New Canon xf100 vs. Canon XHA1S

Duke,

I'm not so sure about that. Remember that the XH's and XL use 1440 interlaced sensors. The XF 100's will use a 1920 progressive sensor. A new, higher rez sensor combined with the better codec, finer chroma resolution and new image processor may actually outperform the older three chip offering.
 
Last edited:
I'm still trying to understand why this thing is more than a grand over the HMC40. I really think it should be around the same price. 1/3" chip and outputting 422 verses 3x 1/4" chips and outputting 420.

I guess you could say your paying for the smaller size but still.
 
Camera Expert said:
I'm still trying to understand why this thing is more than a grand over the HMC40. I really think it should be around the same price. 1/3" chip and outputting 422 verses 3x 1/4" chips and outputting 420.

I guess you could say your paying for the smaller size but still.
Click to expand...

The 50mbps 4:2:2 codec is the reason, I suspect. It seems a broadcast codec in such a small cam is not an easy thing to do, nor is it cheap.
 
I basically see the 3 chips of the Panasonic canceling the 422 codec advantage of the Canon. This is why I feel it should be the same price.

It's just that after all these years I've been wanting Canon to release a successor to the very popular GL2 and it finally happened but when I see a similar offering from another company being significantly cheaper, to me, that really takes away the good news a bit. I'm still looking forward for tests against the HMC40 and for over $1,000 more, we should see a noticeable difference favoring the Canon.
 
You really need to see one in action. I am a Canon dealer in Dallas TX. I had the opportunity to spend the day with one of the XF100's. Side by side....in the same lighting HDMI out...at a glance you cant hardly tell the difference between it and the 300. The night vision is very high quality as well.

My 2 cents
 
Now, Canon announced the XA10.
And it looks like the street price on the XF100 came to about $3200.
It looks like the XA10 might be the better deal, as I think the suggested price on that one is 2K and it's not lacking a whole lot that the XF100 offers.....

What do you think?
 
I just shot a promo with the XF105. Noise is quite good for a single 1/3" chip, though the XF300 is noticeably better. I've been using (and loving) the JVC HM100 for some time, but the Canon is quite tempting, the video codec is damned good. Having worked with AVCHD a lot, the price difference between it and XA10 is totally justified just for the codec.

The video can be found here for anyone interested.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNFKDBAOCtI
 
Babu said:
TCSJordan the JVC cam at the end you mentioned the xf100 not being as good in lowlight compared to it. Were you talking about the JVC hm100 or the big brother the 700? Thanks
Click to expand...

Chris was referring to the HM100. We tested them side by side and while they both had quite a bit of noise, there was more detail retained in the HM100 files at high gain. Canon's noise reduction hard at work I guess. That said, performance was much better than the HFS21, with its slightly larger sensor, so reducing the pixel count does seem to be working.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top