Philip Bloom's Review of XF100/5 XA10

Nice. I did look at XF300s to see their feature set when they were released. Never really noticed the XF100 line.

But what I'm really impressed with is the XA10. XLR inputs are the big difference between consumer and prosumer cams. For $2000 with xlr inputs and a $1000-2000 dslr, you get audio, a stellar A cam and B cam and all under what, $3000-4000? That's legit.
 
There is big difference in the XLRs between the XF100/5 and the XA10. The XF has PCM audio and the XA gas consumer grader compressed audio. We soot the XF primarily for the audio. If you do not need the broadcast best audio the. The XA does save you money,
 
philiplipetz said:
There is big difference in the XLRs between the XF100/5 and the XA10. The XF has PCM audio and the XA gas consumer grader compressed audio. We soot the XF primarily for the audio. If you do not need the broadcast best audio the. The XA does save you money,
Click to expand...
XA can't do PCM? :(
 
philiplipetz said:
Video review of the Canon XA-10, XF100 and XF105 | Philip Bloom

Very positive about both, nearly same IQ, but likes 4:2:2 codec of XF as well as ergonomics. Added XF105 to personal kit for behind the scenes filming.

I don't know about his PAL version of the XF105, but our team's XF100 has much better interval timing options than what he criticized in the XF105.XF100
Click to expand...

Hi Philip

My interval can only do 2 frames per second as it's fastest setting. Can yours do 1?

P
 
philiplipetz said:
There is big difference in the XLRs between the XF100/5 and the XA10. The XF has PCM audio and the XA gas consumer grader compressed audio. We soot the XF primarily for the audio. If you do not need the broadcast best audio the. The XA does save you money,
Click to expand...


From the Canon website -

Despite its small size, the XA10 also provides advanced audio control, allowing operators to capture high-quality sound fit for broadcast. Independent audio can be recorded by connecting external microphones to the camera via two XLR inputs integrated into the handle, while 3.5mm headphone and microphone jacks provide additional flexibility. The high-grade integrated microphone identifies and filters out background noise at medium and low frequencies, boosting overall audio quality by producing greater clarity during quieter moments. Designed for professional use, the XA10’s range of audio options offers an advanced level of control.
 
philiplipetz said:
There is big difference in the XLRs between the XF100/5 and the XA10. The XF has PCM audio and the XA gas consumer grader compressed audio. We soot the XF primarily for the audio. If you do not need the broadcast best audio the. The XA does save you money,
Click to expand...
I think the built in audio is just a gimmick. One is always better off with a flash recorder. A four channel flash recorder at 24 bit will always outperform 16 bit camera audio. Plus, XLRs really don't give you any improvement in the sound, it is just useful for noise rejection for really long cable runs. Handy, but not really a cool feature.
 
DrDave said:
I think the built in audio is just a gimmick. One is always better off with a flash recorder. A four channel flash recorder at 24 bit will always outperform 16 bit camera audio. Plus, XLRs really don't give you any improvement in the sound, it is just useful for noise rejection for really long cable runs. Handy, but not really a cool feature.
Click to expand...

Built in audio a gimmick? Seriously this is not a camera that is designed to be used with a sound recordist with a 4 channel flash recorder. This is a sole operator/ BTS/ assistant producer B roll camera. Having XLR inputs is a major deal. They don't come out when plugged in. In my book that is a BIG deal!
 
philip bloom said:
Built in audio a gimmick? Seriously this is not a camera that is designed to be used with a sound recordist with a 4 channel flash recorder. This is a sole operator/ BTS/ assistant producer B roll camera. Having XLR inputs is a major deal. They don't come out when plugged in. In my book that is a BIG deal!
Click to expand...

Very True!

Philip, thanks for your review, it was certainly helpful. I'm also looking at purchasing both cameras (possible 2x XF100 and 1x XA10) and having looked at the user manuals for both it seems like the XA10 is basically an HF G10 with added handle, XLR, audio controls, phantom power and IR. Is this correct?

The XF100 doesn't have the touch screen, correct? Touching to focus is nice sometimes..... but given the choice of real buttons and touch focus..... Hmmmm.... Buttons Please!
 
2 frames is minimum interval setting. I did not understand what Philip was complaining about and I apologize for misunderstanding his correct intent.
 
Last edited:
mr bill said:
From the Canon website - Despite its small size, the XA10 also provides advanced audio control, allowing operators to capture high-quality sound fit for broadcast. Independent audio can be recorded by connecting external microphones to the camera via two XLR inputs integrated into the handle, while 3.5mm headphone and microphone jacks provide additional flexibility. The high-grade integrated microphone identifies and filters out background noise at medium and low frequencies, boosting overall audio quality by producing greater clarity during quieter moments. Designed for professional use, the XA10’s range of audio options offers an advanced level of control.
Click to expand...
No mention of PCM audio
 
Exact said:
Very True! Philip, thanks for your review, it was certainly helpful. I'm also looking at purchasing both cameras (possible 2x XF100 and 1x XA10) and having looked at the user manuals for both it seems like the XA10 is basically an HF G10 with added handle, XLR, audio controls, phantom power and IR. Is this correct? The XF100 doesn't have the touch screen, correct? Touching to focus is nice sometimes..... but given the choice of real buttons and touch focus..... Hmmmm.... Buttons Please!
Click to expand...
Focus is via three way ring,
 
On the NTSC version of the XF300, it lets you record in one-frame intervals while in 30p mode but limits you to two-frame grabs while in 24p mode. While I can't quite wrap my head around why Canon would put this limitation on 24/25p interval recording, I would suspect that the NTSC version of the XF100 will allow for one-frame grabs while in 30p. Can anyone confirm?
 
digital_walnut said:
On the NTSC version of the XF300, it lets you record in one-frame intervals while in 30p mode but limits you to two-frame grabs while in 24p mode. While I can't quite wrap my head around why Canon would put this limitation on 24/25p interval recording, I would suspect that the NTSC version of the XF100 will allow for one-frame grabs while in 30p. Can anyone confirm?
Click to expand...

As pointed out, on the NTSC version of the XF100 the interval setting can be set to 1, 3, 6, or 9 frames when the camera is set for 30p or 60i, just verified it on our camera. Shows you that Philip and I obviously shoot at 24p where the minimum frame per interval is 2.
 
Last edited:
do you reckon the IR would be good in Caving video's... there's no light down there at all???

Cheers
 
Quote
Built in audio a gimmick? Seriously this is not a camera that is designed to be used with a sound recordist with a 4 channel flash recorder. This is a sole operator/ BTS/ assistant producer B roll camera. Having XLR inputs is a major deal. They don't come out when plugged in. In my book that is a BIG deal!
Quote
That certainly is a consideration, I recommend twist lock XLRs in that case, it is a better design. XLRs can and will pop out if you hit the button. Why use an inferior design if there is a better one available? My objection is merely referring to 35 year old technology as pro quality. Why hook up your mics to a $5, mass-produced, surface-mount audio chip? Is that the best "Big Cam" can offer us? I would gladly trade in a minute the connectors for built-in 4-channel 24 bit audio, but I totally understand that you have different requirements. But then, there is no reason not to have both--real, secure, neutrik locking connectors, or regular XLRs if you prefer, and a real audio circuit and, hey, maybe actual meters that actually show the levels and overs, instead of "oops" meters. Another couple of dollars per unit for those--I bet it will be five years before those appear.
I have had XLRs fail just as often as any other connector, owing to the not-so-rare cold solder contact on either the cable or hardware end, and oddly enough the last one to fail was a Panasonic solder joint, which are usually decent. A four channel option gives you backup in the field in case one fails. An RCA connector is superior in audio to an XLR connector for a short run, but, fortunately, no one cares as there are very few "audio peepers".
I'm not disagreeing with any particular point of view, I just think there are much better designs available (and these designs have been around for almost twenty years now)--the whole "pro audio" thing could be called something more realistic, like "budget audio", since it is way below a Mackie Onyx, and maybe we could opt for (and I would gladly pay more for) a real pro option, with a Class A front end. As long as there is a perception that it has Pro Audio (which it does not), and they have a huge profit margin on it, it will never change. It's possible that everyone who buys the Canon with the removable handle is a "sole operator/ BTS/ assistant producer B roll camera", I have no idea who buys these things--I'm sure you know the market. I plan to buy three or four of them without the handles.
Thanks again for the beautiful review--I learn something every time I see one of your vids; I'm sure I'll never learn enough.
 
I'm an audiophile (the equiv. of a pixel peeper) and I actually purchased an XA10 - so you guys can get a handle on who buys these things, I thought I would pipe up. I got the XA10 after Mr Bloom's review confirmed that there was minor picture difference between the 10 and the 100. I sold my 7D to get it, because it's more important for me to get good field audio without having to drag an entire field mixer setup with me.

My client's want good sound more than half the picture being out of focus. And they don't like stopping every few minutes. Trying to explain that your DSLR has overheated (because it's not really designed for pro video) or can't record too long because of EU tax reasons is as pointless as it is sad.

The sound quality on the XA10 is equal to anything Zoom ever made in an external recorder. I've owned 2 of their recent models. Yes, a good field mixer will improve things, but remember, there is only so much you can carry. I am happy to rely on the XA10.

Any suggestions that XLRs are a luxury are ludicrous - you need phantom power for a quality microphone, and with the world full of cell phones and other RF interference, even 1' of cable is looking for trouble if it's not balanced.

I started out shooting 3/4" U-Matic and moved up to working with an $80,000 BVW400a Betacam SP camcorder- the XA10 not only has better pictures, and way better features, it has superior sound.

DLSR is like a stick in the mud; a huge distraction from the need for all of us to maintain the highest levels of quality our budgets will allow. My XA10 may not have the same 'look' as my 7D, but it sure has better picture quality (in ways I can grade and measure) for not being on the wrong end of line skipping and other sins. But most importantly to me, it allows me to record a decent soundtrack in the field. Out of the box without another $1K worth of accessories weighing me down.

Would I use an external recorder? With a sound recordist yes. On my own? I don't need to burden myself further - the whole point to the XA10 is low profile, get the job done, but with a pleasantly surprising level of quality.

If I need more, I rent and the client pays accordingly. That's why I don't need a 300 personally.

Besides, like lighting, audio relies considerably on operator skill and practice. It's not how many tools you have, it's how you use them. But I've got to say the XA10 has made it easier - but you don't expect a camera or lens manufacturer to really get it right with sound. It's not really their problem.

Double system sound is superior not just for it's technological advantage, but because you have a trained professional who's there to make (as Mr Lucas says) 50% of the experience as good as it can be. A huge leap in camera audio is not going to overcome all the advantage of having a sound recordist to get it right.

There is only so much that one person can do, and the XA10 does enough to enable that for me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top