such as the one I work for). So, even by putting a MAP price that they don't enforce on their website, they're "misleading potential consumers."

Canon is far from the only company out there to do it, but that doesn't make it any less annoying.
Click to expand...

I think the website is right in line with what the tech help person was saying. Those prices listed on the website are not MSRP, they are the "estimated retail price." On each product page, the website does explicitly say "Prices and specifications subject to change without notice. Actual prices are determined by individual dealers and may vary."

They are not MAP because the Canon site lists the GL2 as $2799, yet the B&H website advertises the price at $1949. Likewise with the XHA1s, which is "estimated" on the Canon site at $3999, but is advertised on the B&H website at $3375. And so on and so forth.
 
Last edited:
Perhaps I should have said, "What you see [on Canon's website] is the price they identify in their dealer price sheet as MAP." Because the price sheet my company gets from Canon has an MAP price listed for each of those items, and they're exactly the same as the prices on the website. As I said, I don't know why they bother with this, when they obviously don't have an MAP policy, but the fact is they themselves call it MAP.
 
Hi everybody,
Download available on vimeo.
De nuit : xdcam HD422, 1080p25, 1/50, f1.8 +0/4.5db
Infrared : xdcam HD422, 1080p25, auto






Antonin Bachès
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top