Raw samples of Canon XF300 & Sony EX1R

[Michael Galvan]

To throw into the mix for comparison, here are some Canon XL H1S/Nanoflash footage still extractions (shot 24F at 50mb 4:2:2, 0db). Sharpness at 0.

[Brian Woods]

interesting. difficult to compare given such different samples - but one thing that I notice right off the bat in the frame grabs is that the XF camera has much less noise than the XL H1S/Nanoflash. It looks like the XF300 at +6db is better than the XL H1S at 0db.

edit - I also see some aliasing in the blonde girl's hair in the XL H1S/Nanoflash grab. I don't notice any in either of the XF300 grabs, but they may not be the best frames to test for that kind of artifact. Alan Roberts does mention in his test report, though, that the XF camera showed no aliasing artifacts at all.

[Barlow Elton]

Originally Posted by Jeff Anselmo

Hi Barlow,

Thanks for that screen grab. The pic looks really sharp at those settings!

Any chance you can upload raw MXF files that you captured?

Best,

I uploaded 4 raw 50 mbps 4:2:2 clips. Up to Chris if he wants to post them.

A wide shot (1080 24p), a CU (1080 24p), and just for grins, an overcrank and undercrank shot.

Not terribly exciting showroom footage but does show the quality in a less than ideal setting.

[Jeff Anselmo]

Thanks for shooting and uploading those clips Barlow!

Can't wait to download them and check 'em out on Adobe CS5.

Best,

[Barlow Elton]

No prob Jeff, glad to contribute even boring clips. ;-)

Let us know how the mxf files perform in CS5. I'm wondering if they're just as easy to edit as HDV files in terms of RT performance.

[Alister Chapman]

EX1 and XF305 Side by side, same time, same shot raw clips are on my blog, hopefully Chris will pick them up and host them here later.

XDCAM-USER.com Alister’s Blog

[Steve Phillipps]

That looks more like it Alister. Much more even as you'd expect.
Steve

[Alister Chapman]

Not much in it. Stock XF305 a little sharper but more fine grain and noise while stock EX1 has less noise but not quite so much fine detail. You can tweak the sharpness up a bit on the EX which increases noise a little or increase noise reduction on 305 which softens the picture a little. The EX is a stop more sensitive, but you can push the gain harder on the 305 by using the noise reduction, so it's swings and roundabouts. I don't like the way the lens operates on the 305, you can have control via zoom rocker or zoom ring but not both together. If your a Canon person, go with the Canon. If your a Sony person stay Sony. There's no reason to jump ship.

[Dom Stevenson]

Thanks for the review Alister. I was surprised to see the EX1 win over the Canon for ergonomics. Compared to my xha1 i found the EX1 awkward, though i've not tried the new model. Also it's interesting to see an overhead shot of the 2 cameras side by side, and note that the Canon is significantly larger.

I'd probably lean towards the xf300 myself, but it looks like there's little to choose between them.

[Nick Wilcox-Brown]

Nicely done Alister.

According to Alan Roberts, diffraction does not affect resolution on the XFs until you go beyond f8; I would normally work on f5.6 for a third inch sensor. WFM is only available on the LCD BTW

Nick.

[Doug Jensen]

Alister, nice review. After owning the camera for a week now, I'd agree with most of your comments, but, as is to be expected, I disagree with a few things. I'll post some of my own comments later if I can find the time to write things down. However,I have just a couple of quick comments.

You wrote:
"The Cine F setup was really soft and Cine V just had a quite flat look, howeer I didnt really have time to explore these fully."

I think you made a typo there. Cine F is the sharpest of the bunch with the Sharpness setting cranked all the up to +29. On the other hand, Cine V is so soft is us unusable. I think you got the two crossed.

Also, in my opinion, I think the zoom rocker control is way better than the EX1 or EX1R -- which I think is generally hated by most people who own those cameras. Smooth starts and stops are so much easier on the XF305. Almost feels like a real broadcast lens.

And finally, I'd say the XF305 is about 1.5 to 2.0 stops slower than the EX1R, and when you factor in that the lens is only f/2.8 at full-telephoto, I think this camera would really be challenging for wedding/events/news. I shot some night time stuff at an art event over the weekend that I have previously shot with other cameras. It was really a struggle to get anything that looked as good as what I had done previously with the EX1R under the identical conditions.

I agree that you can't go wrong with either camera, buy Sony if you like Sony, or vice-versa. But the one exception to that would be if low-light performance is important.

I'll post more when I can.

[Brian Woods]

Originally Posted by Dom Stevenson

Thanks for the review Alister. I was surprised to see the EX1 win over the Canon for ergonomics. Compared to my xha1 i found the EX1 awkward, though i've not tried the new model. Also it's interesting to see an overhead shot of the 2 cameras side by side, and note that the Canon is significantly larger.

I'd probably lean towards the xf300 myself, but it looks like there's little to choose between them.

I have to respectively disagree with Alister's comments on the ergonomics of the EX1 winning out over the XF300/305. I can shoot all day (and did yesterday) hand held with the xf300 and experience only a fraction of the wrist and arm fatigue I get after spending an hour with the EX1. The balance is much better on the XF300. The EX1 is a near nightmare to use hand held for significant amounts of time due to how far the handgrip is from the camera's gravity center.

However, like he mentioned, it will take some getting used to throwing a switch every time I want to go from using the zoom rocker to using the zoom ring on the lens.

[Brian Woods]

Originally Posted by Doug Jensen

And finally, I'd say the XF305 is about 1.5 to 2.0 stops slower than the EX1R, and when you factor in that the lens is only f/2.8 at full-telephoto, I think this camera would really be challenging for wedding/events/news. I shot some night time stuff at an art event over the weekend that I have previously shot with other cameras. It was really a struggle to get anything that looked as good as what I had done previously with the EX1R under the identical conditions.

I agree that you can't go wrong with either camera, buy Sony if you like Sony, or vice-versa. But the one exception to that would be if low-light performance is important.

I'll post more when I can.

I feel like this should be made clear, as most people are ill-informed about the lens performance on the EX1 and EX1R:

The maximum aperture of f/1.9 holds until about 10mm, then ramps gradually down to f/2.8 at full tele over 14x. This ramping is not shown in the camera’s displays; it thinks it’s still at f/1.9 (maybe it is still at f/1.9; the transmitted light, however, decreases by a stop, and at full tele the iris can be turned between wide open and f/2.8 with no change in the levels).

At least Canon tells you ;) With the XF300 starting at f1.6 and going down to 2.8 over an 18x zoom range (vs the EX1's 14x), you can expect to get about 1/2 stop more speed from the Canon lens at equivalent focal lengths. This, combined with the better noise performance on the XF cams is what actually evens out the low-light performance, in my recent experience with both.

[Doug Jensen]

I am well aware the the Sony lens loses some light at the extreme end of the telephoto. I noticed that the first day I had a pre-production EX1 almost three years ago.

But, as someone who has both an EX1R and XF305 sitting right here in front of them, I'm telling you that there is huge difference in how much light you lose when the XF305 is zoomed all the way in. Yeah, technically the Sony has the same problem, but the scale of the problem is much worse on the Canon.

A 1/2 stop more speed at equivalent focal lengths? Not a chance. Maybe if you only look at the specs of the lens and ignore the other camera electronics that affect how it repsonds to light -- which obviously is something you can't do since neither camera has a removable lens. If anyone thinks they can prove the Canon has better, or even equal low-light performace to the EX1R, I invite them to knock themselves out trying. I know what I have seen with my own eyes.

[Brian Woods]

Absolutely a half stop more speed, yes. I guarantee it, I put them through side by side paces last week - test it for yourself. But that slight speed advantage on the XF is mitigated by smaller sensors, and thus less sensitivity. At full telephoto at the same gain, the XF will be darker than the EX, no doubt about it - because the XF has less sensitive 1/3" sensors vs the EX's 1/2" sensors. But with the XF, a 2.5db better noise performance allows you to safely bump up the gain and very closely match the EX's low-light performance. Tweaks to either can be made to better or worsen performance with custom profiles. The scale of the problem seems worse on the Canon because you're going from f1.6 to f2.8 over the zoom range, vs on the Sony where you only travel from f1.9 to f2.8.

edit: just did a quick check of my notes - by the time you get to 14x on the XF cameras, you're down to about a 1/4 or 1/3 stop aperture advantage vs the EX at 14x