CANON XF100 vs SONY AX100...opinions?

L

lyrov

Well-known member
I have a Canon XF100 for a couple of years and I think its a great camera. Im a BIG fan of DSLR video so my primary tools are Canon DSLRs. However a ''proper'' video camera is ALWAYS in my bag for the ''dirty'' job. That is locked on a tripod capturing the general shot and proper sound. By the way I shoot mostly weddings and events, some concerts, theatrical plays etc.
Sony really cought my attention lately, especially with the A7s and the AX100. And while I can not switch my DSLRs for now, Im thinking of giving my XF100 for the AX100. I already have a buyer ready to give me 2000euros for my XF100+accesories exactly the money I need to buy the AX100. Why do I think its a good deal? Because Im planning on shooting 4K and cropping in post. I already do that a little with my XF100 because it has more resolution than the DSLRs, but cropping from 4K should give me great flexibility. The other reason is ''timing''. I mean, the XF100 is a great camera but its cycle is closing, so I dont think I will find a better chance to sell it later. Generally Im the type of person who upgrades gear in every chance so the XF100 does not have much life in my hands anyway:)
My only consern is audio and that is HUGE. Where will I connect my wireless and shotgun? At first I was thinking about the sony XLR adapter but when I saw the price of that thing...#$%&...are they serious? Do you think I could be ok with a solution of that type: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/838945-REG/Azden_FMX_DSLR_FMX_DSLR_Portable_Audio_Mixer.html . I dont have experience with those so any recommendations are welcomed. I could even use something like that with my DSLRs too, regardless of brand so that makes it a smart buy I think...
About image quality I think the AX100 is REALLY excellent and much better than my XF100. 1" sencor is a big deal in my opinion and it should be much better in low light (keep in mind that I will be using it 99% at the wide end so I dont care about not having constant aperture). Codec seems to be fine also...so...do I miss anything? Please give me your opinions...is there anything I would miss from the XF100? Smaller size and weight is also a plus for me...and as far as I ve seen it has all the basic controls right?
I would appreciate any opinion or advise...

Christopher (dustylense) are you around...? :-)
 
I have an XF100 and a Canon 60D. I'm old school and have never really taken to shooting video on my 60D. On my XF100 I use a couple of highly customized CP files to control highlights and to generally get a very flat look that I adjust highly in post. However, I'm wishing for even better latitude, shallower depth of field, and better slow motion options at higher resolutions. The AX100 hits those marks to varying degrees so I'm considering adding it.

So, in exchange for the better resolution and 60fps @ 1080p (and even 120fps @720p) you lose a certain amount of image control. However, if you are not needing (or using) the more detailed image control in the XF100, or if you generally try to get a fairly finished look in-camera, then the options and 4:2:2 color of the XF100 may not be missed. And the Sony does have peaking and NDs (waveforms?, not sure).

This doesn't sound like an option for you, but if I get the AX100, I will definitely keep my XF100 to use on 2-camera shoots and to record audio. You would need to either record externally or get something like a JuicedLink box.

Then there's the shallow depth of field and better low light promised by the 1" sensor on the AX100 - I'm still unconvinced. The XF100 is f1.8 - 2.8. The AX100 is 2.8 - 4.5. I don't expect the low light performance to be worlds apart, except that the Sony should have much cleaner Gain, mainly by virtue of being three years newer. And the 1" sensor? From the videos I've seen you still have to open the lens wide, zoom in, and get close to the subject to get a truly out of focus background - just like I also have to do with the XF100. In real world videos, I have not yet seen as much difference as I hoped for from the 1" sensor. (and the bokeh you get is not the most beautiful on either camera)

I am tempted by the GH4, because it has more of the features I want, but I would have to buy all new lenses - that puts it out of budget for me.

So, back to your situation - the AX100 seems like a great upgrade. If you don't do a lot of grading and need a wide shot camera with lots of detail, I think it's perfect.
 
Thank you for your reply David, totally agree to everything you said! Im using J.Cine profile on my XF100 and it goes well with the flat profiles of the DSLRs. Just need to WB around 1000K higher the XF100 and I have good results. AX100 has just two profiles if Im not mistaken and you cant really customize the image, but I believe I can handle that in post. I ve downloaded some 4K videos from vimeo, played a little with CC and I think the files are just fine for normal grading. What is REALLY impressive though is how much I can crop and scale the image in a 1080p timeline without losing quality!!! And that is very important to me. As you mentioned gain should be cleaner and that is also a bonus. If I find a good solution for the audio...I think Im gonna jump on that little beast:)
Trying to find a shop now where I can go and check it from close...
Again, thanks for your advise!
 
ddixon said:
I am tempted by the GH4, because it has more of the features I want, but I would have to buy all new lenses - that puts it out of budget for me.
.
Click to expand...

The latest rumor is that the EF to m4/3 speedbooster is less than two weeks away. So thats one less thing to vorry about since your lenses will be pretty much the same on the gh4.

Keep a look at eoshd, thats where the info is coming from and they said stay tuned for more this upcoming week.
 
Wow, that would be fantastic. I have the Canon 15-85 3.5-5.6, the Canon 40mm 2.8 STM, and the Canon 70-200 4.0 L IS. If I could use those on m4/3 and still retain the IS and autofocus built in to the lenses, that would change my world.
 
ddixon said:
Wow, that would be fantastic. I have the Canon 15-85 3.5-5.6, the Canon 40mm 2.8 STM, and the Canon 70-200 4.0 L IS. If I could use those on m4/3 and still retain the IS and autofocus built in to the lenses, that would change my world.
Click to expand...

Here is a quote from another source at the bmcuser forum, it looks like its going to happen :)


quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by alexoki
Can you let us know if an active EF version is definately going to be released or not? Many thanks.

As far as I know, yes, and very soon.
 
I bought cx900. same as ax100 except no 4k.
I would say low light is not great. The reason is f2.8-f4. especially it become f3.4 as soon as you zoom in a bit.
At same exposure and ISO. I would say the ISO performance is similar to my GH2. Indeed is good for a camcorder. Only if it has brighter lens, I would have no complain. F4 just can not do low light well.
However, this camera is really amazing outdoor. Nice color and detail. Build in ND filter is so cool.
I also really like the button layout. You can control pretty much everything regarding exposure on the fly. Usually small camcorder compromise on operation. But for this camera, I am really happy for the control.
Another annoying thing is the hot shoe. I can not use any of my accessories. You need two adapters in order to mount regular accessories on it....
 
I was also consider Canon xf100/xa20/g30. But the image quality just fall behind to cx900/ax100. I am not talking about low light. I am talking about the overall image quality. I do not want spend $2000, but the image quality is worse than a $500 DSLR.
cx900/ax100 is very close to DSLR quality. That color richness, the dynamic range is better. The footage just look better than other small camcorder.
 
liukaitc said:
I bought cx900. same as ax100 except no 4k.
I would say low light is not great. The reason is f2.8-f4. especially it become f3.4 as soon as you zoom in a bit.
At same exposure and ISO. I would say the ISO performance is similar to my GH2. Indeed is good for a camcorder. Only if it has brighter lens, I would have no complain. F4 just can not do low light well.
However, this camera is really amazing outdoor. Nice color and detail. Build in ND filter is so cool.
I also really like the button layout. You can control pretty much everything regarding exposure on the fly. Usually small camcorder compromise on operation. But for this camera, I am really happy for the control.
Another annoying thing is the hot shoe. I can not use any of my accessories. You need two adapters in order to mount regular accessories on it....
Click to expand...

Thanks for the info liukaitc! I will be using it mostly on the wide end so f2.8 is not that bad I guess...the hot shoe thing can be annoying, I agree. Still searching for a demo so I can try everything from close...
 
lyrov said:
Thanks for the info liukaitc! I will be using it mostly on the wide end so f2.8 is not that bad I guess...the hot shoe thing can be annoying, I agree. Still searching for a demo so I can try everything from close...
Click to expand...

That's the thing, indoors you'll mostly use it wide and you get F2.8 the same as most zooms. Outdoors it will ramp down as you use the distance, but with sunlight it won't matter. :-)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top