Canon XF100 XF105 Practical Tests and Practical Limits

P

philiplipetz

Veteran
Here are a few of my XF100 tests in 1080p24.

XF100, XF105 Practical Review, Shooting Limits on Vimeo

http://vimeo.com/20653525

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41PVcdkyBFI



It is available for download. No post processing.

My attitude to testing is to forget the charts, forget post processing, just find what are the limits of the camera when you shoot? These are the practical tests I do to find the limits of whatever cam I am using. Not careful test like Barry Green might make, not attempts at artistry but exercises to know the camera and what how it acts as an extension, or barrier, to what I see.

Like any instrument it makes beautiful music within limits, BUT THE XF100 FALLS APART RAPIDLY OUTSIDE THOSE LIMITS. Flare can crop up, but not significant chromatic aberration. There is significant noise above 6dB, and the color balance shifts away from red to green with lower light, and DR + saturation + resolution (!) take significant hits.

Forget the charts and static shots that will look good in low light because they bury these problems, this is a high maintenance cam that begs for light, not run and gun, and rewards you with fabulous color gradients.

There is noise even at lower dB settings. Work within the limits of light and you get a film like experience, the noise actually seems like film grain once you have the more natural color gradients provided by the 4:2:2 color of the XF100, up to twice the color information of normal video cams. Step outside those limits and the noise becomes more than film-like grains, unacceptable.

So, the camera is caught within the narrow boundaries imposed by having a single small 1/3" sensor - and that is a shame because the camera is a delight to use and is worthy of being more broadly useful.

Within the limits you will make great films, but those limits more closely resemble the conditions used by cinema cameras on controlled sets, not the flexible conditions usually encountered when shooting with a small highly portable camera such as the XF100.

HOWEVER, DO NOT FORGET THE GLORIOUS COLOR that this camera can give you with proper light. There is nothing like this at this price range. As Brain C. Weed (Cowpunk42) has pointed out for the XF300, you have to choose between wider operating conditions and the possibility of unprecedented color quality under optimal conditions. The 4:2:2 color flows smoothly and gives a user experience that seems more film like. Nothing in this price range comes close to matching it.

Despite its small size, this is a cinema cam, not a ENG or EFP cam, and certainly not a tourist cam. Like the GL2, also a simultaneously flawed but high quality cam, the XF100 opens the possibility of low cost filming resembling film stock. It will lead to many microbudget films.

The resolution is far far better than any of the dSLRs that are currently the darling of microbudget film making. With a 1/3" sensor it does not have shallow depth of field that is the current rage. But will that rage last. Decades ago there were few shallow DOF shots in big budget films. Today big budget films are revert into deep, not shallow, DOF shots because 3D filming demands deep DOF. This means that soon shallow DOF will no longer be associated with quality films, and that is when the XF100 and XF105 will shine.

Are they as good as the XF300 and XF305? No, those cams have more color information and it shows. But is the XF100 as sharp as an EX1? Yes, within its shooting limits. But none of this matters unless you can live with those limits.

With the XF series Canon has declared that codecs are the true value in cameras, not sensors. The 4:2:2 codec in the XF series is their statement, and it shows. Subtile color gradients come alive, color banding goes away, with the 4:2:2 codec. Live within the XF100's limits and you can make films that would have required equipment costing more than twice as much. The barrier to quality film making has been lowered with the XF series. THe XF series may enable a quiet revolution that empowers as many filmmakers as the dSLR revolution did.
 
Last edited:
Really great little write up you did there. As someone who is looking into purchasing an XF100, I appreciate seeing some info about this little camera. I hope you don't mind me asking a few questions, as I am contemplating the purchase of an XF100 to replace my XH-A1 for weddings/events, commercial production, as well as some filmmaking applications.

philiplipetz said:
Like any instrument it makes beautiful music within limits, BUT THE XF100 FALLS APART RAPIDLY OUTSIDE THOSE LIMITS. Flare can crop up, but not significant chromatic aberration. There is significant noise above 6dB, and the color balance shifts away from red to green with lower light, and DR + saturation + resolution (!) take significant hits.
Click to expand...

How would you compare the "hits" that the XF100's image takes compared to say an XH-A1 or an HMC150 under similar settings and circumstances?

There is noise even at lower dB settings. Work within the limits of light and you get a film like experience, the noise actually seems like film grain once you have the more natural color gradients provided by the 4:2:2 color of the XF100, up to twice the color information of normal video cams. Step outside those limits and the noise becomes more than film-like grains, unacceptable.
Click to expand...

Again, if you have experience with Canon's HDV line, how would this compare to those? For event work I use the gain on my A1 at up to 12db, and rarely at 18db, however, I have used 18db successfully on a few occasions when I absolutely had to. For someone like myself, and taking into account the settings I am okay with on my A1, would I be okay with an XF100 for similar work?

Despite its small size, this is a cinema cam, not a ENG or EFP cam, and certainly not a tourist cam. Like the GL2, also a simultaneously flawed but high quality cam, the XF100 opens the possibility of low cost filming resembling film stock. It will lead to many microbudget films.
Click to expand...

Besides the excellent color/codec, 24p, variable frame rates, etc... in your opinion what else pushes the XF100 towards being primarily a cinema camera instead of a versatile cinema/event/ENG type of camera? People have been using the various Sony, Canon, and Panasonic HDV and AVC-HD cameras of the past 5 years in various capacities. It seems odd that Canon would make a single 1/3 chip camera that wasn't also useful for non-cinema applications.

Also, could you give me some more info on the manual control options and overall feel of the XF100?

I was looking through the PDF manual last night, and I was alarmed that it seemed to say that you can't manually engage the ND filter. Another thing that gives me pause is that it seems to be that the one ring needs to be switched to control iris and focus. I see that there is a dial below to the front, but it is the custom function dial. Basically, can one set up the XF100 so that they can manually control focus with the single lens ring, have the iris controllable by using the custom dial, and manually engage the ND without too much hassle?

Maybe I read the details in the manual wrong, or misinterpreted them somehow, but I am feeling that I will greatly miss the three lens rings of the A1. Although, on the other hand, I want to be done with tape forever and the XF's codec sounds great.

And finally, if you have had a chance to try out the XF100's infrared mode, how effective is it and do you like it? I'm thinking that the IR mode in its monochrome setting could be very useful for a black & white film I want to make in the not too distant future.
 
I did a bit of research and yes...the iris can be controlled by the multi funtion dial and the NDs apparently operate in much the same way as the HMC40. If you have ND set in the menu to auto the NDs will kick in at a certain point as you cycle through the iris settings...so you pretty much need external NDs to have the iris wide open and some ND capability. The only other setting in the menu for ND is off.
 
So it doesn't appear that it is a good replacement for upgrading my HMC150 to get 4:2:2 and broadcast quality, because I shoot a lot of low light, high gain concert footage, and I find myself increasingly relying on my 7D for that footage. It would seem that I would be better off moving to the AF-100 or the EX-3 to get better low light with full XLRs, and all the good stuff that a real production video camera gives me. Being in the Pacific NW we have way more lower light days than sunny ones (G). There does appear to be some low light "tests" on Youtube that show the Canon holding up very well in 3 candle lighting situations compared to the Sony Ex1. So I'm a bit confused when you say that it doesn't seem to be good in low light. Perhaps if I read you right, it doesn't do well in non tripod low light situations?

It would be a pity, frankly, given that having dual CF cards, 4:2:2, a fabulous lens, variable frame rate, etc. just seems to be exactly what a lot of us (me in particular) are looking for, but I guess I wonder whether I'd end up any better with the low light sensitivity than my 150 has, given that both are small sensors. I like my 150, it shoots great footage, but I'm more and more moving towards possible broadcast work with some of my concert footage, so I'd like to make the right move. I don't live near a major city so rentals are out. The price is high enough that I don't want to make a mistake at that cost. Both Panasonic and Sony have nice gear, but are not doing 4:2:2 and are both using AVCHD. While nice, I'm not wedded to that format. It has it's pros and cons.
 
Last edited:
XF 100 - ZOOM / Telephoto Lens Attachment

XF 100 - ZOOM / Telephoto Lens Attachment

Does anyone know of a quality Telephoto Lens Attachment setup that can be used with this camera? I saw a low quality 1.5x magnification attachment but haven't found anything else.

thanks

Steve
 
I am using the Canon TC DC58C Converter which is no longer in production and was originally made for earlier G series cameras. It is 2.0X and works very well on the XF100. It is cheap at $100 plus or minus $20 at places that still carry it. Don't be fooled by the low cost. It is a quality teleconverter and probably out-resolves the XF100 sensor. There is no distortion that I can see and it is sharp corner to corner. There is occasionally some purple fringing, but no more than I ever saw with an $800 Century Optics converter for my XH-A1. It extends the telephoto range to about 610 mm.

Pat
 
Does anyone who has a Canon XF-100/105 confirm or check that the uncompressed output through HDMI or HD/SDI is 4:2:2 10-bit colorspace? Coz i cannot find anywhere where they mention a 10-bit uncompressed output. It could be outputting a 4:2:2 uncompressed 8-bit signal, and the reason i'm asking this is to record this output to a Hyperdeck Shuttle or Atomos recorder in 10-bit. (Really considering to purchase the Canon Xf-100)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top