Canon XA10 - anyone seen footage?
- Thread starter Michael Carter
- Start date
maranfilms
Veteran
I have both the xha1 and xha1-s, there's a definete diff with the lenses. Im not sure if the later is a totally different lens, but it sure feels diff. And to be honest, the xha1 has more sensativity than the xha1-s. The s is a little beefier, and seems a bit more robust. their both great though.
Im still not ready to upgrade to the newer models, im using a firestore on the xha1, and it's fine for what I do. Not to mention if your a narrative film maker, and you cant get a professional beautiful image from the A1, then I suggest looking at a new profession.
Im still not ready to upgrade to the newer models, im using a firestore on the xha1, and it's fine for what I do. Not to mention if your a narrative film maker, and you cant get a professional beautiful image from the A1, then I suggest looking at a new profession.
philiplipetz
Veteran
YouTube - Canon XA10 & XF105
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7KcSyveCTrA
Head to head with an XA10 and a XF105, with the XA in 24p progressive and the XF in interlaced 60i, a mode that reduces vertical information and sharpness.
XA set to consumer preferences with more sharpening and saturation. XF has more chroma detail, and less color banding. Look at the trees behind the moving football nets, the XF does not break the tree limbs up as does the XA. In the opening shot, the XA10 has hints of breakup on the supports of the net, and the XF105 does not. One is set up for post production with pros, and one set up for consumers. MPEG2 4:2:2 has more detail in areas that AVCHD renders as a single block of color. Pros will care, most consumers will not. Overall both cams please their respective audiences, but the XA falls below my threshold, but I m sure my family members would prefer the XA because is designed for viewing without grading, and they never see the details that are missed.
Does this mean that the old rule of thumb that AVCHD is twice as efficient as MPEG2 is not accurate? Does not seem so here.
To my eyes the XA10 is a consumer cam with bit rate limited XLRs added, and the XF105 is a pro cam. It better be; our team's XF100 has already been shipped to us. Almost as good as owning it myself.
Never forget that pixel peekers always see more of everything in the cam they use. To each parent their child is the most beautiful. Sure hope our new baby is beautiful.
BTW the Camcorderinfo.com, http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content/Canon-Vixia-HF-G10-Camcorder-Review.htm, tests of the HF G10, which is simply a XA10 without XLR, show that it and the XA10 are pretty good, even excellent, cams. In the lab, the HF G10 shows very well against all SLRs, but has less chroma detail than the 5d. So with the proper settings, dial back the saturation and sharpening, you can probably get great results from a XA10. The default settings show which audience Canon was aiming for with each cam.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7KcSyveCTrA
Head to head with an XA10 and a XF105, with the XA in 24p progressive and the XF in interlaced 60i, a mode that reduces vertical information and sharpness.
XA set to consumer preferences with more sharpening and saturation. XF has more chroma detail, and less color banding. Look at the trees behind the moving football nets, the XF does not break the tree limbs up as does the XA. In the opening shot, the XA10 has hints of breakup on the supports of the net, and the XF105 does not. One is set up for post production with pros, and one set up for consumers. MPEG2 4:2:2 has more detail in areas that AVCHD renders as a single block of color. Pros will care, most consumers will not. Overall both cams please their respective audiences, but the XA falls below my threshold, but I m sure my family members would prefer the XA because is designed for viewing without grading, and they never see the details that are missed.
Does this mean that the old rule of thumb that AVCHD is twice as efficient as MPEG2 is not accurate? Does not seem so here.
To my eyes the XA10 is a consumer cam with bit rate limited XLRs added, and the XF105 is a pro cam. It better be; our team's XF100 has already been shipped to us. Almost as good as owning it myself.
Never forget that pixel peekers always see more of everything in the cam they use. To each parent their child is the most beautiful. Sure hope our new baby is beautiful.
BTW the Camcorderinfo.com, http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content/Canon-Vixia-HF-G10-Camcorder-Review.htm, tests of the HF G10, which is simply a XA10 without XLR, show that it and the XA10 are pretty good, even excellent, cams. In the lab, the HF G10 shows very well against all SLRs, but has less chroma detail than the 5d. So with the proper settings, dial back the saturation and sharpening, you can probably get great results from a XA10. The default settings show which audience Canon was aiming for with each cam.
Last edited:
I believe they are. Over the years I've seen many people in denial for what smaller, cheaper cameras can do relative to larger, more expensive cameras of just a generation or two ago. Nobody likes to think their expensive equipment has been outperformed by smaller, 'consumer-type' equipment.
But hey, time marches on and it's good for everyone. The performance bar gets raised higher and higher each year and these benefits move down the price scale to the point where relatively cheap, small gear performs in ways that you just don't think are possible and actually weren't possible even a year or so ago. Yes, larger gear will invariably have the manual controls & ease of use that cheaper consumer equipment don't have, but pure picture quality...that's another story!
So welcome the changes, welcome such high performance in smaller, more affordable gear. What's bad?
Last edited:
I just finished shooting a field test with a nearly final unit. Here's the link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1Dp-iqydOg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1Dp-iqydOg