XF300 Low-Light Example

[cowpunk52]

Not shot by me, but a good example of the low-lihght capability of the xf cams

http://vimeo.com/13453736

"As promised, here are a few low-light reception clips from my first wedding shot with the XF300. Overall, the camera performed incredibly well. The three features I like the most are color accuracy, 18x zoom and the powered image stabilization. The LCD screen is in a class by itself. It is so sharp that to date, I have not used the peaking or magnify features to aid me with focusing. It's like watching a HI-Def movie on my 50" LCD screen, only smaller. Regarding the low-light quality, it's my opinion that this camera is of equal sensitivity to the EX1 at all gain settings, but with much finer/cleaner grain. I would never use +12 gain on my EX1, but would have no problem pushing the XF300 to that level. Although, I have decided to limit the 300's max gain setting to +9 for most reception coverage. I have found that +9db, plus 10-20 watts of diffused camera lighting is about perfect for most low light situations. The xf300's colors are far less muddy and maintain accuracy better than the EX1, even in very low light."

 

[cowpunk52]

This was posted by the creator of that low-light XF300 sample on another forum:

"I posted this footage online to because after using the camera at two events last weekend I was extremely pleased with its handling and even more so, the image quality. The important point here is that after using the Sony EX1 for more than two full years, I decided to sell it and all related SxS equipment to finance the bulk of the XF300 purchase. It was an "all in" decision for me. Fortunately, as of today I am 100% pleased with my decision to purchase the XF300."

 

[Finnegan]

I was looking forward to this new line of Canon cameras because I was a proud XH-A1 owner who switched over to a Canon 7D to hold me off until Scarlet - but I was very disappointed to see that Canon decided to stick with 1/3 in chips which I think are totally outdated in today's market. It would have been relatively easy for Canon to stick a 2/3 or possibly even a 4/3 sensor in the XF300 and XF305 given that they already produced APS-C and full frame 35mm sensors for the HDSLR lines, and that alone would have improved low light sensitivity ten fold. I just can't see myself spending $8,000 on a camera when I could spend $2,000 on a 7D and get a sensor that's like 50x bigger, and use the remaining $6,000 that I would have spent on the XF305 on lenses and other accessories.

The codec issue on the 7D is not worth $8,000 in my opinion. And this is coming from a tried and true XH-A1 fan.

 

[cowpunk52]

I was looking forward to this new line of Canon cameras because I was a proud XH-A1 owner who switched over to a Canon 7D to hold me off until Scarlet - but I was very disappointed to see that Canon decided to stick with 1/3 in chips which I think are totally outdated in today's market. It would have been relatively easy for Canon to stick a 2/3 or possibly even a 4/3 sensor in the XF300 and XF305 given that they already produced APS-C and full frame 35mm sensors for the HDSLR lines, and that alone would have improved low light sensitivity ten fold. I just can't see myself spending $8,000 on a camera when I could spend $2,000 on a 7D and get a sensor that's like 50x bigger, and use the remaining $6,000 that I would have spent on the XF305 on lenses and other accessories.

The codec issue on the 7D is not worth $8,000 in my opinion. And this is coming from a tried and true XH-A1 fan.

I can certainly appreciate your opinion, and you're definitely not alone in the hope that Canon's new line of professional video cameras would have at APS-C sensor in them. Undoubtedly, that type of camcorder will come from Canon eventually. However, the market for 1/3" class camcorders has not ceased because video DSLR's exist, and sensor size doesn't tell the whole story - it doesn't even come close.

The XF line has so many things going for it over a video DSLR that they really attract a different type of user. The only area where a DSLR can compete with a camcorder like the XF300 or 305 is in selective DOF and low-light capability. The XF series, and just about any HD camcorder from any manufacturer, will absolutely destroy a DSLR in resolution, codec, color accuracy, audio, ergonomics, usability & reliability.

If the camera seems to cost too much for what it offers you, you can pretty much bet that it's not aimed at your market demographic. The XF is a professional line of camcorders with professional features and broadcast IQ, not a prosumer still camera with a "good-enough" video feature tacked on wrought with softness, colored moire, color banding, aliasing, overheating, file-limit, audio & ergonomic issues. It may not be the right camera for you given today's option of cheap DSLR's, but that certainly doesn't mean there is no place for a camera like this.

To come out with a camcorder that has the features and quality of the XF line with an APS-C sensor, or even a 2/3" sensor, would cost much much more than $8k, or even $15k. The APS-C & full-frame sensors that are in dslr's are not designed for video, and by professional standards do an extremely poor job of creating broadcast quality HD images.

Also, a small caveat, but worth noting is that the 300 is $6800, while it's the 305 that costs $8k. It wouldn't be difficult to spend the same amount on a 7D body + lenses & accessories to equal half of the functionality of an XF camcorder, and you still wouldn't get the ease-of-use or overall IQ that an XF offers.

 

[agcohn]

I was looking forward to this new line of Canon cameras because I was a proud XH-A1 owner who switched over to a Canon 7D to hold me off until Scarlet - but I was very disappointed to see that Canon decided to stick with 1/3 in chips which I think are totally outdated in today's market. It would have been relatively easy for Canon to stick a 2/3 or possibly even a 4/3 sensor in the XF300 and XF305 given that they already produced APS-C and full frame 35mm sensors for the HDSLR lines, and that alone would have improved low light sensitivity ten fold. I just can't see myself spending $8,000 on a camera when I could spend $2,000 on a 7D and get a sensor that's like 50x bigger, and use the remaining $6,000 that I would have spent on the XF305 on lenses and other accessories.

The codec issue on the 7D is not worth $8,000 in my opinion. And this is coming from a tried and true XH-A1 fan.

I think a 2/3" model would have cost at least 2-3 times as much money as the the XF300 / 305, and probably a lot more if you wanted to keep an 18x video lens.

I don't think Canon is trying to compete with their HDSLRs with these cams. They are aiming at the video market, as opposed to digital cinema.

 

[Razz16mm]

I was looking forward to this new line of Canon cameras because I was a proud XH-A1 owner who switched over to a Canon 7D to hold me off until Scarlet - but I was very disappointed to see that Canon decided to stick with 1/3 in chips which I think are totally outdated in today's market. It would have been relatively easy for Canon to stick a 2/3 or possibly even a 4/3 sensor in the XF300 and XF305 given that they already produced APS-C and full frame 35mm sensors for the HDSLR lines, and that alone would have improved low light sensitivity ten fold. I just can't see myself spending $8,000 on a camera when I could spend $2,000 on a 7D and get a sensor that's like 50x bigger, and use the remaining $6,000 that I would have spent on the XF305 on lenses and other accessories.

The codec issue on the 7D is not worth $8,000 in my opinion. And this is coming from a tried and true XH-A1 fan.

Well the quality of HD video coming out of that 1/3" chip camera is far superior to anything out of a DSLR. No aliasing, no moire, no rolling shutter artifacts, and much higher visible resolution and detail. Just depends on what is important to you. It would not be practical to try to build a fixed lens video camera around a larger than 2/3" video sensor. The optics would put the price through the roof. These small sensor cameras are not obsolete and are superior for many uses for general video acquisition.

 

[Finnegan]

I'm not saying sensor size is the end of be all of video. As stated previously, I'm well aware of how much control the user has with that type of camera because of my extensive experience with Canon's XH-A1 and XL-H1. However, I don't think that there is this massive divide between sensor size and functionality that everyone seems to be suggesting there is. Panasonic and Sony have both already announced cameras with 4/3 sensors that will be market ready by this fall, and previous iterations of their lines have matched or exceeded the features that Canon is offering with the XF305 - on top of the larger sensor.

From a narrative filmmaking standpoint (which is my background) it just doesn't seem practical to spend $8,000 on the Canon XF305 when in a couple months you could spend $6,000 on the Panasonic AF100 (which is an estimated price) which has most if not all the functionality and features of the XF305 but also a 4/3 sensor.

Again, let me reiterate - I am not saying sensor size is everything. But look at RED, look at Arri, or any of the digital leaders. Sensor size is important because it allows for greater pixel capability, which means greater low light capability and larger resolution. Higher resolution means higher scans, and in the world of RAW workflow, resolution is paramount. And a 1/3 chip is handicapped for resolution because of how small a space the pixels have to be crammed into. At least the issues with HDSLRs that you all pointed out like moire, rolling shutter, and aliasing are all effects of the terrible codec that the Canon HDSLR rigs employ for compressing footage - which I think is an easily solved issue that we'll see fixed whenever the next iteration ships of each line.

 

[cowpunk52]

Panasonic and Sony have both already announced cameras with 4/3 sensors that will be market ready by this fall, and previous iterations of their lines have matched or exceeded the features that Canon is offering with the XF305 - on top of the larger sensor.

Can you elaborate on what those models Panasonic & Sony have that exceed the features of Canon XF's and have larger sensors? I'm not aware of these cameras. And it seems prudent to point out that DSLR's and large-sensor camcorders certainly have not caused the HPX370 to cease production, and that's a 1/3" camcorder that will run you more than $10k when you throw in a battery & a P2 card. EX1R's are still doing quite well, too.

From a narrative filmmaking standpoint (which is my background) it just doesn't seem practical to spend $8,000 on the Canon XF305 when in a couple months you could spend $6,000 on the Panasonic AF100 (which is an estimated price) which has most if not all the functionality and features of the XF305 but also a 4/3 sensor.

The XF camcorders are obviously not aimed for someone who strictly does digital cinematography. The AF100, on the other hand, is - and while I'm certain it will be an excellent camera in it's own right, it will not have "most if not all the functionality and features of the XF305 but also a 4/3 sensor" according to Panasonic's own published specs. It will not have an 18x f1.6-2.8 zoom lens, or 3 modes of OIS, or a native 50 mbps 4:2:2 codec, or 3 full-raster chips, etc, etc. And with a single bayer chip, it likely won't reach the resolution of an XF camcorder (unless they are privy to some physics that the rest of us mortals aren't).

Also, as Panasonic says, the AF100 is for "stabilized camera work." That's a different sort of camera work from what the XF are designed for.

Again, let me reiterate - I am not saying sensor size is everything. But look at RED, look at Arri, or any of the digital leaders.

Yes, look at them... then look at the price tags. Arri Alexa: $66,000. Red One (body only - no lens, no viewfinder, not even a handle): $17,500. Even Sony's unannounced digital cinema camera is rumored to have a price tag of $19k.

Sensor size is important because it allows for greater pixel capability, which means greater low light capability and larger resolution. Higher resolution means higher scans, and in the world of RAW workflow, resolution is paramount. And a 1/3 chip is handicapped for resolution because of how small a space the pixels have to be crammed into.

Agreed on the low-light, but Canon's XF camcorders resolve well past the nyquist limit for 1080 HD footage, it's native resolution. And the XF300 is the only camcorder in it's class (handheld, under $7k) to offer that resolution with a native 50 Mbps 4:2:2 codec. Take a look at some of the test charts shot with it, you'll be impressed, I guarantee.

At least the issues with HDSLRs that you all pointed out like moire, rolling shutter, and aliasing are all effects of the terrible codec that the Canon HDSLR rigs employ for compressing footage - which I think is an easily solved issue that we'll see fixed whenever the next iteration ships of each line.

One would hope, but over the course of 4 camera models (5D II, 1D IV, 7D & T2i) , they couldn't seem to sort it those issues out. And in fact, no one else has either (Nikon, Panasonic, Sony) - yet. For me, time is money. I make money shooting with what works today, not what might work next Christmas or sometime in 2011. The Canon XF's work today, exceedingly well.

From a narrative filmmaking standpoint, I totally get why you want Canon to make a digital cinema camera rather than the XF's. But that's a different camera for a different & smaller market.

 

[KyleProhaska]

I find all the bickering people do to be annoying. I'm not talking about here, I'm just saying in general. I'm interested in doing narrative film, so using something like an XHA1 with an adapter setup like the SGBlade or Letus Elite are great systems if my goal is DVD (which it is). Even if it wasn't...that kind of image blown up to film for a theater would look fine, especially considering most theater prints end up being a 720p equivalent or so in terms of quality.

The codec problem on the Canon's still is enough to keep me away from shooting an entire film with them. The form factor is nice and perhaps it could be a B cam or be used in certain places of the film where it's important to have, but other than that the form factor isn't an issue for me. If your shooting even on a small budget, you CAN deal with the fact you'll have a bulkier setup. If you're on the street...ok I get it but most of the time at least for me I'll be in a semi-controlled environment where moving the thing isn't a chore. If I have an AC the problem goes away almost completely.

The XHA1 was a brilliant camera to use on my film Standing Firm, and the results show. For a $3000 camera it's remarkable. Have a look at some uncorrected footage HERE. (it was being cropped for 2.35 btw...). I could totally shoot on that camera again, but the audio limitations and tape and such might be what have me say no. Otherwise it would totally work again for my needs.

Just shoot on what works for you and your needs, nuff said. I think the XF cameras along with a good adapter setup would work wonders from what I see. It would be what I got on Standing Firm but less muddiness in some of the image from the compression, and a cleaner image overall. That gets me excited more than anything...

 

[Bokes]

I watched the low light footage- full screen 27inches- is it me or does anyone else find some of the shots to be soft? My EX (which I sold) was razor sharp even in low light at +12db.
Could this be the compression or user error?

FWIW- I'm looking to pick up a full size cam again- these 5D's just don't cut it for events and live performance work. Too much jumping through hoops with audio and rec limits.
And the DOF while trying to squeeze and shoot your way through the dance floor is a nightmare.

 

[cowpunk52]

I watched the low light footage- full screen 27inches- is it me or does anyone else find some of the shots to be soft? My EX (which I sold) was razor sharp even in low light at +12db.
Could this be the compression or user error?

FWIW- I'm looking to pick up a full size cam again- these 5D's just don't cut it for events and live performance work. Too much jumping through hoops with audio and rec limits.
And the DOF while trying to squeeze and shoot your way through the dance floor is a nightmare.

I think it's compression combined with the fact that the upload source was 720p. To my eye, it doesn't look any less sharp than other 720p footage I've viewed on Vimeo. Quite possibly, though, he's using a 360 degree shutter rather than 180 to allow more light in - which could cause more motion blur, making it seem softer. But that's pure speculation on my part (it's what I would do in the same situation).

 

[cowpunk52]

I think the XF cameras along with a good adapter setup would work wonders from what I see. It would be what I got on Standing Firm but less muddiness in some of the image from the compression, and a cleaner image overall. That gets me excited more than anything...

It looks like shooting with an adapter is something the XF designers had in mind. A couple of useful features the XF cameras have for that type setup is a mirror button on the LCD to flip the image, but more importantly there is a reverse scan record setting in the custom function menu so that you can actually record a flipped image.