Canon Xf105 (same as XF100 picture wise)

this looks pretty damn amazing for the 3k asking price. the color and tones are soooooo natural! cant wait for it to show up a bit more to hear about its AF and other body operations.

thanks for posting these samples.

david
 
I looked at similar shoots by the same guy using a SOny MC50u, and the XF is vastly superior, as it should be at twice the cost. Perhaps this will put to rest some of the fears that because Canon uses the same chip on consumer grade cams that the XF100/105 is not up to our standards. The chip is 2M. Obviously Canon is stepping out the irrational (at least for video) megapixel wars, and by introducing the same chip in wide variety of backends, trying to show that DSP and codec are king. This is a very interesting experiment, with the same chip in a high end cam that costs 5x as much as the low end version. This is a statement, and clearly not an accident. For the first time we will be able to see objectively see the difference that backend processing makes.
 
i just looked at a video this same guy shot with the EX1r a year ago. still shooting runway fashion/lingerie and honestly the XF105 looked better than the EX1r. a different show with different lighting or less lighting could be the culprit though. me owning an EX1 im not purely convinced its better but from this guys videos it does appear to look like it is. need to see more real comparitive tests. from what ive seen so far the XF300 outclasses the EX1.

david
 
david_p said:
i just looked at a video this same guy shot with the EX1r a year ago. still shooting runway fashion/lingerie and honestly the XF105 looked better than the EX1r. a different show with different lighting or less lighting could be the culprit though. me owning an EX1 im not purely convinced its better but from this guys videos it does appear to look like it is. need to see more real comparitive tests. from what ive seen so far the XF300 outclasses the EX1.

david
Click to expand...

http://vimeo.com/8971292
http://vimeo.com/8971038

are the vids done with an EX1 by the same guy, same models if you liked the first set of XF105 shots

http://vimeo.com/8863361 is the same guy's HMC40 runway shots if you want that comparison. the HMC40 has the reputation of superior detail so that is a possible baseline for that comparison.

no way of knowing if he used the same post processing and equivalent filming settings so this is certainly not a "test", but the XF105 video is clearly the superior video. Thanks david_p

the xF100 is not clearly superior yo the EX1 in every way, Slashcam.com clearly shows better lowlight on the EX1, but the color on the XF100 is better to my eyes, more subtle color gradients.
 
Last edited:
philiplipetz said:
http://vimeo.com/8971292
http://vimeo.com/8971038

are the vids done with an EX1 by the same guy, same models if you liked the first set of XF105 shots

http://vimeo.com/8863361 is the same guy's HMC40 runway shots if you want that comparison. the HMC40 has the reputation of superior detail so that is a possible baseline for that comparison.

no way of knowing if he used the same post processing and equivalent filming settings so this is certainly not a "test", but the XF105 video is clearly the superior video. Thanks david_p

the xF100 is not clearly superior yo the EX1 in every way, Slashcam.com clearly shows better lowlight on the EX1, but the color on the XF100 is better to my eyes, more subtle color gradients.
Click to expand...

those are the videos i looked at. http://vimeo.com/8971038 looks like the lighting is lower than the others which could explain the less than pristine look compared to the xf105.
the EX1r on http://vimeo.com/8971292 does look really good though.

the EX1 is a great camera although the IR issue bugs me. i use a Tiffen filter to help. im looking for a 3rd regular type video camera for matched camera live shoots and the xf105 seems like a very good candidate at this point. cant see spending the bigger money for a 3rd camera that will only be used occasionly. wish if was more than 10x but i guess for the 3k asking price somethings gotta give.

the shooter of all of those videos was kind enough to send me an email about the xf105...QUOTE--"After two shootings, I find it excellent. Good sensitivity, good accuracy, good ergonomics, and compact. It's perfect."

cant wait to see more from this cam!

david
www.davidprobst.com
 
philiplipetz said:
I looked at similar shoots by the same guy using a SOny MC50u, and the XF is vastly superior, as it should be at twice the cost. Perhaps this will put to rest some of the fears that because Canon uses the same chip on consumer grade cams that the XF100/105 is not up to our standards. The chip is 2M. Obviously Canon is stepping out the irrational (at least for video) megapixel wars, and by introducing the same chip in wide variety of backends, trying to show that DSP and codec are king. This is a very interesting experiment, with the same chip in a high end cam that costs 5x as much as the low end version. This is a statement, and clearly not an accident. For the first time we will be able to see objectively see the difference that backend processing makes.
Click to expand...

What? The chip from the XF100/105 comes from the XF300. It was also put into the new XA10 and consumer Vivia G10. In fact, the exact same lens and chip are used in the XF100/105 and XA10/G10.
 
vanvideo said:
What? The chip from the XF100/105 comes from the XF300. It was also put into the new XA10 and consumer Vivia G10. In fact, the exact same lens and chip are used in the XF100/105 and XA10/G10.
Click to expand...

Let me explain. If Canon is saying that the big difference is what happens after the sensor then they will clearly want to demonstrate that 4:2:2 mpeg is better than AVCHD 4:2:0. Otherwise the inclusion of the same chip across these lines is suicide, and Canon is very conservative. ALTHOUGH much the same sensor is in the T21 (550d), 60d, 7d cams. I guess we will have to see, and my late night speculations may, or may not, be idiocy,

Yes, same lens is in both, but if their marketing push is to sell cams and ergonomics and after the sensor processing the this all makes sense. BTW this theory is not mine, it was told to me by a leading LA camera and film industry dealer.
 
Last edited:
Everyone keeps saying this is the same chip in the XF100 as XF300 well it simply can't be the same chip (same size yea) but everything else is differnt

xf100 1/3" BAYER layout
XF300 1/3" Linear layout (sinlge colour)

and also the XA10 and below only have limited frame rates - no 720p 50/60 fps - so very much a consumer cam.
 
u missed my point - the chips in the xf100 and xf300 ARE NOT THE SAME AT ALL !!! they have not simply pulled one of the three chips from the 300 and stuck it in the 100 - the 100 has a whole DIFFERENT CHIP the only this in common wit the 300 is the 1/3" chip physical size
 
According to our Pro Tech rep, the 100/105 is 1 of the same chips in the 300/305.....the chip in the A10 is not the same as the 100/105.....I've known him for 12 years

Jim Martin
FilmTools.com
 
Mattsan said:
u missed my point - the chips in the xf100 and xf300 ARE NOT THE SAME AT ALL !!! they have not simply pulled one of the three chips from the 300 and stuck it in the 100 - the 100 has a whole DIFFERENT CHIP the only this in common wit the 300 is the 1/3" chip physical size
Click to expand...

"The XF100 and XF105 incorporate the same specially designed 1/3-type CMOS sensor found in the XF300-series camcorders, though this time in a single sensor configuration." Canon Europe website
 
"The XF100 and XF105 incorporate the same specially designed 1/3-type CMOS sensor found in the XF300-series camcorders, though this time in a single sensor configuration." Canon Europe website

THIS IS CORRECT - the operative phrase is though this time in a single sensor configuration - which means is IS NOT the same chip at all!

One chip is a bayer - gives bayer type picture - the other is linear - non bayer picture - so forget the hype - both nice chips BUT THEY ARE NOT THE SAME!
 
same chips, one has bayer processing of the single sensor, and the other has more color friendly processing. The difference is post sensor.
 
This from camcorderinfo.com:

Internally, the XA10 has a lot in common with the XF105 and XF100. In fact, the XA10 has the same 1/3-inch image sensor as its XF predecessors, although it records using AVCHD compression rather than the XF codec. With AVCHD compression, the XA10 is limited to a 24Mbps maximum bitrate and 4:2:0 color sampling instead of the 50Mbps and 4:2:2 sampling offered on the XF105 and XF100 models. The sensor and bitrate specs on the XA10 are identical to those offered on the aforementioned Vixia HF G10.

From the same article:

The lens on the XA10 has identical specs to the lenses found on the XF105 and XF100. For those who don’t have those specs memorized, here they are: 10x optical zoom and a 30.4 – 304mm focal range. At 1.7 pounds, the XA10 is roughly 3/4 of a pound lighter than the XF100, which should make it ideal for on-the-go recording.

Well, it says the lens has the same specs. Does that mean they're identical? I dunno, but you can see where all the confusion is coming from.

Here's the original article:

http://www.camcorderinfo.com/News/Canon-Unveils-New-Professional-Camcorder-the-XA10.htm
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top