Especially since Canon manufactures their own CMOS imaging chips, and do not manufacture CCDs, it sure seems to me that it might constitute a fairly foolish decision to go with CCDs in this new camcorder, and Canon doesn't tend to do foolish much.

At least since the introduction of the HV20, Canon's CMOS imaging chips have performed quite admirably in their consumer camcorders. It was pretty tough to complain about the performance of the HV20's imager almost three years ago (still is) and just as tough to complain about the performance of the imaging chips going into today's HF-S series camcorders. They perform quite well in low light conditions (especially shooting progressive images), and resolve detail quite nicely. Personally, I've never seen anything akin to what I would call a serious problem stemming from rolling shutter issues, with footage out of my HV20 (even in relatively high motion footage).

Sony has proven that CMOS imagers are now at least acceptable, if not exactly universally embraced with unbridled enthusiasm, to most customers in the low-end prosumer HD camcorder marketplace (despite a vocal minority who just won't get near a CMOS chip for love nor money, no doubt fearing they might instantly turn to jello - and probably a lot of those same folks would not buy a camcorder which does not clearly say Panasonic on it anyway, and likely only grudgingly accept the utter blasphemy of employing interframe compression in the HMC150, for that matter).

Very likely, Canon will not be introducing an entirely newly designed prosumer camcorder again for a number of years, so whatever imaging chips they do choose to put in this new camcorder (and I'm sure they don't take the decision lightly) will probably be going into a pretty significant number of the camcorders that Canon ships out for a long to come. Presumably, they would have a healthier profit margin on imaging chips they manufacture themselves, rather than on outsourced chips.

Canon does remarkably well at cranking both high quality interlaced and high quality progressive images out of interlaced CCDs. If they do go with a CCD that they can get the same image detail out of, with the new imaging block, as they get out of the imaging block in their current prosumer HDV camcorders, but with better light sensitivity and less noise, that would be competitive, at least for the moment. I do think it's entirely possible they could quickly fall behind the pack, as far as recorded image detail, especially for progressive HD formats, in perhaps even considerably less than just a year if Panasonic were to introduce a "new" AVCHD camcorder that's basically an HMC150, but employing the chips they currently use in the HPX300 (seemingly an easy thing to do, one would think) rather than the low res CCDs.

I've got to think, that if Canon does go with CCDs, they may inadvertently inspire Panasonic to come out with a version of the HMC150, using the HPX300 chips, a lot sooner than they might otherwise (if ever). If Canon goes with CMOS, the HMC150 remains the only AVCHD cam in it's class using CCDs (and as such, probably hang onto a significant market share for awhile). If Canon goes with CCDs, it's probably a reasonably safe bet that they will best the image detail recorded by the HMC150 (not exactly a tough challenge really), and perhaps leave the HMC150 with few (if any) significant advantages to compete with in the marketplace (aside from Panny's rather notably loyal core following), especially if Canon makes their new cam as infinitely customizable, with image acquisition presets, as their current prosumer HDV camcorders (which would seem awfully likely) and perhaps copying such nice little extras as the waveform monitoring. That could certainly inspire Panasonic to introduce a "new" alternative to the HMC150 in rather short order (presumably requiring little, if any, R&D time to bring it to market). Should that happen, and Panasonic go so far as to yank the HMC150 off the market (doesn't seem likely, but it's not entirely unimaginable either), that would almost assuredly leave Canon at the bottom of the heap, and rather quickly, for recording image detail in the 1080 line progressive formats. (1080i60 probably would not be difficult, but I don't know how they could achieve a solid 800 lines of recorded detail, in the 1080 line progressive formats, with a reasonably low cost imaging block built around reasonably orthodox CCDs - would be a fairly slick trick.)

Maybe Canon can achieve more with a low cost imaging block, built around fairly orthodox CCDs, than seems real likely to me (wouldn't shock me tho), but whatever they decide, I seriously doubt they will risk getting backed right into a low res corner (except perhaps for the LCD and viewfinder!), especially almost from the get-go.

It will indeed be sad news if Canon is going to provide only fixed-lens camcorders in it's future pro line.

For me, Resolution is something I am not concerned about at all for the new cams. Think about it, Canon has always had the highest resolution against its competition in its class every time they released new major models. Its a trend with their video and still camera lines that I don't see stopping.

They said completely new designed CCD sensor block. Who knows what new things this sensor block will be able to do (and remember, still no confirmation on actual size).

And they will definitely come out with an interchangeable lens camera, there is no evidence otherwise.

They said completely new designed CCD sensor block.Just to clarify, this is what Canon USA told Michael at CES. In other words, he's not referencing my article, he's referring to an actual conversation that took place before I published it (wrote most of it in Dec. but didn't publish until this week).

Well as Red shows - there is a large demand for full frame sensor videocameras for low prices. How many red ones have sold despite the various difficulties of the camera.
As pointed out elsewhere, Red's sold something on the order of 7,000 Red Ones, in the nearly two and a half years it's been on the market. So that's 7,000 in 29 months, or a round figure of maybe 250 per month.

To put that in perspective, according to Genyosha's Japan Camera Trade News... when Canon introduced the EOS 50D, they targeted production at 100,000 units. PER MONTH. The Nikon D90 was targeted to sell 120,000 units per month.

The little PowerShot A1000 -- 300,000 units per month. The Casio Exilim EX-Z300? 300,000 units per month.

Video is a tiny, tiny market compared to stills. And professional video is a tiny tiny subset of the video market. So yeah, having video on a stills camera makes it more flexible, but you shouldn't go thinking that it's any big priority or it's opening up vast new markets. And yes, we are all clamoring for a large-sensor professional video camera, but ... we are not the tail that wags that dog!

Video is a tiny, tiny market compared to stills. And professional video is a tiny tiny subset of the video market ... we are not the tail that wags that dog!I've been trying to get this point across for years. Not an easy thing to do with this audience!

...since Canon manufactures their own CMOS imaging chips, and do not manufacture CCDs, it sure seems to me that it might constitute a fairly foolish decision to go with CCDs in this new camcorder...Just because they can make their own CMOS doesn't mean it's free. You could easily have a situation where it's faster and less expensive for them to outsource the CCD block from some other supplier than it is to R&D, design, and build a CMOS block of their own (R&D because they've never done a three-chip CMOS block before).

Barry,

Thanks for those numbers! I've had a number of conversations with people who think that prosumer video is on the same volume level as DSLRs. It's been 100% clear to me that photos are for most everybody, and video is for the few.

Video is a tiny, tiny market compared to stills.

While I don't disagree with your overall point, do we have sales figures for the HF10 - HFS21 family? I wouldn't have thought THAT was 'tiny' ....

The way Canon goes about it, with prosumer video camcorders, I've got to think they make a few bucks on them. They only introduce a new model every once in awhile. Once the R&D costs are covered, they've got to have a pretty nice margin on them. The parts in an XH-A1, for example, can't cost anywhere near $3k, to manufacture on any reasonably large scale.

And how many Flip video cameras do you think they sell a month?

There's not a lot of people going to step up to spend 25-50K on a camera rig, obviously!

You can see, it's appropriate to consider market size, and I GUARANTEE the mahufacturers consider that VERY carefully before launching or even spending a development dime on a product. To say that it's not possible or economical to produce a product with a given feature set because of the potential sales figures isn't relevant IMO - it the price were right, I wouldn't mind having a RED inthe closet, how many others here would buy one if it were priced "right"?? Everyone please put your hands down...

The real question becomes what current state of the art technology and manufacturing capability can offer, at a given price point, with the expected market. Basic economics will tell you... cheap/inexpensive stuff sells more quantity, and you make it up on volume, high end/expensive/difficult to produce stuff has to make more per unit to keep ROI feasible.

What's being missed is that video is being democratized/commoditized RIGHT NOW, gear that was UNTHINKABLE even 5 years ago is ow available at a "reasonable" price, and we're still complaining about how we want more! Meanwhile people are USING their flip to make movies and enjoy the "toys"...

I'm sure WHATEVER CAnon/Sony/et.al. release this year will be "better" than "last years model", maybe there will be some total surprises or whatever, but there's cool new toys, isn't that ENOUGH???

For some people, I guess it'll never be enough.

Oh well... I look forward to see what Canon will be bringing to the table.

No doubt there is a market for a 35mm sized sensor video camera, it's entirely another matter if all the people will be satisfied with the cost of such a camera, which would be higher that the current DSLR cameras.

With video cameras and I suspect with stills cameras, the smaller the sensor the bigger the market.

Oh well looks like EX1 R sales are gonna go up, 25 mbps AVCHD..... nothing mind bending after all this time, how long ago was it that Canon released the XLH1..... 5 years ago! In that time Sony have come from Z1, Z7, EX1, Z5, EX3, EX1r, plus the nxcam or whatever the new one is.....

Well to be fair, in the same amount of time Canon has gone through the XL H1A, XL H1S, XH A1S and XHG1S... for a total of seven cameras (three XL H models and four XH models) from Sep. 2005 to Nov. 2008, so it's not like they haven't been doing anything.

Oh well looks like EX1 R sales are gonna go up, 25 mbps AVCHD...

Full bore 24Mbps AVCHD compression image quality and 35Mbps XDCAM EX compression image quality are really quite comparable.

Okay, I was probably a little unfair but the A1/G1/A1s/G1s are all pretty similar... but yes I'm sure they have been busy, I can't imagine the whole Canon R&D team just flogging facebook day in day out ; )

Oh well looks like EX1 R sales are gonna go up, 25 mbps AVCHD..... nothing mind bending after all this time, how long ago was it that Canon released the XLH1..... 5 years ago! In that time Sony have come from Z1, Z7, EX1, Z5, EX3, EX1r, plus the nxcam or whatever the new one is.....

Jonathan-

It could be noted with Sony....they tend to have somewhat of a shotgun approach to cameras.....they put many out and "see what sticks". I remember 2 years ago, walking by the Sony booth at NAB and seeing the EX-3.....3 months after the EX-1 came out! I knew there was going to be a few EX-1 owners that would not be happy.

Jim Martin
FilmTools

I can agree with Jonathan's sentiment though. I really appreciate what Sony did with the EX-1/3. They are the only maker who put 1/2" imagers in their cameras and full raster at that.

The onslaught of 1/3" imaging chip cameras seems like it will never end.

From my point of view, if JVC or Canon would embrace 1/2" chips they could differentiate their cameras from the 1/3" sea of offerings. But I know it is a technical hurdle as well.

As pointed out elsewhere, Red's sold something on the order of 7,000 Red Ones, in the nearly two and a half years it's been on the market. So that's 7,000 in 29 months, or a round figure of maybe 250 per month.

To put that in perspective, according to Genyosha's Japan Camera Trade News... when Canon introduced the EOS 50D, they targeted production at 100,000 units. PER MONTH. The Nikon D90 was targeted to sell 120,000 units per month.

The little PowerShot A1000 -- 300,000 units per month. The Casio Exilim EX-Z300? 300,000 units per month.

Video is a tiny, tiny market compared to stills. And professional video is a tiny tiny subset of the video market. So yeah, having video on a stills camera makes it more flexible, but you shouldn't go thinking that it's any big priority or it's opening up vast new markets. And yes, we are all clamoring for a large-sensor professional video camera, but ... we are not the tail that wags that dog!

Wow. Those are eye opening numbers Barry. Thank you.

Now I don't feel so bad about my 7D purchase. I was afraid that Canon would release the actual camera I really wanted and I'd have to explain why I want to buy yet another camera.

But Robert, you are so ..er....pursuasive (sp)......

Jim

The onslaught of 1/3" imaging chip cameras seems like it will never end.

I bet the soon to be only four models of 3-1/3" imaging chip prosumer AVCHD camcorders (assuming Canon's actually is - which isn't really confirmed yet) will pretty much dominate the marketplace in a fairly short time. I'll be surprised if sales of new HDV camcorders don't start dropping off quite fast now. Of course, Sony will probably have something like an NX7U (w/interchangeable lens) shipping in just a few months, making it five models, and of course Canon will presumably have an XL version of their new cam out in the near future too.

Full bore 24Mbps AVCHD compression image quality and 35Mbps XDCAM EX compression image quality are really quite comparable.
They COULD be, but it's not necessarily so. Defining the codec and data rate only defines the bitstream and how to decode the signal - it doesn't define the coder. And all coders are far from equal, all manufacturers have their own designs and hardly surprisingly technology is improving.

AVC-HD has the capability to be something like twice as efficient as MPEG2 - but the earliest coders didn't come anywhere close to that. I expect the cameras about to be released to be better, how much better remains to be seen.

What I'm waiting for is a smaller NXCAM, something to more rival the JVC HM100.

From what Barry Green has written, it sure sounds like the image quality of Panasonic's AVCHD compression is right on par with XDCAM EX.

What my eyes tell me, looking at the images I get out of the HMC40, would tend to confirm that. It's unmistakeably better than HDV. The first time I shot a little 1080p24 with the HMC40, I was amazed. My first thought was, dang, this would probably cut with EX1 footage quite nicely.

What I'm waiting for is a smaller NXCAM, something to more rival the JVC HM100.

Take a hard look at the HMC40. The image quality it can record is stunning (and it's no consumer-like lightweight for manual control either).

But a 1/2" chip will always out perform a 1/3" chip with regards to low light which we all know is a big problem with a lot of these cams. The Ex1 if you would pull a 4:2:2 HD signal straight from the HD SDI and captured into a nano flash compared to an equivalent Panny 1/3" cam I reckon the picture quality in a low light situation would be dramatic. Would be good test if someone has access to all necessary equip.
Plus 1/2" give a great depth of field, not super slim like a 35mm sensor but better than a 1/3" sensor.

...

They said completely new designed CCD sensor block. Who knows what new things this sensor block will be able to do (and remember, still no confirmation on actual size).

And they will definitely come out with an interchangeable lens camera, there is no evidence otherwise.

It would make sense to redesign it to from 1440 to 1920 since it probably won't be recording in a format w/ anamorphic pixels. As I think about this more, I doubt Canon will abandon 1/3" in their pro line, esp. if they will be coming out with an interchangeable lens model. There is simply too much demand for 1/3".

...it sure sounds like the image quality of Panasonic's AVCHD compression is right on par with XDCAM EX.

AVCHD at that bitrate might look like XDCAM during playback but certainly won't work the same through the postproduction workflow. Streamlined production is all about workflow, process, and interoperability. That's one thing that Sony has done well in this business.

AVCHD at that bitrate might look like XDCAM during playback but certainly won't work the same through the postproduction workflow. Streamlined production is all about workflow, process, and interoperability. That's one thing that Sony has done well in this business.

That depends on your workflow. If you transcode to an intermediate (like Cineform's), there's no serious difference. Editing natively, the gap in performance (speed) between AVC and MPEG-2 will be closing pretty rapidly (as future generations of CPUs roll out and software support improves).

I would still agree with Jad, after serious grading and effects the XDCAM codec will be more robust

High bit rate AVCHD is more diffcult to work with in post b/c the codec is very computationally intensive, but I can think of no reason why it would be less gradeable in post.

XDCAM EX has a MUCH more established workflow that will make working with it considerably easier. But that doesn't mean it's visually superior or can be pushed more when being graded.

I would still agree with Jad, after serious grading and effects the XDCAM codec will be more robust

I think it depends which XDCAM codec. AVCHD and XDCAM EX are both 8bit 4:2:0, so I'm not sure there's much difference there. But XDCAM HD422 is 4:2:2 (also 8-bit, I think) so it would be better for grading.

Full bore 24Mbps AVCHD compression image quality and 35Mbps XDCAM EX compression image quality are really quite comparable.

That all depends. The 35 Mb/s from the Sony EX is for the picture only. Sound is extra on top of that. While I seem to recall that the 24Mb/s rating of AVCHD includes the sound datarate in that total.

Even uncompressed audio is well under 10% of total bandwidth - and compressed audio, far less.

AVC, at roughly 2/3 the bandwidth of MPEG-2, can produce roughly similar quality, if the codec is efficient. AVC is still fairly young, so some modest improvements on in-camera compression efficiency are likely over the next few years, but right now it looks like codec efficiency in prosumer level AVCHD camcorders is already quite respectable. The major camcorder manufactures have had more than a couple years of experience, producing consumer AVCHD camcorders. In this industry, that's a whale of a long time really.

To put numbers on the data rate,
48 KHz 16 bit PCM stereo sound requires 1.536 Mbps.
The compressed MP3 sound that normally piggybacks on HDV and AVCHD uses ~376 Kbps.

AVC is still fairly young, so some modest improvements on in-camera compression efficiency are likely over the next few years, but right now it looks like codec efficiency in prosumer level AVCHD camcorders is already quite respectable.
A lot has been said in the UK recently about the BBC HD channel and bitrates. The coding system is H264, and until a few months ago the bitrate was around 16Mbs, then it was announced (to howls of protest) that it would be reduced down to 9.7Mbs. The argument was that they had got new coders, much more efficient, and this is what allowed them to reduce the bitrate for comparable quality.

I was sceptical when I heard what was proposed, but my own subsequent experience is that what they say seems accurate - I'm noticing virtually no difference in picture quality. This is all referenced at BBC - BBC Internet Blog: The Hitchhiker's Guide to Encoding: Life, Encoders and Everything (Or a brief history of HD encoding) (http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2009/12/the_hitchhikers_guide_to_encod_1.html)

I'll quote just a bit of that:
......ever since the BBC HD Channel trial started in 2006. When we started, real-time H264 coding was quite new and the early versions of encoders were not that much more efficient than the existing MPEG2 HD encoders.

EBU - TECH 3328 Current Status of High Definition Television Delivery Technology (May 2008)
... EBU investigations in 2005 showed that some MPEG-4 H.264/AVC hardware encoders did not show any bitrate advantage over MPEG-2 and in some cases even performed less well than MPEG-2 encoders. This situation improved by September 2006, and continued to improve in 2007 and 2008.
Yes - a couple of years ago even expensive broadcast real time encoders weren't that much more efficient than MPEG2. It's only relatively recently that the theoretical promises of AVC have started to be realised in practice, at least for real time encoding.

(Blu-Ray is different, when the coding is done in non-real time, and two-pass becomes possible, for camcorders you obviously need a real time encoder.)

So if that was the situation for real time broadcast a couple of years ago, and I don't find it credible that the AVC-HD encoder in a prosumer camera such as the HMC150 was substantially better.

That is not to say the situation won't change, so my feeling is that future improvements will be more than modest, but AVC-HD in cameras whose design is a year or two old is not that much better than MPEG2.

Very interesting. This stuff is complex, but it is important to stay on top of it all.

Hang in there.......you may be very surprised by the end of 2010. That's all I can say.

Great article Chris.
But ouch Canon!
You had the SLR sensor that changed the industry but not the foresight to get it into whats next for video.
We want Form-Factor dammit!
A Pity...
Go 2011! Or Scarlet for 2010! ;)
-C

That sounds interesting!

Hang in there.......you may be very surprised by the end of 2010. That's all I can say.

It would be uncharacteristic for Canon to introduce a new model, and then top it in the same year. If there is something else coming out, it probably is different enough not to threaten sales on this prototype.

Thinking about this and reading what everyone has posted, if I were Canon I'd continue w/ the 1/3" for as long as I could get away with... maybe move up to 1/2" or at the most 2/3" in another pro video line.

And I'd let the DSLR continue to merge w/ digital cinema camera needs. But I would not create a specifically designed "Red killer" camera, as I don't want to get into a fight over such a small market.

Nothing wrong with a little dust-up between companys......As Chris pointed out, Canon will first make something that will sell to the most people and then after that, we'll see.....The guys in Japan know there is a desire for a DLSR in a video configuration....they've seen it posted here and have heard it from CanonUSA people as well as, people attending trade shows. Its just a matter of where it fits in with Japan's plans and goals.

Jim

If Canon were to take the guts of a video DSLR and redesign it as a camcorder, don't expect it to be even close to cheap. With as limited a market as the camcorder would have, Canon would have to price it pretty high to recover the product development costs.

If Canon insists on only keeping 35mm sized sensors in DSLR's then expect the video side of these cameras to NEVER get better.

It's been proven time and time again that the video processing side of these cameras really suffers and without a proper body to house larger and more robust boards then they will never be true cinema cameras and will remain a novelty amongst the low-end of filmmakers with zero budget productions.

As I've explained in my article, there are two very important reasons why this "true cinema camera with 35mm sensors" concept won't materialize anytime soon... and they are highly significant roadblocks:

The AF System (must use the phase detection process, which isn't cheap)

The Lens (must be motorized with at least an 8x to 10x zoom, which isn't cheap).

Currently there is no suitable Canon EF lens adaptable for this purpose... certainly not the EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6 L IS USM, which is a push-pull "slider" type zoom. The missing glass is the real reason why Canon won't go in this direction, at least not until after RED has sounded the market first (and maybe not even then). It's a very tight niche which possibly won't recover the R&D cost of the lens -- which can run into millions of dollars -- and might not represent enough of a profit margin to pursue.

The difference with RED is that their target niche isn't just one of a wide variety of corporate interests; instead its *only* interest is indeed the digital cinema market, in which Canon has only a very small vested interest relative to everything else they do. RED has tremendous financial resources readily available to pour into this one specific thing, while Canon does not, despite the fact that it too is a multi-billion-dollar company.

I would play it a bit differently. Clearly, videographers like large sensor video, and many of us buy Canon lenses for our DvSLRs. I would put the DvSLR guts in a video camera body with very few changes. Yes, it will have rolling shutter, and be difficult to focus. But it will look like a video camera.

I would add software features like controllable audio gain, zebras, etc. In other words, I'd integrate Magic Lantern-type features. I'd also articulate the LCD screen. And I'd add XLR audio inputs. About the only other change I would make would be to add a slower anti-aliasing filter for its video-centric role.

The R&D costs for such a camera would be minimal. It would be the guts of a 7D with the LCD screen and audio input of an existing camcorder. The sensor would be a 7D unit with a video AA filter applied after the fact.

It wouldn't be a RED killer. It would be for the DvSLR videophile. And it would exist to sell more lenses and get people into the Canon fold.

As Canon's DvSLR video quality improves, I'd keep leveraging the technology for this hybrid cam. Maybe someday it gets electronic T/W lens control and autofocus, but not in the first round, and maybe not in the second.

And I'd price it below Scarlet. RED followers will bash its quality, but if the costs are managed, it will own the next tier down in the market. With most people delivering on the Web, not everybody needs RED-level quality.

With this approach, it's mostly a mechanical exercise. The parts are already in the bins and the heavy R&D cost have already been paid off.

Given that the "DvSLR sensor in a video cam" question is the most asked item of Canon's pro video reps (according to one rep at CES), why not answer the market?

What you say is true, Chris, but Canon certainly has the ability to make a world-beating 2/3" cinema camera (in a much different price bracket than is under discussion) yet they won't do that, either, I'm afraid. Sigh.

I'd love a 2/3" all-manual shoulder mount camera with great color and low light capability. They would take over the market from Sony, JVC, and Panasonic while using lenses they're already producing. Seems like if they can make a 7D for under $2k and a prosumer body with all the switches and knobs for under $4k, they could make a pro body that took AB batteries and B4 lenses.

I think Jon is on the right track here, but it would seem a very limited marketing segment.

"Buy this vew vDSLR. It acts like a true film camera...No, we mean it!"

I think a fair amount of people might get such a camera and be disappointed that it would not act like a video camera. Might be a customer service/relations issue.

It would be a pretty cost efficient way for Canon to give the (small) market what it wants.

The next few years will probably heat up in this space.

Canon would also have to deal with the cry for resolutions higher than 1080 w/ 8-bit 4:2:2 color. Red has a whole set of custom software made to deal with this need. There is no way, IMHO, that Canon will make its own version of RedCine-X.

And as soon as Canon markets a "real" digital cinema camera, 4K, 4:4:4, 12-bit Log will all be on everyones wish/need list. What codec do they use? It becomes a big mess.

If I were Canon, I'd let Red be Red and Canon stay Canon. I'd continue selling huge quantities of cameras and not do battle with a business model that only seems to work b/c a genius iconic businessman w/ $billions and a love for cinematography is running the show.

But the second Red seriously tries to follow through on its once mention goal of selling to soccer moms, I'd try my best to vanquish them. Until that happens, I'd be content fight only border skirmishes w/ Red, using #D's and MarkRomannumerals as my weapons.

Fascinating though it is, the debate about 35mm detector cinema cameras is over my head, and not very relevant to the original topic of this thread - the prototype SDHC-card cam in the pictures that looks like an XH-A1s replacement.

I moved up from an XM1 (which I loved but became unreliable) to an XH-A1 in 2007, and have been pleased and impressed with the pictures the HDV cam produces. I often incorporate footage from a friend's Sony FX1 in my productions, and the Canon is noticeably better in the same conditions, except in very low light.

My only gripe with the XH-A1 is its bulk. Lugging it and a suitable tripod by myself across moorland and around city streets is a pain, and if I fly, it means instant excess baggage charges. For me, the XM1 is the ideal size. The Panasonic HMC40 looks very interesting, as does the JVC HMC-100. I'm hoping that Canon will follow the XH-sized cam with a slimmer version that will fill the gap that currently yawns between the HV40/HF-series and the XH.

I'm in no hurry to move to tapeless shooting. I have an archive of a couple of hundred DV and HDV tapes, so I will need a means to at least play them for many years to come. However, I've always known it was a matter of "when" not "if". Hopefully, my present cam and editing PC will keep going for at least another year. Looks like next year's budget ought to include a Canon AVCHD/SDHC cam and a PC capable of editing the material. (I wonder if Avid Liquid's replacement will be ready by then? But that's another story...)

The problem at the moment is sitting on one's hands until some working models appear at NAB and similar events. I wonder when the first 25p/50i versions will show up?

It wouldn't be a RED killer. It would be for the DvSLR videophile. And it would exist to sell more lenses and get people into the Canon fold.

As Canon's DvSLR video quality improves, I'd keep leveraging the technology for this hybrid cam. Maybe someday it gets electronic T/W lens control and autofocus, but not in the first round, and maybe not in the second.


While everyone is asking and waiting for the next camera in the video line to align with the DSLR camera line, I like this idea that Canon go in reverse. They can just continue improving the video capabilities of its DSLR, alleviating some of the R&D burden from the video division. (I know Chris pointed out in the article that photo and video fall under the same group, but as far as camera lines go, we view photo and video as separate)

As someone pointed out earlier, the Digital Cinema market is too small for Canon to really target effectively. I can see them using the guise of the prosumer photo market that sells to a larger market to build the bridge to the video line, not the other way around. That way, we can slowly see the video features improve (such as zoom lenses, audio recording, etc.) while still making cameras that sell really well.

But from the other perspective, a company can only go with a line of cameras for so long before they are well behind everyone else... and these 1/3" chips are eating dust right now. And I doubt these predicted changes to the XH line will suffice what we wanted.