Well, yeah... that's why those cameras suck (from an ergonomic point of view).
Well that's two things the Canon has going for it, then; a more efficient codec and a larger sensor. Then again the Sony chips don't have to be debayered so maybe it's all a wash. The XF400 footage I've seen looks awfully soft to me (granted I've only seen online clips), but it wouldn't surprise me if the Sony is sharper.
I agree that on paper, the Canon does have a lot going for it. I'm in the market for several of these cameras and it will likely either be the XF705 or Z280, so my eyes and ears are wide open. That said, there are definitely strengths to both.
I've seen a few people say that, but just go to the B&H page for the Z280 and you'll see pages of people disputing it. I think the confusion stems from the fact that the onscreen display always shows f/1.9 even when zoomed in all of the way and people just take that for face value. In Simon Wyndham's review of the camera, he states "I haven't been able to confirm the precise drop off, but at most I would say it falls to f/2.8, just like the previous EX cameras." All of this seems to be complete guesswork so you could be absolutely right. But you'd think they would make a big deal about a constant f/1.9 lens - especially compared to their competitor which is several stops slower - and it isn't really touted anywhere. Also, even you are stating "it appears to maintain close or very close to constant aperture throughout its range." Well which is it - constant, or "appears to be close?"
Which is more important - having more than 3x the storage available for the same duration of footage, or waiting 25% longer to render the H.265 clips? There is no right answer. It's great that the networks have unlimited storage at their fingertips, but 600 Mb/s adds up quickly if you're a one man band and shooting frequently - and that means additional $$$.
I worked on a special show for Jeopardy! last week and they're still running interlaced everything... I think I started to break out in hives from all the scan lines.
Obviously for broadcast this is a forced requirement, but I feel extremely fortunate that most of my work is out of that space and we are free to push ahead with evolving standards. MPEG-2 is not of interest to me at all unless a client demands it... in which case, I suppose it is good to have. But if I could order a cheaper camera that didn't have the feature, I absolutely would. It's time to push ahead, especially with a forward-thinking, 4K device.
That's actually a great example for comparison. That lens costs more than half of the XF-705, is still the same slow f/4.5, and is only a 2.8x optical zoom. Yes, that's right. Now it's easy to see why a $7K camera with integrated 15x+ servo zoom - even at f/4.5 - isn't really THAT bad of a deal after all.
but at most I would say it falls to f/2.8, just like the previous EX cameras." All of this seems to be complete guesswork so you could be absolutely right. But you'd think they would make a big deal about a constant f/1.9 lens - especially compared to their competitor which is several stops slower - and it isn't really touted anywhere. Also, even you are stating "it appears to maintain close or very close to constant aperture throughout its range." Well which is it - constant, or "appears to be close?"
Which is more important - having more than 3x the storage available for the same duration of footage, or waiting 25% longer to render the H.265 clips? There is no right answer. It's great that the networks have unlimited storage at their fingertips, but 600 Mb/s adds up quickly if you're a one man band and shooting frequently - and that means additional $$$.
I worked on a special show for Jeopardy! last week and they're still running interlaced everything... I think I started to break out in hives from all the scan lines.
That would be fantastic. Please note I am not discounting you, it just seems that nobody has done a technical test regarding this yet and Sony doesn't seem to be jumping at the bit to tell us. I would love some concrete clarification as I don't have a Z280 available to me.
Sure. But even "expensive" is relative and different for every person. I don't wish to get into a back and forth over who is a bigger professional, what amount of money someone should have to spend if they're serious about image acquisition, etc. My only point was that like money, time is a finite resource and some may find one more valuable than the other. For instance, if I can render a project overnight, it doesn't really matter if it takes 5 hours or 7 hours. In that case, the extra ~30% render time doesn't affect my project but needing to buy double the hard drive space would. That's all. I don't think either camera in the discussion is objectively better on this front, rather it will vary from person to person and even project to project.
Perhaps, but that's rapidly changing and there is a mammoth amount of non-television video production taking place as well (and I think that's more where these cameras are aimed - at least when it comes down to the individual owner/operator).