XF100 for action sports?

M

MikeSher1

New member
Hello everyone,

First let me mention that I've used these forums for quite some time now, but I finally just signed up and this is my first post.

I know that theres been a bit of talk about the xf100 and xf105 already on here and on DVinfo as well, so I hope your not tired of discussing them. My question is if the XF100 will be a good camera for shooting action sports? I have heard people say yes and no.

My boss, (a video professional, who also frequents this forum) has explained to me that he believes the sensor in this camera is too small for what I will be shooting. He mentioned that he also believes that I there is going to be a lot of problems when doing things such as panning or tilting quickly. Does that sound right?

I know he's very intelligent when it comes to cameras but he's also trying to get me to purchase his XHA1 so I'm worried he may be a little bias haha! Sorry Andrew! Hopefully this post doesn't get me fired..

I want to get into shooting alot more actions sports such as, motocross, skiing, or downhill biking so I feel that the overcranking features are very important to me. (which the xha1 lacks) What are your opinions for me?

Thank you much for any info you have!
 
Alan Roberts, who does the BBC cam evaluations, has been dropping hints that he likes the cam. However, one person complains about ghosting from hand waving, but the reply was all cams ghost (not reply from Alan Roberts). Several people report that there is no micro blocking in scenes with detail so I have high hopes it will work for fast moving stuff.
 
Thank you philiplipetz! I guess I will just keep holding off and wait to hear what Alan, (and the other pro's) final word is on it. I apreciate your response.
 
The latest from Alan Roberts, who like Barry Green here at DVXuser is someone with a consistent professional attitude, is that the XF100 is not up to DSR170 performance but that is is a little better than than an A1 (EDIT - If I remember right this was a reference to the Sony A1 single chip cam, although Slashcam.com has the XF100 doing better than a Canon A1). So my guess is that it is the best single chip cam, not counting the AF100 or any exotic cinema cams such as RED. When you look at the one-on-one camera comparisons at Slashcam.com the XF100 seems to be better than the Panasonic HMC150/151 and the Canon xha1 low end three chip cams; but their results may not be representative. Not sure, I want to believe them.
 
Last edited:
one thing you can count on is that the recording codec is far more robust on the xf100 than the xha1's hdv codec. For action sports, I think it would be a much better choice. The only thing I would miss from the a1 is 20x zoom & 3 control rings. But honestly, after getting my hands on one at a trade show, the xf100 feels very natural and ergonomic. Also, sensor size is the same in each cam, so i'm not sure what your boss is talking about there. The xha1 has 3 1/3" ccd's while the xf100 has one 1/3" cmos sensor, and all early reports indicate that it (just) outperforms the xha1's 3-chip sensor block. Cmos skew might be an issue for you, so that's something to consider - but i've been using my xf300 for action sports with no rolling shutter problems. I would be much more inclined toward an xf100 over the xha1.
 
cowpunk52 said:
I would be much more inclined toward an xf100 over the xha1.
Click to expand...

Go here (http://camcorder-test.slashcam.com/campair-EN.shtml) and compare the AF100 to other cams, especially the xha1(s) and the HMC150/151 and you will be shocked. Also look for the color temp corrected version of the XF100 12 lux test. Be sure to download the sample pics, there is heavier NR on the AF100 (both good and bad). The XF100 has a better implementation of 720p than the XF300, downsizing from 1080p rather than from 1080i. The face recognition AF is very good, and the OIS is supposed to be superb. And then there is 4:2:2 color space, try it and you will have a hard time accepting 4:2:0, the colors are just much better.

BTW this post (http://www.dv-forums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6486) raises the issue of Canon audio quality, and XF series audio quality as being inadequate.
 
Last edited:
cowpunk52 said:
The xha1 has 3 1/3" ccd's while the xf100 has one 1/3" cmos sensor, and all early reports indicate that it (just) outperforms the xha1's 3-chip sensor block.
Click to expand...
How? I'm not saying I flat out don't believe this statement, but in what specific regards does this single CMOS outperform the A1's 3CCDs? Resolution? Sensitivity? Color rendition? Dynamic range? All of the above?
 
Moseph said:
How? I'm not saying I flat out don't believe this statement, but in what specific regards does this single CMOS outperform the A1's 3CCDs? Resolution? Sensitivity? Color rendition? Dynamic range? All of the above?
Click to expand...

Look at the Slashcam.com pics. Believe it or not, better low light, dynamic range, and color than an A1. Look at the detail and color range in the XF versus the A1 low light. The A1 color has more punch but the XF color has more detail and will grade better.

This seems not to be an aberration, at least about color, and dynamic range - shadow detail. A French site did comparisons with a Z5 and an EX1, the EX1 was at least one and half, and maybe two, stops better low light and was sharper, but the XF100 had better shadow detail, and I liked the color better. The Z5 is better at low light by at least a stop. They also shot a Canon 550D slr, and the 550D had better low light, but inferior color and shadow detail.

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?231352-Canon-XF100-TEST-vs.-Sony-EX1-Sony-Z5-and-Canon-550D

http://translate.google.com/transla...hl=en&safe=off&client=safari&rls=en&prmd=ivns
 
Last edited:
honestly, I wouldn't have believed it either if it hadn't been for those tests combined with my own experience with my xf300. I'm easily pulling about 3 more stops of DR out of the xf300 than I was getting with my xha1. With the xha1, I was constantly exposing to the right in order to maintain shadow detail, at the cost of blowing highlights far more frequently than I wanted to, but with the xf300 i've completely reversed my video shooting methods because there is so much more shadow detail to work with. I can expose for highlights and really trust the camera to maintain detail across the range of the scene - even in high contrast outdoor shooting scenerios. It's also much cleaner at equivalent gains. I find +9db on the xf300 gives me about the same noise performance as 0db on the xha1. It would make sense then that the sensor & picture performance of the xf100 would outpace the xha1 if it borrows heavily from the big sister cams, which it seems to do.
 
Last edited:
Wow, I looked at those test shots and you're right. Looks like the only area where the A1 is significantly better is the resolution on objects that are NOT red.
I will say that even though most people say the rolling shutter on CMOS sensors is a non-issue, there's some applications where I truly believe a CMOS camera would be unusable, which is why I'm still holding onto the XH A1. I had to videotape a photoshoot a couple weeks ago and I can't imagine how terrible the partial exposures would look. Of course, it's becoming more and more acceptable these days, I've seen partial exposures on television at this point, but I have higher standards than that.
 
Thank you philiplipetz, Moseph, and cowpunk52. I appreciate all of your guys' feedback!

I'm not completely sure what Cmos skew is, cowpunk52. May that be what my boss is telling me occurs withing rapid panning or tilting? Or is that when vertical lines shift? Sorry for all of the questions I'm still pretty new at this.

But it sounds to me as if the majority of your replies are pro-xf100.. Hope my boss isn't offended that he may have to ebay the A1. Though its the first setup I'm buying for myself so I want to make sure I'm purchasing the right cam.
 
Yes, that's exactly what skew is. Because the information from CMOS sensors is picked up line by line rather than all at once, during a very fast pan objects will distort by leaning back. The lower the framerate, the worse the skew will be. During a very fast tilt, objects will get compressed or stretched out for the same reason.
How much does he want for the A1? If it's not a lot, if I was in your situation, I might just go with that instead.
 
I am also going to hold on to my XH-A1. The XF300 is a little out of my budget.....so i will need to stick with the XF100. I also shoot with the HF-S10, T1i and a 7D. I have a XL-H1 as well that i will most likley be trying to sell. The XA10 is something I am really looking forward to getting my hands on.
 
The CCD sensor in the A1 will help with whip pans, but the A1 seems to be inferior in all other aspects, and it still records to tape and that is a vanishing resource. The pan skew is over rated as a problem for most people unless you film fast movement, very fast.
 
Seth Hampton said:
I am also going to hold on to my XH-A1. The XF300 is a little out of my budget.....so i will need to stick with the XF100. I also shoot with the HF-S10, T1i and a 7D. I have a XL-H1 as well that i will most likley be trying to sell. The XA10 is something I am really looking forward to getting my hands on.
Click to expand...

The combination of a dSLR for shallow depth of field video, and a real video cam for most work is very very powerful, and where I am going.
 
I really don't know why someone would do "whip" pans for an actual production. I dont really have issues with "jello" effects in the things i shoot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top