Competition for the hmc-40

G

ggrantly

Veteran
Canon has announced a new camcorder, the XA-10. It is a single sensor, but has a pretty decent feature set and might considered a HMC40 competitor. It looks to be just a little bit smaller than the HMC. Following are a few features of note:

Canon has implemented a native 24p mode instead recording over 60i
It has 64gig internal memory and TWO sdhc cardslots and can record to internal and sdhc at the same time. You get a backup plan in cam.
Removable handle with audio adapter ala HMC40
Touch screen
WFM
Focus assist features
Infared
AND, it supports 27 languages!!

From the looks of it, it has less manual controls than the HMC, and the HMC has 3 sensors, and likely more image controls. Wonder how the low light performance compares. No price posted.

Interesting that canon has thought enough of this market segment to enter. See link, there is a video on the demo button.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/749467-REG/Canon_4922B002_XA10_HD_Professional_Camcorder.html


Grant
 
Yeah, the Canon can do both, 24p and 24 pf wrapped in an 60i wrapper. My guess is the Canon may do better in low light than the 40, but who knows? could be hype, Just figuring if they were able to incorporate that xf300 low light ability it would be pretty good in the low light realm. After thinking about it. It seems they may be giving the hv30 crowd the feature set they been waiting for. Like manuel focus, Xlr, controlable gain( assuming it's an option) Maybe lcd flip?

Then I was asking myself, would I spend 2k on this? Or would I just buy an hfs 100 and a zoom h4n. and save the 700.00 extra dollars for a tripod and mic. Cause if it doesn't have the "better dynamic range, and low light capabilities, then why wouldn't you go the latter route? what am I missing here?
 
Well the model without the XLR is only $1499...it's on the Canon Consumer Page, but it's the same camera. I think you are right about this being better in low light, because it's a 2MP sensor rather than the 8 or 9MP on the hfs series. You can also dial gain in at 1db increments, which is nice for a consumer model and there are more options for manual control and picture controls as well. I'm just about the only one who really likes this camera...but this is what I've been waiting for - A high end cosumer model that actually gives the user a lot of control and decent low light capability. I think this is that camera....
 
I imagine this is a prosumer version of the HV30, which isn't a bad camera at all. That being said, there's no 60p, so there's tradeoffs to be had between this and the HMC40. Personally, at this price point I think it's hard to compete with a camera that has extensive control over the image, including different gammas and adjustments to knee, master ped, etc. But the Canon looks like a great camera.
 
Barry_Green said:
Not sure if you know this or not, but the HMC40 does the same. 24p is always recorded as native progressive, there is no "over 60i" on any of the AVCHD models.
Click to expand...

Yes for sure, both native formats are the bomb given the size of the HMC. But I believe native is a first for the small Canons.

Grant
 
maranfilms said:
Yeah, the Canon can do both, 24p and 24 pf wrapped in an 60i wrapper. My guess is the Canon may do better in low light than the 40, but who knows? could be hype, Just figuring if they were able to incorporate that xf300 low light ability it would be pretty good in the low light realm. After thinking about it. It seems they may be giving the hv30 crowd the feature set they been waiting for. Like manuel focus, Xlr, controlable gain( assuming it's an option) Maybe lcd flip?

Then I was asking myself, would I spend 2k on this? Or would I just buy an hfs 100 and a zoom h4n. and save the 700.00 extra dollars for a tripod and mic. Cause if it doesn't have the "better dynamic range, and low light capabilities, then why wouldn't you go the latter route? what am I missing here?
Click to expand...

Slashcam.com tested the XF100 with the same lens and sensor, but different codec, and found it had better low light than the Canon A1, so yes it will have better low light quality. But still not up to DSLR and EX1 standards.
 
While there are still some holes from camera to camera, the choices we have in the high-end consumer / beginning prosumer AVCHD cams are looking pretty good. We now have new Canons, HMC40, Sony NEX-VG10, even Panny TM900.

I've been looking for an AVCHD camera that can handle both family/vacation shooting and short film projects as well as my old GS400 did a few years back. 70% of my shooting is typical family stuff. For that I want portability, image quality and to be honest good AUTO mode. A few weekends each year I make short films. Then I want more manual control and best image possible.

We may have something now...
 
The XA-10 is definitely more of an XF100-jr than a grown up Vixia HF S30. And they also introduced the Vixia GF G10, which is the same basic camera, without the handle or XLR module... a bit like my old Sony HVR-A1 versus the Sony HDR-HC1. These two, as well as the XF-100 and XF-300/305, all seem to use Canon's new 1/3" CMOS chip... 3-chips in the HF-300/305, one chip in the others.

That's kind of a flashback. Back when I bought the A1, there were only a few HDV camcorders on the market, and most were much more expensive 3-chippers. You compromise on light gathering (three 1/3" chips capture all of the light, one 1/3" chip captures only 1/3 of the light, the rest being filtered out), color (Bayer color interpolation) and sharpness (the Bayer interpolation acts as a low pass filter and de-sharpens the image).

Then they fixed this. Panasonic did by moving to 3-chip sensors well down into consumer models. Canon, Sony, JVC, and most everyone else fixed this by moving to higher resolution sensors. So the Canon S30 has a 1/2.6" sensor at 8.6Mpixel. You don't really need 8+Mpixels for video, but consumers like them for photos (not sure I could tell you how to put most of my camcorders into still mode, but apparently, it's a selling point). But you do want 2 million RBG pixels. So with the 8M sensor, they can bucket the Bayer pixels: each video pixel gets four sensor pixels: one red, one blue, two green (or possibly, one green and one "white", to double the effective sensitivity). No more interpolation, no softening of the image, etc. And your chroma keys come out as well as with a 3-chipper.

But now Canon's going back to the single low-resolution sensor. This seemed pretty weird for the XF-100, and it's weird for this new pair. Particuarly given the older Canon tech. Sure, they'll get better low-light performance... but since the sensor's smaller (S30 vs. XA-10), they have to be counting on improved chip technology as well, or the light gain wouldn't be all that great. And you get back the color fringing and bad keys.

Clearly, Canon seems to think they're on to something here... not sure what. But they have, finally, filled that HMC40 sized gap in their product line. I'll stick with my HMC40 for now. But if Panasonic feels like delivering an upgrade, maybe with larger sensors...
 
But look at that slashcam test carefully... the XF100 actually looks better in the 12lux test than the XF300. That simply has to be impossible -- the XF300 is a 3-chipper using the same sensor that's a single Bayer-patterned chip in the XF100.

Also, in most of the 12lux shots, it looks more than anything like they just didn't bother with proper white balance... the XF100 shots look properly balanced. And something's up with this... the HMC151, for example, looks far worse as 12lux than the TM700, and that's also impossible... the TM700 is a dandy consumer camera at low-light, but I don't believe it can beat a higher-end 1/3" 3-chipper. Even the Panny SD9 looks better... and that camera is HORRIBLE in low light (my daughter's camera for her High School Communication Academy work... I'd love to think that's delivering a better image than an HMC150, but I'm not that foolish).

There is definitely something amiss on their testing methodology.
 
Look carefully at the Slashcam results. The XF100 seems to have more chroma noise than the XF300, and more of a watercolor look due to NR, and the color saturation is also lacking, as well as definitely less red channel. Not a better image at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top