Just a quick comparison. Both camcorder were set on neutral picture style. Pansonic all on zero, gamma HD-Norm and color matrix to norm-2. The canon was set on picture style: off.
https://vimeo.com/48509479
https://vimeo.com/48509479
Canon XF100_vs_Panasonic AG-AC130EJ in low-light
- Thread starter dimi
- Start date
Barry_Green
Moderator
Nice simple comparison, really shows the difference. Thanks for doing that!
ddixon
Well-known member
Thanks for doing this. For a year or so I had access at work to a Panasonic HMC40, but when I bought a personal camera in May 2011 the 130 was not out yet. So, I got the XF100. I really like it, and it's MUCH better in low light than the HMC40 so I've been very happy with it. However, if I had seen this before my purchase it would have made the decision harder. I've been limiting myself to 6 db of gain, but after seeing this I think I'll limit myself to 0 or 3 
Of course, they're really pretty different cameras. The 130 is HUGE by comparison - 7 inches longer and 5.3 pounds instead of 2.2. For me that is a lot to deal with given the extra $1K or so cost, unless you really need the extra zoom reach. There are several pros and cons in other features as well. The 160 might be a very tempting upgrade for me, though.
And, since this is in the Canon forum, I'll point out that the real trick for the XF100 is if your style/subject matter lends itself to 24p. Using that makes a BIG difference in low light - brings the camera up to about what I see in this test for the 130 (or maybe slightly better). Of course, the Panasonics may show a similar effect.
Anyway, enjoyed the test.
Of course, they're really pretty different cameras. The 130 is HUGE by comparison - 7 inches longer and 5.3 pounds instead of 2.2. For me that is a lot to deal with given the extra $1K or so cost, unless you really need the extra zoom reach. There are several pros and cons in other features as well. The 160 might be a very tempting upgrade for me, though.
And, since this is in the Canon forum, I'll point out that the real trick for the XF100 is if your style/subject matter lends itself to 24p. Using that makes a BIG difference in low light - brings the camera up to about what I see in this test for the 130 (or maybe slightly better). Of course, the Panasonics may show a similar effect.
Anyway, enjoyed the test.
You needs lights. Extreme lowlight is a very special situation. I use gain +6db (NR auto) with +8 (or +12) coring, SHP -1. Gain +9dB is max for standard quality, gain +12dB needs NR about +3/+4 and coring +12 or higher.
Gain -6dB is the best for daylight (with coring +3 and cine1 gamma), gain +3dB gives a small noise.
Gain -6dB is the best for daylight (with coring +3 and cine1 gamma), gain +3dB gives a small noise.
8string
Well-known member
DDP is right. This comparison is a bit unfair as the XF100 is a single sensor camera and the AC130 is a three sensor. A better comparison would be the XF300. Also, I've shot in very low light with the XF105 and even with gain it looked very good. I've shot in a room with a single 60watt bulb (and a tiny led light on the camera to light up the sheet music) and at 12db I had nothing to complain about, but, it fit the mood of the shoot. It's not just about shooting a box in a room. here's a still collage from that shoot. I think it should expand up ok, but the link is here.
XF105 shoot in bunkers lit by a 60 watt bulb and a small led lite on the camera for foreground. +12db
http://www.mountainstoneproductions...ion/i-67pHSkb/0/M/Wayne-Horvitz-Stills1-M.jpg
Then add to that I have infrared capability that is quite unique in certain situations. It's helped me get some very dramatic B&W footage that fit the customer just fine, and I would have had to light the shoots which was not practical. I'm not a huge fan of the 100, and I own one, but it's a nice camera as a B camera to my 305. The MXF format is a joy to work with compared to AVCHD. I dislike the Gain/ND control knob, given that I work with the 305 with a 3 way ND filter. But for what it is, the 100/105 is a pretty nice camera. But for super low light I often switch to a 7D or other HDSLR.
Infrared shoot...
https://vimeo.com/47690375
Having sold my HMC150 for the XF305 world, what I can say is that I've never looked back, as much as I liked the 150. I have far greater latitude on the MXF files. While I love the contrasty nature of the AVCHD footage, it is a double edged sword. All too easy to lose highlights with it. I understand that Sony may have solved that problem with the S-log on the 100s, but again, that's a larger sensor and should do better. There are reasons to buy the AG130 and reasons to buy the XF100. Hard choices both as they are nice cameras.
XF105 shoot in bunkers lit by a 60 watt bulb and a small led lite on the camera for foreground. +12db
http://www.mountainstoneproductions...ion/i-67pHSkb/0/M/Wayne-Horvitz-Stills1-M.jpg
Then add to that I have infrared capability that is quite unique in certain situations. It's helped me get some very dramatic B&W footage that fit the customer just fine, and I would have had to light the shoots which was not practical. I'm not a huge fan of the 100, and I own one, but it's a nice camera as a B camera to my 305. The MXF format is a joy to work with compared to AVCHD. I dislike the Gain/ND control knob, given that I work with the 305 with a 3 way ND filter. But for what it is, the 100/105 is a pretty nice camera. But for super low light I often switch to a 7D or other HDSLR.
Infrared shoot...
https://vimeo.com/47690375
Having sold my HMC150 for the XF305 world, what I can say is that I've never looked back, as much as I liked the 150. I have far greater latitude on the MXF files. While I love the contrasty nature of the AVCHD footage, it is a double edged sword. All too easy to lose highlights with it. I understand that Sony may have solved that problem with the S-log on the 100s, but again, that's a larger sensor and should do better. There are reasons to buy the AG130 and reasons to buy the XF100. Hard choices both as they are nice cameras.
Last edited:
Barry_Green
Moderator
In terms of image, yes, the XF300 would be the better cam to compare, but in terms of price, the XF300 is twice the price of the AC130, and the XF100 is a lot closer to the same price as the AC130. So I think the original poster's intent wasn't to compare technology-to-technology, I think the intent was "if you have a budget of about $3500 or so, here's what that will get you from Canon, vs. here's what that will get you from Panasonic".
8string
Well-known member
Well, I'd have to say that if you are comparing low light on a box top, then maybe you deserve to simply buy the 130. I have no problem with Panasonic products, and likely would have bought the 130 if it was out when I sold my 150 and bought the xf305. But to assume that this low light 'test' is comparing the two cameras in any meaningful way, a person would be sorely misled. The fact that I have had infrared ability in my xf105 has meant my ability to create truly different works for clients that I could not have created with any other camera in that price range or above.
Look at the shots I got with a 60 watt bulb in the bunkers. At +12 db, shooting at 24fps, yes, there was noise, but I got the shots, the client was thrilled, and the day before I shot the same camera with infrared. (I had my 7D with me when I shot the video on Music in Concrete. I didn't get it out of the bag). That was a shoot in extremely low light for two days running, and I simply threw a switch and got the infrared and found that the xf105 handled the single bulb with the need for a minor fill light. To be clear, there was *no* light in the cistern other than one 2x2 hole in the ceiling with a ladder coming down it. I would have had to have brought a 2x2 lite panel with me to get anything at all. There was significant infrared that was unreadable, as it was. There was no time for me to get a lite panel. I was documenting a performance. They weren't waiting on me. While the box top comparison is interesting, I'll take the money shots in the real world, thank you.
The 4:2:2 color space had definitely more latitude to pull from than AVCHD, IMHO, having worked with both in low light. If I knew about this shoot from a fortune teller, I would have stayed with my decision to buy the XF105. The ability to match my 305 skin tones with little post work is significant to me. That the camera has dual CF cards (I've never had a CF card failure which I cannot claim during my time with the HMC150!) and 4:2:2 color space has meant that it produces video that is really quite good. That you make good money from being supportive of the Panasonic product line is not lost on me Barry. All in good fun. I still own your HMC150 book!
Each of these cameras has something to offer, from a better telephoto lens on the AC130, to 4:2:2 and Infrared on the 100/105 to say the least. The aggravating thing is that neither of them are 'right'. I don't know that if I knew then what I know now, that I wouldn't have chosen the 100. Buying in that time before the 130 came out, I wished the 130 were available. Now, I don't think that it was a clear a choice as I thought. Neither of them are "perfect". With a relatively unlimited budget, I think I would be looking at the C300 from Canon. Under $16k, it seems to have all the right specs. For the ENG run and gun set, at the $4k and under price point, both the Canon XF100 and the AG130 seem to be very good choices. I don't think that either of them are the *best* choice, just good choices. It depends on your work. For some, the longer throw of the Panny will be the correct choice. For others smaller footprint and wider creative options will point to the xf100/105. I'm not wild about either of them frankly, but we make do with the money we have to spend.
And for not much more money, you can buy a used AF100 (!). That seems to end the low light argument for the price. Neither of these will hold a candle (pun intended) to the AF100 in low light.
Look at the shots I got with a 60 watt bulb in the bunkers. At +12 db, shooting at 24fps, yes, there was noise, but I got the shots, the client was thrilled, and the day before I shot the same camera with infrared. (I had my 7D with me when I shot the video on Music in Concrete. I didn't get it out of the bag). That was a shoot in extremely low light for two days running, and I simply threw a switch and got the infrared and found that the xf105 handled the single bulb with the need for a minor fill light. To be clear, there was *no* light in the cistern other than one 2x2 hole in the ceiling with a ladder coming down it. I would have had to have brought a 2x2 lite panel with me to get anything at all. There was significant infrared that was unreadable, as it was. There was no time for me to get a lite panel. I was documenting a performance. They weren't waiting on me. While the box top comparison is interesting, I'll take the money shots in the real world, thank you.
The 4:2:2 color space had definitely more latitude to pull from than AVCHD, IMHO, having worked with both in low light. If I knew about this shoot from a fortune teller, I would have stayed with my decision to buy the XF105. The ability to match my 305 skin tones with little post work is significant to me. That the camera has dual CF cards (I've never had a CF card failure which I cannot claim during my time with the HMC150!) and 4:2:2 color space has meant that it produces video that is really quite good. That you make good money from being supportive of the Panasonic product line is not lost on me Barry. All in good fun. I still own your HMC150 book!
Each of these cameras has something to offer, from a better telephoto lens on the AC130, to 4:2:2 and Infrared on the 100/105 to say the least. The aggravating thing is that neither of them are 'right'. I don't know that if I knew then what I know now, that I wouldn't have chosen the 100. Buying in that time before the 130 came out, I wished the 130 were available. Now, I don't think that it was a clear a choice as I thought. Neither of them are "perfect". With a relatively unlimited budget, I think I would be looking at the C300 from Canon. Under $16k, it seems to have all the right specs. For the ENG run and gun set, at the $4k and under price point, both the Canon XF100 and the AG130 seem to be very good choices. I don't think that either of them are the *best* choice, just good choices. It depends on your work. For some, the longer throw of the Panny will be the correct choice. For others smaller footprint and wider creative options will point to the xf100/105. I'm not wild about either of them frankly, but we make do with the money we have to spend.
And for not much more money, you can buy a used AF100 (!). That seems to end the low light argument for the price. Neither of these will hold a candle (pun intended) to the AF100 in low light.
Last edited:
I would assume the OP did this test because he had both cameras, not due to a price point comparison. But I've been wrong before....
off topic- I picked up an XF300 over a month ago and I'm stunned by the image. The CODEC is great to work with and solid as a rock (Thanks Sony!) An XF100 will soon replace my A1 as a b-camera.
off topic- I picked up an XF300 over a month ago and I'm stunned by the image. The CODEC is great to work with and solid as a rock (Thanks Sony!) An XF100 will soon replace my A1 as a b-camera.
I'm own the 130 and a friend the xf100. I just borrowed the xf100 to take a look and compare, because there are in nearly same price range. We both shoot a lot of weddings. The xf has the better codec, ois and autofocus. But the short lens, the low-light capabilitys and the smaller formfactor ( if you want to mount a ntg-1, a sennheiser g3 and a LED headlight and you have big hands) was the reason for me too keep my 130. I#m pretty happy with it, but of course there are some situations, i wish i had the xf. A mix of this two in nearly same pricerange were "superb"!