Test shooting in a studio.
Warning: The access to the host site is not stable. Sometimes the site is overloaded. If it your case, try later.

Canon XF300 (ZIP-archives with raw .MXF-files):
- Vertical panorama: http://www.adcom.it/public/filevideo/xf300/xf300panoramicaverticale.zip
- Autofocus speed: http://www.adcom.it/public/filevideo/xf300/xf300velocitaautofocus.zip
- Change focus: http://www.adcom.it/public/filevideo/xf300/xf300cambiofuoco.zip
- Zoom range: http://www.adcom.it/public/filevideo/xf300/xf300escursionezoom.zip
- The reaction to photo flash: http://www.adcom.it/public/filevideo/xf300/xf300flashbanding.zip
- Light field: http://www.adcom.it/public/filevideo/xf300/xf300luceincampo.zip
- Rolling shutter: http://www.adcom.it/public/filevideo/xf300/xf300rollingshutter.zip
- Slow motion (720p): http://www.adcom.it/public/filevideo/xf300/xf300slowmotion.zip

For comparision, Sony PMW-EX1R:
- Vertical panorama: http://www.adcom.it/public/filevideo/sonyex1r/ex1rpanvert.zip
- Autofocus speed: http://www.adcom.it/public/filevideo/sonyex1r/ex1rautofocus.zip
- Change focus: http://www.adcom.it/public/filevideo/sonyex1r/ex1rcambiofuoco.zip
- Zoom range: http://www.adcom.it/public/filevideo/sonyex1r/ex1rescursionezoom.zip
- The reaction to photo flash: http://www.adcom.it/public/filevideo/sonyex1r/ex1rflash.zip
- Light field: http://www.adcom.it/public/filevideo/sonyex1r/ex1rluceincampo.zip
- Rolling shutter: http://www.adcom.it/public/filevideo/sonyex1r/ex1rolling.zip
- Slow motion: http://www.adcom.it/public/filevideo/sonyex1r/ex1rslowmo.zip

The XF300 & EX1R tests were conducted at different times.

P.S. The clips are taken from an italian e-shop site. Not sure whether permisable to indicate a direct link to the site.

Too bad they're not hosted on DV Info Net.

im not getting above 11kb/s :(

Just think, if they lived here, you'd have 'em by now.

;-)

Ivan:

Thank you for the link. So far I have downloaded the xf300 autofocus test. I think this af speed is acceptable for me. Sharpness also OK.

Very interesting. Dwlded the flash test for XF-300 and there are 3 tests (3 flashes) in the footage only at the first one you get the artifact of the rolling shutter (one line at the bottom) in the other two there is now artifact, in fact the flash is very even in the entire frame. If you watch the video at normal speed you don't even notice it, the flash occures only within 2 frames. Another useful info would have been the value of the shutter. Downloading the EX1R flash test ( I expect it to be as good).

Just think, if they lived here, you'd have 'em by now.

;-)

I sure know what you mean Chris. I wonder what your thoughts are on this Ivan? ;P

I played with the XF-305 at a local dealer for a little while yesterday. I was able to grab a few raw recordings on CF but nothing all that interesting other than decent examples of how the camera handled mixed light on the showroom floor. Screen grab is attached from one clip. (near full telephoto, 0 db, F 2.6, 1080 24p, 50 mbs)

Let me just say that I'm impressed overall with the camera. Very professional and extremely well-built.

More commentary later.

What tools are you using to watch these on a Mac? The EX1's MP4s threw an error in the QT player and XF files are MXF.

What tools are you using to watch these on a Mac? The EX1's MP4s threw an error in the QT player and XF files are MXF.

Just the Mac VLC player. VLC can play just about anything

. . . I wonder what your thoughts are on this Ivan? ;P

Michael,
The clips are hosted on an italian site which was found quite accidentally by Google.
I would like they be hosted on DvInfo.net. But sorry I have no rights on them.

What tools are you using to watch these on a Mac? The EX1's MP4s threw an error in the QT player and XF files are MXF.
I use VLC for all video playback formats and have no problems at all.

Just my two cents

I also found this Canon XF300 test and I am very impressed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3uMZ486Iq5s

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,

Here is a few snapshots I took of the vertical pan clips using the VLC player for those that don't want to wait forever to download a clip. The XF300 looks incredible compared against the EX1. I fully understand why the BBC has approved the XF300 for broadcast if these results are anything to go by. Colours are rich, skin tones realistic, and there is clearly more detail in the XF300.

I'm not sure what the test setup was like, looking at the clips the EX1 looks like it was shot in a darker tungsten setup while the XF300 seem to be in a bright daylight environment? Can tthe difference between the two cameras be that far apart?

The XF300 & EX1R tests were conducted at different times.
Does this mean there was different lighting conditions? I have seen a few Youtube videos that echo this colour difference, is 4:2:2 the missing link we've been waiting for?

Nicholas,
I have no info about the lighting conditions during the tests.
The site has several other tests of camcoders from different manufacturers.
I chose XF300 & EX1R because of their belonging to the same price range.

There definitely seems to be something odd going on here. Why are the pics so different? Lighting totally different, even the background colour has changed which must mean the settings on the cameras are totally different.
The Canon looks miles sharper than the Sony for sure, but I'd say the Sony image looks nicer in overall terms, less plastic/video looking.
But, there's definitely something not right, there's no way the Canon should look that much sharper is there?
Steve

Nicholas,
I have no info about the lighting conditions during the tests.
The site has several other tests of camcoders from different manufacturers.

Steve I agree, judging from Ivan's response on the matter I don't think that these tests were meant to be a comparison between different cameras. About the only thing we can accurately say is that the XF300 seems much sharper than the EX1 but as far as colour goes we'll need to wait for better tests to show up. Canon has always had the upper hand in high quality lenses - the increased sharpness is probably due to new lens developed for the XF300.

Seems like too big a difference to be just the lens to me though. The EX1 lens is actually pretty good. On the head shot there is just no detail in the hairs on the EX1 shot at all.
Steve

Yeah, I have to agree with Steve. It's too weird for my taste. And I've
changed my mind about wanting to host these files. I'll have nothing
to do with it at all. This just reaffirms the need for our own controlled
side-by-side testing here at DV Info Net. I have plenty of bandwidth
available for that.

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,

Yeah, no prob, if Chris doesn't mind hosting them for a while. They are rather large files though, I think the smallest is around 200 MB. I wasn't really thinking about getting short clips for raw file uploads, and it's just showroom stuff but the footage is a fairly good indicator of how the camera handles a few real world situations.

Hi Barlow,

Yeah, that'd be great!

And sounds like that Chris has plenty of room for the files :)

Best,

Hey Barlow -- thanks and please shoot me an email, chris at dvinfo dot net.

I've had a couple of other offers from folks with native MXF clips
to share as well, so y'all can look for the download links soon.

I'll have nothing to do with it at all. This just reaffirms the need for our own controlled side-by-side testing here at DV Info Net. I have plenty of bandwidth
available for that.

Chris,
Ditto, my cynic light was blaring full on the moment I saw the EX footage was a different perspective and exposure.

I seem to recall a review of the XL1 you did on your back patio where you used a tractor by the back fence to illustrate you point. And to think, it was just something you "Threw Together" for the XL1 Watchdog. Haha

And, as I recall, gathering good information was the genesis for the Watchdog now DVINFO site.

Thanks Les -- yes the Info in DV Info Net stands for Information
with a capital i, and I believe anything less than real information
is worse than useless. That's why I won't allow links to these
nonsense "camera rumors" sites and other online junk.

We'll work on getting an EX and an XF side by side.

Hey Barlow -- thanks and please shoot me an email, chris at dvinfo dot net.

I've had a couple of other offers from folks with native MXF clips
to share as well, so y'all can look for the download links soon.

Email sent!

There's a lot I wish I had to time to go over about the camera, but I think comparing it to the EX1 is probably the matchup that makes the most sense. In fact, the XF seems extremely EX-like, with maybe better overall refinements, but with one obvious tradeoff too. (1/3" vs 1/2")

I think Alister Chapman is hoping to do some tests in a more organised way to demonstrate the real difference (or not) between the 2 cameras.

I would just like to thank Ivan for the links.
Maybe the lynchmob could relax a little considering how much useful information these clips give.

Hi Chris,

Just wanted to make sure you received my email a few days ago. I have footage I shot with a loaner XF305 camera. I'd like to help out if I can.

Thanks,

Mike

Hi Mike, you've got mail! Thanks,

these were taken by: cowpunk52
Here are a couple of frame graps from my XF300. I haven't had a whole lot of time to get to know it lately, but yesterday I shot a couple of very quick audition scenes for an actor friend of mine to send to a NY production.

These are completely available light setups. I probably overexposed the first one a little. I was shooting completely handheld, and there is some motion blur in the actor's face because he was talking. I used a slightly tweaked version of Alan Roberts' BBC Film-look.

f/2, -6db
http://www.dvxuser6.com/uploaded/47652/1279305182.jpg

f/2 (i think), +6db
http://www.dvxuser6.com/uploaded/47652/1279305278.jpg

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.

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.

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.

Thanks for shooting and uploading those clips Barlow!

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

Best,

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.

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 (http://www.xdcam-user.com/?page_id=5)

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Ergonomics of cameras is far more than this. In the case of the zoom operation, I don't think it's preference. The cognitive load to operate the XF zoom strikes me as arguably higher to switch modes as well as maintain the state of rocker vs lens ring since the XF design makes them mutually exclusive. Cognitive load spent on operations is cognitive load taken away from the creative.

Another example is the EX auto iris on the grip. It offers similar low cognitive load benefits as it lowers the number of things a busy left hand must perform and shifts it to an otherwise unused finger on the right. I think it's arguably also a more reliable move (less load) with the right hand pinky than groping with the thumb or *gasp* complete cessation of zoom and focus operations to use the pointer finger.

On the grip, I wish someone would do a good evaluation of the balance/fatigue issue including using the improved grip on the updated EX1R model released last fall where they shifted the location of the palm and location of the strap. It's not a marathon of which can be held the longest. There's also the functional issue of the rotating grip of the EX that allows positions and moves not possible with the XF design...so it's a tradeoff.

Alister makes some other astute observations about smaller things such as the XF design requiring the operator to remember where manual focus was last set and the lack of WFM in the VF. There are also things in the EX that don't exist in the XF and are missed in reviews looking only at the XF (eg, tripod mount, up to 15 seconds cache record, rotating handgrip, WFM in the VF, labeled f-stop markings, hard stop iris ...).

Size matters. The XF is huge in comparison to the EX. The body is nearly 3 inches longer (not counting the VF), 1.4 inches higher and nearly a pound heavier. This plays in ergonomics well beyond the hand grip.

On the image side, I read the numbers thrown around and debated but I see this example of the EX1 at f3.4 and the FX at 2.0.
http://www.repaire.tv/tests/aliceforest/comparaison%20quel%20diaph.png

and this with both at +12db:
http://www.repaire.tv/tests/aliceforest/comparaison%20wide%20open+AGC.png

and I read comments about tweaking the XF NR or whatever to compensate and I think only how much harder the XF is to operate...ergo worse ergonomics

I have no doubt that the EX1 is better in low light, but the WB for the XF was clearly off in those images. The 5600K preset did not make white white, so a custom WB or other preset should have been used. And this would make the XF image somewhat less muddy looking.

The first test grab makes sense, and completely corroborates my notes. Shooting in progressive modes we found f/4 on the EX1R to match well with f/2.8 on the XF300. The Repaire.tv tests used interlaced modes for their tests, and the EX1R does get a nearly half stop sensitivity boost when shooting interlaced. The Canons, sadly, don't see such a boost - however, I never have the need to shoot interlaced anymore, anyway, so it isn't a big issue.

The 2nd grab - They are using AGC in that comparison, and it looks like they labeled the Canon at 16.5 db? Not really sure what's going on there. The NR does work quite well on the Canon, and setting it to "Auto" takes the guess work out and gives quite pleasing results at higher gain values (about 2.5 db noise improvement).

Cognitive load is... whatever it is. Once you learn a camera, you can operate it like the back of your hand, and they're all different. I've never picked up a new camera that I didn't have to take some time to learn, and I've never met a camera that was so complex I couldn't chew gum and walk at the same time with it. And I've never used a camera that didn't require both hands... As long as I don't have to go through a menu, I'm happy ;) What I like about the Canon is that it does have 13 user-assignable buttons (2 of them on the right index finger above the record button), so if you don't like where something is, put it where you want it. I've never had a problem with the Sony button layout, seemed pretty intuitive. Obviously easy access to auto-iris is important to you; for me, I very rarely use it.

As for ergonomics, I guess it all comes down to personal preference anyway. Usually when I'm using a camera like this, it's for a long time and it's all hand held (reality shows & documentaries) - so yeah, for my usage, it's a marathon of which can be held the longest. The XF camera is heavier and longer, but it's so much better balanced than the EX1R that I'm able to comfortably operate it for much longer than I can the Sony.

The XF does have cache recording, although I've not used it yet and can't say how long it's for. The rotating handgrip is for me the cause of my major ergonomic issue with the Sony, so I don't miss it one bit in the Canon. A hard stop iris would be nice, though.

Anyway, the Sony does edge the Canon out in low-light performance, but not by nearly as wide a margin as one would expect. Like any camera, it takes learning and getting to know it, and once you do it competes very favorably against the Sony EX1R (and the vice versa is also true - it ultimately comes down to personal preference & individual need). I would see no challenge for anyone using this camera for weddings, events or news - after all, that's pretty much what it's been designed for.

I have no doubt that the EX1 is better in low light, but the WB for the XF was clearly off in those images. The 5600K preset did not make white white, so a custom WB or other preset should have been used. And this would make the XF image somewhat less muddy looking.

I believe the Repaire.tv tests were done with a pre-production camera. Many features and customizations were not enabled on the pre-pro models, and their picture had a slight maroonish tint to them.

My Ergonomic judgements were made between the XF305 and EX1R. The EX1R is quite a lot nicer to hold than the original EX1.