Canon XL-H1 + NanoFlash or Canon XF305?

I always wondered about aliasing due to the pixel offset too, and to be honest I was skeptical about whether the camera even had the pixel offset since I had only heard that from other message boards and I never once had any aliasing issues. Looks like it's pretty inconsequential though. Nowhere near as bad as the SD test.
Could the component out on the A1 potentially give a resolution closer to that? I'd have to guess that all of the analog / digital conversion going on would hurt it but that it still might be better than HDV. I've seen the component video feeding an HD monitor before and it definitely looked sharp, but there was no HDV material to compare it to.
 
The component outputs aren't subsampled, so it should give you a better picture, assuming you record to a proper codec/format.

But of course, recording from HD-SDI is best. And the Canon XL/Nano footage I get is very sharp and clean.
 
I've been contemplating this as well. I've tracked down some camera users to see RAW footage from the XF300/5, AF100, etc. and from what I can tell I'll want to use an external recorder no matter what. The AF100 has a great image and definitely clean in good light, but the codec really falls apart. It's better than my XHA1 obviously, but it falls apart pretty easily as well. From my tests it seems like the AF100 falls apart in a more block way while my XHA1 falls apart in a more noisy way. Hard to explain I know.

XF305 would be a great way to stick with the Canon line that I'm used to, step up to 422, have a good on-board codec if I'm ever stuck without my external recorder or in a situation when it's not ideal, etc. I'm likely going to use a 35mm Adapter again on another feature. Many think they're a pain but I got great results and it wasn't annoying at all. I don't really plan on any sort of steadicam or handheld work either (very little handheld) so the size/weight isn't as big of a concern as it might be with some. Full-raster is another plus...and I won't lack resolution if I decide to shoot progressive (which 99% of my footage would be).

On my last feature using the XHA1 there is a tad bit of aliasing depending on the shot. It's really hard to see but it's there, likely from the way they pulled the 24F off the 60i chips. Again, it's nothing like aliasing you'd find on a lot of other cameras and I actually didn't even realize it until way later after my feature was done (even after watching the footage dozens and dozens of times on monitors, plasmas, etc. etc.).

Canon XF305 and an external recorded with 35mm Adapter seems like a really great option. One reason to take it over the AF100 I guess would be familiarity, a better in-camera codec if I needed to use it, I like the LCD, and a few other things. I loved how organic and a little grainy my footage came out last time using a 35mm Adapter. I'm not a big fan of super clean images, they're very plastic. I could add it all in post later, but it's a big pain.
 
I don't understand why you'll need an external recorder with the XF305. It already has a very good codec. That's the reason the camera exists, and the reason I bought mine - it offers a true broadcast quality camera in a small form. Be aware the 305 is an 8-bit camera, and no external recorder will change that. The EX1/3 outputs true 10-bit through the HD/DSI, the 305 does not.
For the amount of money you're going to spend on an external recorder, I doubt you'll get that much of a benefit, if any.
Some friendly advice - if you do buy an XF305, try it out for awhile before you buy a recorder. You might be surprised at the quality of the video you get without one.
 
I've seen a lot of RAW XF300 footage and I agree it's a very solid codec good for pretty much any situation. I'm not ragging on the on-board codec at all if that's what you were thinking and in no way do I think an external recorder is needed to use it, but it would be nice if I could afford it and help in certain shooting situations. I'm fine with 8-bit, and it seemed to work for the Star Wars Prequels just fine. :)

Just wanted to clear some of that up for vanvideo in case your post was in direct response to mine.
 
I have an HMC150 and just road tested the 305 given that my next project would love to be shot for broadcast, just in case. I was blown away by the quality of the 305. I have no reaon to suspect I might need a nanoflash or something like that with 4:2:2 color sampling. The codec and the image quality speak for themselves. DOF is so good that many of the tests I've seen online could be mistaken for an AF100. (some can't).

I think this is the sleeper camera of the year, given all the hype of the AF100. As mentioned by Kyle, I can add a Letus to this, and have narrative DOF if I ever need it, but can shoot like a run of a gun (just like my 150) when I do my 80% work.

I was assuming I'd buy an EX3 but shooting with the 305 just amazed me. Broadcast quality, yet CF cards, a workable codec that just works with my two different NLEs.

Some of the interesting issues I found? The latitude between shooting from shadow to bright sunlight. Just amazing. The shadows were totally readable without being odd, and the bright sunlight outside was still readable. Just like the eye sees. Inside with very low light and automatic 30p settings, I noticed noise, actually very pleasant noise, very well rendered, but I understand that I gain an extra +1 stop by going to 24 p. Might help.

I likely will buy this camera, and think that anyone that is considering needing a camera of this caliber seriously take this into consideration. It's not cheap, but an AF100 with a full complement of lens is not either.

So many of us have wanted 4:2:2 color space in the last couple of years, and cheap SD or CF cards in this high end (P2 or Sony expensive cards are death on us indys!). This camera gives us about the end of the line for smaller 1/3rd sensors. It's the camera we have been waiting for, and yes, it's likely to be the last of them before full frames or micro 4/3rds take over. But I for one like the full complement of all the features I've been needing, in a form factor that is still camcorder size. Panny is bringing their big codecs down to compete with just this kind of competition. I for one can't wait, due to my projects.

Downsides? Interchangeable lens, for one. Lack of the famed 4/3rds or better sensor. Lack of widespread use in the rental pools, lack of widespread use in the stringer shooters that we might need to pick up on the road and the Sony interchangeable gear. But the upside is 7D color similarities. That's worth something. I have a large investment in 7D glass. I get great results from my 7D. To mix that with broadcast quality seems compelling.

What am I missing?
 
Last edited:
Hello everybody, am new here (and to the world of film making) and hoping to get some great advice. we're looking to get about 3 cameras for making videos of our church services, and are considering a combo of the SONY HVR-Z7e and the canon EOS 7D, sound like a good mix or is it a really stupid idea? Our auditorium has lots of windows, and the videos will be broadcasted on our TV program. What do you think?
 
Those video's of the XLH1 or XF305 having a shallow depth of feild (just looked at this one in particular http://vimeo.com/13780183) are stupid.

When shooting a tiny thing at a very close distance, yes they can achieve the look, but not when shooting real things (people etc).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top