Hi all. New to this forum. I have a really tough choice to make. Whatever I buy will be mainly for video. Anybody here have any input on the new Canon XA20 and how it matches with the GH3 as far as video quality? I know they are two different types (DSLR and camcorder). However, I am sure many of you bought the GH3 for the video quality. Also, just wondering if anybody here that is close to buying or have bought recently considered a camcorder like XA10 or XA25. I am very new to the world of videography. Just hoping to get a couple of pros and cons with each. Appreciate any advice here.
GH3 Canon XA20 vs GH3
- Thread starter h777
- Start date
Per Lichtman
Well-known member
@h777 This is based on analysis of footage and specifications of the new products and past experience with earlier Panasonic and Canon products, not personal experience with the new cameras (it not being June yet, and all).
- The XA20/25 ("XA2x" from now on) offer an integrated, compact servo zoom that covers a wider range than any native servo zoom for M43 (and the non-native B4 options adapted to m43 are much larger and often still less than 20x).
- The XA2x is faster at the wide end than the native M43 zooms.
- The GH3 offers a higher bitrate internal codec (which may improve further if successfully hacked based on the earlier results with hacking the GH2 and GH3). The XA25 offers a more robust external recording option than the GH3.
- The GH3 is physically smaller and lighter. The XA2x should (and most likely will) have an easier time dealing with vibrations/shake.
- The sensor size on the GH3 is much larger than that on XA2x so if you use the same "equivalent focal length" on both at the same aperture, the depth of field will be noticeably shallower on the GH3. Which is better depends in part on whether you favor deep DOF or shallow DOF.
Those are a few of the considerations.
- The XA20/25 ("XA2x" from now on) offer an integrated, compact servo zoom that covers a wider range than any native servo zoom for M43 (and the non-native B4 options adapted to m43 are much larger and often still less than 20x).
- The XA2x is faster at the wide end than the native M43 zooms.
- The GH3 offers a higher bitrate internal codec (which may improve further if successfully hacked based on the earlier results with hacking the GH2 and GH3). The XA25 offers a more robust external recording option than the GH3.
- The GH3 is physically smaller and lighter. The XA2x should (and most likely will) have an easier time dealing with vibrations/shake.
- The sensor size on the GH3 is much larger than that on XA2x so if you use the same "equivalent focal length" on both at the same aperture, the depth of field will be noticeably shallower on the GH3. Which is better depends in part on whether you favor deep DOF or shallow DOF.
Those are a few of the considerations.
It's a sort of microwave or conventional oven choice. You'll be very happy with either and more happy with both. The XA2x (when it arrives) you just grab and start shooting video. No set ups, no lens changes, only thing you need to carry. But if you also want quality stills...
Per Lichtman
Well-known member
@h777 Also I would add that you might want to start by thinking about how much you are worried about image quality and flexibility vs setup time and workflow.
I was taking to a travel show director who had used both the earlier Canon HF-G10 (which of course was the little brother of the XA10) and the Panasonic GH2 and they mentioned that for their work it was much faster to use the Canon. Based on my own experience with other Canon camcorders, I would say that makes sense.
I would go for the GH3 over XA2X if I wanted to have maximum control over the image, lots of lens choices, great image quality and didn't mind spending some time setting up (especially for narrative shooting). If was mainly shooting events or documentaries, I might opt for the speed of working with the Canon. Both cameras could be used for both applications but each is a bit better suited to one than the other.
I haven't discussed the stills side since you would be using it mainly for video, but of course the GH3 has a massive advantage in that area.
I was taking to a travel show director who had used both the earlier Canon HF-G10 (which of course was the little brother of the XA10) and the Panasonic GH2 and they mentioned that for their work it was much faster to use the Canon. Based on my own experience with other Canon camcorders, I would say that makes sense.
I would go for the GH3 over XA2X if I wanted to have maximum control over the image, lots of lens choices, great image quality and didn't mind spending some time setting up (especially for narrative shooting). If was mainly shooting events or documentaries, I might opt for the speed of working with the Canon. Both cameras could be used for both applications but each is a bit better suited to one than the other.
I haven't discussed the stills side since you would be using it mainly for video, but of course the GH3 has a massive advantage in that area.
AndersonSoundRecording
Member
Good topic for me - I am facing a similar choice. Curious what the difference in low light performance might be - I need to shoot events and good quality in low light is definitely at the top of my list.
Would the larger sensor of the GH3 be the better way to go?
Would the larger sensor of the GH3 be the better way to go?
Believe it or not, those Canon CMOS "pro" camcorder sensors are pretty darn good in low light. I'd say if you're planning to do events, you'd be better off with the XA20. The GH3 is fabulous if you have the time to set up a shot, but in a rapidly changing live environment it (as with any other DSLR-style camera) can be a real headache.
philiplipetz
Veteran
If you really want a low light camera get a Canon C100 at twice the price. We will not know how good the XA20 until it is released. it's specs say minium illumination of 1.2 LUX versus 1.5 LUX for the XA10, however the key is not the minimum light to produce a image but the minimum for a gradable usable image. for the XA that was more than 12 LUX, look at Slashcam.com tests. We will see.
Per Lichtman
Well-known member
@philliplipetz
But if you start getting up to the price of c100, you have to compare it to the 1D X. Now, I haven't see any lowlight comparisons between the 1D X and C100 but the 1D C seems really outperform it, so it's possible the 1D X might also (but I would check).
http://www.eoshd.com/content/10179/the-canon-1d-c-review
On the stills side, the high ISO performance of the 1DX and 1DC are at the very top alongside the Nikon D4 and D3s.
But if you start getting up to the price of c100, you have to compare it to the 1D X. Now, I haven't see any lowlight comparisons between the 1D X and C100 but the 1D C seems really outperform it, so it's possible the 1D X might also (but I would check).
http://www.eoshd.com/content/10179/the-canon-1d-c-review
On the stills side, the high ISO performance of the 1DX and 1DC are at the very top alongside the Nikon D4 and D3s.
philiplipetz
Veteran
C100 is actually a better low light cam if you look at total IQ. Wish the GH2/3 was good low light cam at extremely high ISOs.
Oh, come on, seriously. Now we're comparing a $6000 Super35mm-sensor camera's low light sensitivity to a $1300 GH3? Of course there's going to be a difference (I sure hope!).
Per Lichtman
Well-known member
Could you link to an example of the advantage in "total IQ"? I haven't seen a comparison that comes out that way but am always curious to see what I'm missing. 
The GH2 and GH3 perform remarkably well considering the pixel pitch (especially on the video side compared to earlier generation cameras) but it's a lot easier to get good high ISO performance when you increase the pixel pitch.
The GH2 and GH3 perform remarkably well considering the pixel pitch (especially on the video side compared to earlier generation cameras) but it's a lot easier to get good high ISO performance when you increase the pixel pitch.
philiplipetz
Veteran
Not comparing them, just hoped for better low light in the GH3. That was rumored to be a big improvement, but it was not to be.
Last edited:
Per Lichtman
Well-known member
@philiplipetz Better lowlight would have been nice of course, so I understand.
Thomas Smet
Veteran
Being able to use ISO at 1600 for similar noise as ISO 800 on the GH2 is a pretty decent improvement on low light in my opinion. These are M4/3 sensors. They can only get so much better between different generations. Just how much improvement can one expect between similar technologies?
Per Lichtman
Well-known member
@Thomas Smet That may be true in video mode (I haven't analyzed the noise performance extensively there yet because I have opted to hold off on getting a GH3) but on the stills side the two look quite similar at the same ISO when shooting RAW. The DPReview studio tool gives an example.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/stu...acr&x=0.41351606805293006&y=0.370078740157480
But certainly, increasing the sensor size makes a much bigger difference. I mean, for RAW stills anything from a Canon 6D or Nikon D600 to a Canon 1D X/1D C or Nikon D4 (or D3s) will improve high ISO performance by 2-stops or more over a GH3. And the 6D and D600 can be found for under $2,000 so I can understand the desire for better ISO performance in the price bracket (even if the sensor size makes it tricky).
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/stu...acr&x=0.41351606805293006&y=0.370078740157480
But certainly, increasing the sensor size makes a much bigger difference. I mean, for RAW stills anything from a Canon 6D or Nikon D600 to a Canon 1D X/1D C or Nikon D4 (or D3s) will improve high ISO performance by 2-stops or more over a GH3. And the 6D and D600 can be found for under $2,000 so I can understand the desire for better ISO performance in the price bracket (even if the sensor size makes it tricky).