morgan_moore
Major Contributor
the cx350 is an antique isnt it?
I cant imagine any client wanting it or be prepared to pay for it.
I cant imagine any client wanting it or be prepared to pay for it.
New Canon XF605 UHD camera
- Thread starter firehawk
- Start date
NorBro
Major Contributor
A few years old and a nice camera for its time, but no LOG upon launch was questionable to me.
AF in 2021 is a must-have for I'd guess about 75% of new camera owners who don't live under a rock (even if they don't use it for every single job because $4500 is a lot of money for a camera these days so you want to get your money's worth).
If anything, you'd expect the 605 to be sharper, cleaner and have more dynamic range with new technology - but the critical thinking above about perceived quality is just as accurate because "how improved" will any and all of this translate on the screen. Maybe enough.
It's also the little things; the small features - buttons, switches, menu options, etc - that are going to make or break the relationship just as much as the big ones (like AF).
AF in 2021 is a must-have for I'd guess about 75% of new camera owners who don't live under a rock (even if they don't use it for every single job because $4500 is a lot of money for a camera these days so you want to get your money's worth).
If anything, you'd expect the 605 to be sharper, cleaner and have more dynamic range with new technology - but the critical thinking above about perceived quality is just as accurate because "how improved" will any and all of this translate on the screen. Maybe enough.
It's also the little things; the small features - buttons, switches, menu options, etc - that are going to make or break the relationship just as much as the big ones (like AF).
Based on the fact that Canon said very little about the sensor in the XF605, but did tout the upgraded Digic DV7 processor, I am guessing that the sensor in the XF605 is probably the same as (or at least very similar to) the one in the XF705. So I wouldn't expect a significant image quality improvement over the earlier model. It seems that they did add some kind of high sensitivity mode (allowing 3 dB more gain than the XF705, up to 36 dB maximum), but it is a little unclear whether this is actually a dual ISO sensor, or just some kind of extended ISO/gain range (perhaps with additional noise reduction enabled by the newer processor).
From a sensor standpoint, the Panasonic CX350 has a slightly higher resolution sensor with 15-million effective pixels, so it has a roughly 5K sensor which gets oversampled to record 4K. The XF605 seems to have a native 4K (8-megapixel) sensor. So, if anything, I would actually expect the CX350 to be sharper from a resolution standpoint. The higher resolution sensor also means that the CX350 can do a digital crop even in 4K, extending its effective zoom range up to 24x (the CX350 has a 20x optical zoom lens to start with). This gives it even more reach over the XF605 which maxes out at 15x optical in 4K (the XF605 can do crop zoom in HD, but not in 4K). For some sports and live event coverage, this extra zoom range at the telephoto end can make a significant difference.
It might seem that the lower resolution Canon sensor could yield better low light performance, but based on the resolution and pixel density of the Panasonic CX350 sensor, my suspicion is that it is likely a backside-illuminated (BSI) sensor made by Sony (Sony has similar resolution 1-inch BSI sensors in some of their camcorders and most of Panasonic's recent cameras seem to be using Sony sensors). I don't believe Canon has any dual-pixel capable BSI sensors in their actual products yet (seems like the R3 is going to be the first with that distinction). So between BSI and oversampling (which reduces noise), I'd guess that the low-light performance is probably a wash between the two camcorders (neither being great given the relatively small sensor size). And given that recent Sony sensors have generally have had better dynamic range than their equivalent Canon counterparts (outside of perhaps the DGO sensor tech in the C300 Mk III and C70), I wouldn't expect significant advantages for either camcorder in terms of dynamic range either. Obviously the XF605 will have Canon color science though, which some people will prefer and would certainly be useful if matching with other Canon cameras.
From a connectivity standpoint, the 12G SDI port and genlock capabilities of the XF605 does give it an edge over the 3G SDI output of the CX350, especially for multi-camera shoots. The live streaming capabilities of the CX350 are better though because it has support for RTMP and the SRT protocols. The lack of RTMP support on the XF605 (and XF705) mean that you can't stream directly to an online streaming platform like YouTube, Facebook, Vimeo, or anywhere really as basically all of the major live streaming platforms use RTMP for ingest. The CX350 also has an NDI output option which can be useful for people using IP-based production workflows or other NDI-capable products (like video switchers).
Anyway, so I can still imagine some situations where people may opt for the Panasonic CX350 depending on their needs. Although obviously for anyone relying on continuous autofocus a large percentage of the time, the Canon XF605 is a much better option.
From a sensor standpoint, the Panasonic CX350 has a slightly higher resolution sensor with 15-million effective pixels, so it has a roughly 5K sensor which gets oversampled to record 4K. The XF605 seems to have a native 4K (8-megapixel) sensor. So, if anything, I would actually expect the CX350 to be sharper from a resolution standpoint. The higher resolution sensor also means that the CX350 can do a digital crop even in 4K, extending its effective zoom range up to 24x (the CX350 has a 20x optical zoom lens to start with). This gives it even more reach over the XF605 which maxes out at 15x optical in 4K (the XF605 can do crop zoom in HD, but not in 4K). For some sports and live event coverage, this extra zoom range at the telephoto end can make a significant difference.
It might seem that the lower resolution Canon sensor could yield better low light performance, but based on the resolution and pixel density of the Panasonic CX350 sensor, my suspicion is that it is likely a backside-illuminated (BSI) sensor made by Sony (Sony has similar resolution 1-inch BSI sensors in some of their camcorders and most of Panasonic's recent cameras seem to be using Sony sensors). I don't believe Canon has any dual-pixel capable BSI sensors in their actual products yet (seems like the R3 is going to be the first with that distinction). So between BSI and oversampling (which reduces noise), I'd guess that the low-light performance is probably a wash between the two camcorders (neither being great given the relatively small sensor size). And given that recent Sony sensors have generally have had better dynamic range than their equivalent Canon counterparts (outside of perhaps the DGO sensor tech in the C300 Mk III and C70), I wouldn't expect significant advantages for either camcorder in terms of dynamic range either. Obviously the XF605 will have Canon color science though, which some people will prefer and would certainly be useful if matching with other Canon cameras.
From a connectivity standpoint, the 12G SDI port and genlock capabilities of the XF605 does give it an edge over the 3G SDI output of the CX350, especially for multi-camera shoots. The live streaming capabilities of the CX350 are better though because it has support for RTMP and the SRT protocols. The lack of RTMP support on the XF605 (and XF705) mean that you can't stream directly to an online streaming platform like YouTube, Facebook, Vimeo, or anywhere really as basically all of the major live streaming platforms use RTMP for ingest. The CX350 also has an NDI output option which can be useful for people using IP-based production workflows or other NDI-capable products (like video switchers).
Anyway, so I can still imagine some situations where people may opt for the Panasonic CX350 depending on their needs. Although obviously for anyone relying on continuous autofocus a large percentage of the time, the Canon XF605 is a much better option.
Bassman2003
Veteran
I would expect the lens on the 605 to be better than the lens on the CX350. That would be the first thing I would check. If it is not then the XF605 would lose my trust and appear to be a Canon limitation camera because you did not pay up for their $7,000 model. The lens + corrections on the CX350 is pretty good and excellent when it comes to distortion on the wide end.
I need to research the 605 codec options as I like the fact that the CX350 has the big guns as well as AVCHD as many sports situations involve an instant delivery and AVCHD is pretty universal and smaller in size.
Then how smooth is the rear zoom functionality? The CX350 was horrible when it first came out but Panasonic improved it to where it is quite nice now. I would expect the 605 to have nice controls if they let it.
Image quality should be above bar for both cameras. I will be looking at highlight handling on the 605 as I think that is a weak point for the CX350.
It will be an interesting release. I wonder if Panasonic is out of the game or if we will see any more releases in this space? Canon has a history of getting it pretty much right on release day where Panasonic has had some release and improve cameras over the past few years. I am not crazy about that.
Last edited:
NorBro
Major Contributor
You can use the 605 as a webcam via USB (first XF-series to receive this), so wouldn't it make streaming even easier?
The total pixels on the sensor are ~13MP, but the effective is ~8MP (as you mentioned).
NorBro
Major Contributor
Codecs are beefy with options all the way down to 720p via. H.264 and HEVC. I think the lowest data is 8 Mbps (720p).
Zoom on the G60 is incredibly good.
Run&Gun
Veteran
I still shoot regularly with my HPX-2700’s(P2 Vari), and that model was released in 2008. As a matter of fact, I have a two camera shoot doing a live network broadcast show coming up with them in a few days. Still getting the same rate with them as a decade ago. Actually, I think the rate may be ever so slightly higher than when I bought the first one(but that rate hasn’t changed in probably 6-8 years).
Are you referring to the LANC control options? I've read posts about incompatibility with some external controllers...never used that option myself.
However: the servo zoom on CX350 itself is extremely smooth throughout the zoom range, and that 5 axis stabilization is really, really good.
I found that HLG with the 4:2:2 10 bit LongGOP 150Mbps 30p setting graded very well and protected the highlights nicely on very contrasty sunlit So. Cal days (exposed properly, of course). No, it's not true log, but I found it easier to grade quickly.
Looking forward to some real world footage and handling comparisons...that $1,300 difference buys extra batteries, V60 or V90 cards, filters, etc.
Bassman2003
Veteran
Yes, the rear zoom control via LANC is very important to me for tripod work.
nutmegger
Well-known member
I have the latest firmware (v6.01) installed on my CX350. There are three 4K/60p choices when .MOV file format is selected,
1) 420LongGOP 150M
2) HEVC LongGOP 200M
3) HEVC LongGOP 100M
422 is available when shooting 1080/60p.
nutmegger
Well-known member
I have been using the Libec ZFC-L LANC Zoom/Focus controller with my CX350 (v6.01) for the past two years. The zoom rocker works great. The focus rocker is a bit slower than I would like. Don’t use the focus rocker much. The Libec ZC-LP is zoom control only. Also, in the CX350 Panasonic changed their LANC protocol to be compatible with Sony and Canon.
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produ...ntrol_for.html
Last edited:
This camera excites me. As someone who came from the eng world and transitioned into large sensor cams, I miss being able to have one lens that can do it all. Especially for sports where you may be doing something like a stand up, but then need to shoot guys playing very far away. Not having to swap lenses constantly is priceless.
Specs look great and the new processor and AF modes rock. The only big downside for me is the handheld aspect. I always ran the shoulder mounted cams, but I remember this form factor being a pain to shoot with. Because the weight is out in front of you, long handheld sessions are impossible. I know many people use a monopod for this style of camcorder, but I already carry around a tripod everywhere and it’s redundant. Sometimes you just need to throw it on the shoulder for long stretches.
Specs look great and the new processor and AF modes rock. The only big downside for me is the handheld aspect. I always ran the shoulder mounted cams, but I remember this form factor being a pain to shoot with. Because the weight is out in front of you, long handheld sessions are impossible. I know many people use a monopod for this style of camcorder, but I already carry around a tripod everywhere and it’s redundant. Sometimes you just need to throw it on the shoulder for long stretches.
NorBro
Major Contributor
The camera will for sure look nice but the above will depend on your own expectations.
IMO, these camcorders' IQ are always limited by their glass, small sensor and processing, but they keep getting better and better every year so I personally have high hopes for this one.
IMO, these camcorders' IQ are always limited by their glass, small sensor and processing, but they keep getting better and better every year so I personally have high hopes for this one.
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
I held this a the photo show in the UK.
It is not small,. its like a 2/3 of the ex1 and nothing like a handy cam - its also wide
the lens seems wider fov than described which is excellent
overall everything seemed good, possibly excellent.
https://www.instagram.com/p/CUFy-R_qAH0/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link
It is not small,. its like a 2/3 of the ex1 and nothing like a handy cam - its also wide
the lens seems wider fov than described which is excellent
overall everything seemed good, possibly excellent.
https://www.instagram.com/p/CUFy-R_qAH0/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link
Bassman2003
Veteran
Well it looks like the camera is set for vertical video 
Did you happen to do an extended zoom run from optical into digital zoom? I would be interested to see if the transition is seamless or not for HD filming.
Did you happen to do an extended zoom run from optical into digital zoom? I would be interested to see if the transition is seamless or not for HD filming.