Canon XF100 TEST vs. Sony EX1, Sony Z5, and Canon 550D

http://translate.google.com/transla...ony-f3_201012082392/&sl=fr&tl=en&hl=&ie=UTF-8

video samples still loading onto review site, so far only frame grabs.

They like: OIS, ergonomics, build quality, lens quality not L but still very good, IR mode, mic placement allows windscreen without blocking shot, multi use single adjustment ring well implemented, wave form/ vectorscope, fast startup, sharper than Z5 and 550D but not EX1, lens, ability to pair and do 3D

They do not like, audio adjustments on LCD only so no cam button, color temp and shutter speed display in waveform/vectorscope, AF modes either too reactive or too slow, ND filters, about 3dB less sensitive than Z5, gain best below 4.5dB for BluRay, noise above 6dB, lens looses sharpness above f6.2, viewfinder, FCP compatibility (but final software not yet released)

"Conclusion of the pre-series model XF100

Of these 4 are the closest competitors as Sony HVR-A1, HVR-V1, Panasonic HMC-40, JVC HM100, it is certainly the best for image quality, ergonomics, assembly very flexible. If we broadened the circle, she has a better resolution than the Sony Z5-Z7-NX5-AX2000 & the Panasonic HVX-HPX through its sensor / codec but the ergonomics and sensitivity are slightly worse because of the single ring and its present single-sensor."
 
Last edited:
Seth Hampton said:
They are really cool little units. I was able to spent the day with one. It's a great buy for $3000.00
Click to expand...

Seth,

Please give us an report. I am waiting to get a small traditional videocam for some work that I need to film soon. Seems like a GH2 or AF100 for shallow DOF and low light, and the XF100/105 for more ENG-doc type work is an ideal combination for what I do, make run and gun docs where a small visibility footprint and low weight are essential.

Canon is positioning the XF100/105 as a B cam to the XF300/3005, but will it stand up on its own? The Slashcam.com review shows it is better than the Canon A! three chipper even in low light, but that the XF100/105's low light definitely lags behind the EX1. There is a questionable YouTube video of some conservative Jews dancing where the NR seems to have produced too much bluring of the image in low light, if it really is an XF100 video. Please, what are the lower light characteristics and will the XF100/105 work as a A cam? Alan Roberts, of BBC test fame, has done a report on the XF100/105 adn says he is impressed but that he gave the report to Canon and it is up to hem to release it. http://forums.dvdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=51788&page=3

BTW you mention a price of $3000, BH price is $3300, it there a better deal or were you just rounding things off.

Love to hear any thoughts. Thank you.
 
Not asking standard low light question, specifically want to know if NR produces a decent image or if it is a watercolor effect? Sample low loht also had chroma noiseu, did you see thisin excess.? Also, please compare image to XF300.
 
IMHO i think that it has a very decent image. I did not notice the "watercolor" effect. Like I said before....My Canon Rep came by last year with one of the 100's....I left the room to help a walk-in customer and when i returned....the 100 and 300 were sitting on a chair next to each other with HDMI cables hooked to a Sharp 1080p 42" LCD. At first glance....I could not tell which was being displayed. Once you have a chance to study the images, you can tell the diff. It does seem as though that the 100 showed more color detail. I am not sure if Canon ships the 100 with the settings jacked through the roof like they do with the little AVCHD units, but the image was truly amazing for such a tiny package.
 
hey guys im new here and im not real sure on which camera is the best. i havent been big on cameras ive always just bought something cheap but i have a wedding coming up and i wanna be sure that i get a good camera that can take excellence pictures.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top