Canon XF705 Professional Camcorder

morgan_moore said:
I think for sure for 'live' production a servo zoom is king of the hill - say a panel discussion and you widen off for a question and then push in on the answerer.
Click to expand...
Most definitely. Plus sports (where often you also need a big reach, but the flexibility of a long zoom is also neccessary as the frame of the shot can constantly change), any kind of theatrical or performance stage work, and certain types of news gathering.

morgan_moore said:
For 'to edit' productions, I dont know, RnG is my speciality and having a camera like the Z280 which is no good inside a car (vs a C200 and 10-24), or maybe both XF750 and Z280 which cannot go in the dark (vs a C200+50 1.8) and cant do an artistic interview then the freedom of lens changes vs a servo comes into play.
Click to expand...
You're perfectly right about this, and it's interesting because "documentary" often gets lumped into "run and gun," but I think that's one area that has changed dramatically over the last decade. That's largely due to the fact that 10 years ago dSLRs that shot video didn't exist, and the only realistic options for a lot of independent shooters were handheld video cameras. Of course film was a mainstay before even that, but the "DV revolution" had a massive impact on the ability to cheaply and easily create content on the go. I think we're in the middle of another big shift as tools which can replicate a cinematic look have become similarly affordable and ubiquitous, and in a sea of YouTube channels where anyone and everyone can produce their own content there's even more of a challenge to stand out. If you have the time to set up your interview shots and you're only shooting one thing at a time, I think something like the FS7 is a fantastic tool. I wouldn't use a camcorder like the XF705 or PXW-Z280 on a personal project like that. We all want to capture the best looking images we can using the best tools that are available to us. For a lot of documentary-type projects, I think interchangeable lens cameras are being used a lot to great success.

There are times when that ENG-style camera still makes a lot of sense even in a documentary-type setting; the XF-705 promo video in the mountains (although not shot particularly well) is a great example. But I dont think you're wrong for questioning it. My gut says that in today's world, these cameras are being used for live event production more than anything else. By and large, they won't get you a cinematic look... they just won't. But Jimmy Fallon doesn't have a cinematic look either. "American Idol" doesn't have a cinematic look. The Oscars don't have a cinematic look. There are a bazillion high-budget, major network shows that aren't trying to be something they're not. Not everything needs half an inch of DoF. What it does sound like though is that in your situation you have the ability to make some creative choices that can be addressed in several different ways, and that's an absolutely wonderful freedom to have.
 
Haakon said:
You're perfectly right about this, and it's interesting because "documentary" often gets lumped into "run and gun,"
Click to expand...

Im not sure of the difference ?

My bottom line - as someone who rarely 'goes live' - is that I want a camera I can chuck into a shoulder bag, get a cab, on my bike, in a train, on a plane and go shoot (a cuttable sequence, made of wides, tights and mids, possibly of non repeatable actuality, maybe even a riot or fire, with some audio, in conditions from very dark to bright sun)

My current feeling for me is that a C200 (300 /100?) plus a sh1tty photo zoom, and a couple of small fast sexy primes would serve me better than the 705

On feeling the C200 and a XF305 in the same room I was suprised that I drew that conclusion... because really im in the market to replace my EX1, not my FS7.

Mainly I felt the short form felt less fatiguing than the rear EVF of the 305 - a long camera not long enough to go on the shoulder, which is kind of the worst situation!

The fact that the 200 can be further built for shoulder use or equipped with a super telephoto, or full cinema raw shoot setup for other jobs adds even more :)
 
Last edited:
Haakon said:
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.

Even that 20x S35mm lens, which seems like a dream, is a T/8.9!! If f/4.5 makes the dSLR kiddies cry, imagine what they would say about that. And it costs $70,000!
Click to expand...

When you consider the competition does 90% of what this camera does for half the price then one may start to ponder the cost...but maybe the extra 10% is worth it for some and maybe that's what you're paying for because you definitely aren't paying for modern image quality.

As non-practical or as hated as they may be, DSLRs/mirrorless systems blow these kind of cameras away in terms of IQ.

I'm not trying to be mean or say that these type of cameras don't have a purpose, but just sharing what I see. Year after year after year, I watch lots of sample footage from everyone's new releases hoping the quality has improved a lot, and it barely does. Baby steps every year no matter what the specs are on paper.

I've convinced myself the difference is mainly because of the sensor resolution and glass (lens). You just cannot compare the quality of the motion pictures these kind of cameras produce to ones from a higher resolution stills camera that shoots video with a high-quality piece of glass (even a $500 one such as the Panasonic G7 with a similar-ish sensor size).

The difference is extremely noticeable...always.
 
Last edited:
I disagree with this as well. Compared to the C200, then yes. But general mirrorless, I do not think so. As a GH5 owner, it makes an awesome image but my PX270 1/3" camera from 2014 has more accurate colors thanks to its broadcast color matrix. If the PX270 was 4k and 2018 it would be even better. In the end, these "little" cameras are still cameras first with a growing video focus. But their video roots are still in consumer land. It is just 'consumer' has gotten way better than it used to be. This is of course with DOF aside.
 
With so many varying opinions about color science - and the interesting ways a human brain may analyze colors - and the different color grades out in the universe - and how people consume content (monitors vs. phones), colors are probably the last thing I am worried about...at least in camera (modern post-production is the concern).

You may love Panasonic colors while I may love something else while someone else claims Canon is the best just as someone steps in to argue ARRI is the best...it never ends.

I'm strictly speaking image IQ, which mostly entails resolution and fine detail, at least IMO.

P.S. The GH5 has a white balance color matrix which helps a lot (if you haven't used it).
 
Well, we see things differently (no pun inteneded!). In my view, color and dynamic range are more important than resolution or detail. I am not talking about pleasing color, I am talking about color accuracy. This varies in importance depending on what you are shooting. No doubt, at half the cost I paid for the PX270, the GH5 is stunning if you shoot in log with a good LUT. Just pointing out that right out of the camera, my PX270 is more accurate because of the tools it was given in-camera and its design. The largest issue with the GH5 for me is purple being recorded as more blue than true purple. I know narrative folks don't care so much about this stuff, but comparing camera to camera I notice it.
 
I totally hear you and I get it...IQ for me may be resolution and IQ for you may be colors and dynamic range.

Although I do think color accuracy has always been ironic in these kind of conversations...10 different major camera companies and they all somehow see colors differently.

With resolution or DR, it's really either there or it's not, IMO.
 
morgan_moore said:
Im not sure of the difference?
Click to expand...
Well, documentaries can be completely produced in a studio and not "run and gun" at all, and "run and gun" could just as easily be applied to something else like news. It's more semantics than anything.

morgan_moore said:
My current feeling for me is that a C200 (300 /100?) plus a sh1tty photo zoom, and a couple of small fast sexy primes would serve me better than the 705.
Click to expand...
There's nothing wrong with that at all, and you know your needs better than anyone else! I was trying to agree with you, just saying that it's good to have options. I also noted that I am guessing the majority of people who buy a camera like the XF705, especially in today's world with so many other choices, are doing so to use it in live situations. Since that isn't you, it makes perfect sense that you would find something else preferable. :)

NorBro said:
When you consider the competition does 90% of what this camera does for half the price then one may start to ponder the cost...
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what exactly you're referring to, but the competition for this kind of camera is pretty limited. The Sony and Canon cameras both cost essentially the same, and while Panasonic's offering is a good bit less, it's also a far less capable camera. JVC just announced something and admittedly I haven't really looked into it much, but that's about all of the choices you have if you want 4K, 10-bit 4:2:2 color, and a minimum 15x servo lens.


NorBro said:
As non-practical or as hated as they may be, DSLRs/mirrorless systems blow these kind of cameras away in terms of IQ.

I'm not trying to be mean or say that these type of cameras don't have a purpose, but just sharing what I see. Year after year after year, I watch lots of sample footage from everyone's new releases hoping the quality has improved a lot, and it barely does. Baby steps every year no matter what the specs are on paper.
Click to expand...
I don't think you're mean at all and I agree with you a hundred percent. I certainly don't "hate" mirrorless cameras; I own an a7RIII and while I use it mostly for still photography, there is no question that its video quality is heads and shoulders above any camcorder I've ever owned. That said, ergonomically it's a pain in the ass to use for video and as has been said many times now, you can't get a 15x+ zoom lens for it unless you want to pay $70,000 and deal with an 8.9 maximum aperture. That doesn't sound like a fun time to me. The quality is better in large part because the sensor is so much bigger, but that also restricts the kinds of glass you can put in front of it. Everything is a tradeoff, and you make purchasing decisions based on the needs of your productions.
 
Last edited:
Next time i get my hands on the z280 I will check out just exactly what the lens ramping is and will report back. I understand your points about the wedding market. I know shooters in that business who use DSLR and Mirroless for the brides and groom house shoots because of the more artistic shoots often used in those scenarios. Many of them used to use those sorts of cameras for the rest of the wedding but many are now using some kind of camcorder with a built in parfocal zoom lens for the speeches and the run and gun type footage around the tables, dancing etc. Much easier they say.

Coming back to H.265. I'm not as enthused about its future as some due to the licensing cost issues surrounding HEVC (H.265) and the wide lack of acceptance by the broader non broadcast industry not picking up H.265. One only has to look at the major players moving away from H.265 as per comments on the current state of play with industry response to HEVC. Whilst it is a great codec, everything I have done with it has impressed me doesn't alter the fact that MPEG LA the licensing body for H.265 have kind of shot themselves in the foot by going from a doubling the license fees and in some cases going up to as high as twenty-eight times the licensing cost for HEVC over AVC. That along with licensing fees on the content are giving HEVC a serious uphill battle. See the following quote"

"HEVC contains technologies covered by patents owned by the organizations that participated in the JCT-VC. Implementing a device or software application that uses HEVC may require a license from HEVC patent holders. The ISO/IEC and ITU require companies that belong to their organizations to offer their patents on reasonable and non-discriminatory licensing (RAND) terms. Patent licenses can be obtained directly from each patent holder, or through patent licensing bodies, such as MPEG LA, HEVC Advance, and Velos Media. The combined licensing fees currently offered by all of the patent licensing bodies are higher than for AVC. The licensing fees are one of the main reasons HEVC adoption has been low on the web and is why some of the largest tech companies (Amazon, AMD, Apple, ARM, Cisco, Google, Intel, Microsoft, Mozilla, Netflix, Nvidia, and more) have joined the Alliance for Open Media, which aimed to finalize the royalty-free alternative video coding format AV1 by the end of 2017. An initial version of the AV1 specification was eventually released on 28 March, 2018."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Efficiency_Video_Coding#cite_note-VelosHEVCMarch2017Yahoo-55

When it comes to royalty free and when you have the likes Amazon, AMD, Apple, ARM, Cisco, Google, Intel, Microsoft, Mozilla, Netflix and Nvidia supporting a codec in opposition to H.265 I for one, not wishing to be pessimistic, do not see a major adoption of H.265 across the board. This is one of Sony's stated reasons for not going down the H.265 route in their cameras even though they are a licensed HEVC member. Once the royalty free AV1 codec becomes available to all and sundry I see no impediment to it being widely adopted by the NLE industry, Adobe have already signed up. Royalty free, those two words alone say a lot in any cost driven media industry. There is a very serious consortium of players forming up against HEVC. Check out some of the major players.

https://aomedia.org/

https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2018/07/11/royalty-free-web-video-codecs/

Chris Young
 
Last edited:
Just like Blu-ray, they are racing time. In this case it storage speed and size. In the near future, it will be cheaper to go RAW for the camera makers and consumers. The new JVC camera has a slot for an SSD! Like the C200, keep an h.264 variant around and also offer RAW. I do not see a place for a high priced codec royalty in that mix.
 
We had the XF705 here yesterday for a visit......Overall, a pretty good package. Weight & feel, very close to the 305. Image wise, a nice look and I did a wide shot with a close focus (about 2 feet) and a person 6-7 feet away and they were out of focus (not alot but good). The low light was something we did play with but I don't have any solid conclusions. I wanted to see where this sensor was in comparison to the XC15 regarding the noise. I'm looking forward to the production run model to see where it is with different gamma settings.

Jim Martin
CinemaWorks
 
Canon XF705 in Austin Tomorrow 11am-1PM Oct 17 at Texas Media Systems

Canon XF705 in Austin Tomorrow 11am-1PM Oct 17 at Texas Media Systems

The Canon XF705 will in Austin Tomorrow from 11AM to 1PM at Texas Media Systems.

Stop by if you have time.
 
I'd like to know if someone has tried the camera and give some impression about the experience with it. Has anyone some interest to buy the camera, or make some test footage? I've found just 3 samples of footage, but they are very short, hard to judge the camera with them. I've also played in DaVinci with the original MXF files straight from the camera, thanks to a French website that has made a short review, but they were taken from a pre-release camera, the final camera should be in the market from 1st December, maybe it's too early to ask more and the majority of USA and European stores declaring the item "coming soon".
 
We delivered 3 cameras on Friday for a client who was doing a shoot last Saturday....I've not heard back from them as of today which usually means everything is going well. Our other 1st units are being picked up this week by clients so not a lot of feedback this early. I expect to hear more next week but these people were long time XF305 users/fans who were very excited to pick up the XF705s.

Jim Martin
CinemaWorks
 
The footage is OK - usual wander around the park.

But I see this camera as being for Police 999 - or inane reality so I want to see someone diving into a car with it an shooting with it on thier lap.

I tried it and thought it too long.. concluding that id prever a stripped down C200 and 18-80 for RnG work

The C200 option comes with a free cinema camera for other projects.
 
Owen Mack has got the new XF705, he has shot some footage with the camera but he can't work on the footage on his computer, so he uploaded some MXF files on the web.

Important notes:
---------------------
Unfortunately all the footage is not shot properly, and it's completely BLUE and PURPLE. So I've tried to make some color correction in Da Vinci Resolve, to salvage something, and believe me it was quite impossible. I've also changed in black and white one clip because colors cannot be adjusted anymore. There were more clips, but they were completely overexposed, and messed up with colors. He said that used the camera in Wide DR Gamma and in Full auto, but it's not clear what he has done with white balance. Because the lack of footage from this camera, I've decided to publish this video, but it's clearly not rappresentative of the camera's quality, but you can have a sneak peek about how stabilization works.


Sample from original footage shot by Owen Mack, before CC

Senza-nome-copia.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top