View Full Version : Xl H1 vs newer options


Stuart Brontman
July 15th, 2010, 09:36 AM
I'm looking for advice from experienced XL-H1 users on a possible camera upgrade... I'm now using the XH-A1 and still getting very pleasing results in good lighting conditions (artificial and natural). I'd like to upgrade to tapeless (and better functionality in lower light) and am considering the following options:

1) Sony EX-1R
2) New Canon 300/305 (unhappy about the cost though)
3) XL-H1 (original release) with a NanoFlash and a couple of lenses. Decent prices are out there on used units.

I already own lots of Canon "L" glass for my digital photography, but don't have a sense of the image degradation when using the EF adapter on the XL H1 series...

I've seen amazing samples from the Nanoflash attached to the XL H1 and also the EX-1... I'm intrigued with the ultra high bandwidth of the NanoFlash option and the full 4:2:2 colorspace...

Any thoughts from experienced XL-H1 users?

P.S. I was one of the first adpaters of the original XL-1, so I'm very familiar with the form factor.

Chris Hurd
July 15th, 2010, 09:49 AM
Hi Stuart! Always great to hear from one of the original XL1 Watchdog contributors.

NanoFlash is awesome, but don't overlook the FS-CF Pro:

Focus Enhancements Solid State DTE Recorders at DVInfo.net (http://www.dvinfo.net/article/acquisition/canondvhdv/focus-enhancements-solid-state-dte-recorders.html)

Be aware that an XL H1 (original 2005 version) isn't going to be
any different than the XH A1 in terms of low-light performance.

There is no degradation when using L-series lenses with the EF
adapter; there's just one heck of a crop factor: it's 7.2 times the
focal length of the EF lens.

Stuart Brontman
July 15th, 2010, 10:01 AM
Hi Chris,

Always great to be at this amazing website! I hope to see you again at an upcoming expo.

I perhaps mistakingly heard the NanoFlash helped offset the low light issues by virtue of its direct capture off the chips and super-high data rate, but logically I can see why that would make no difference. The chips are the chips... That's great news about the EF adapter. I had heard there's glass involved in the adapter which can always risk a loss of detail. The crop factor is pretty intense but could be useful for ultra long shots.

Thanks. I'll look into the other unit as well.

Steve Phillipps
July 15th, 2010, 10:10 AM
There is no degradation when using L-series lenses with the EF
adapter;

I wouldn't say that. The EF adapter was made for the XL-1 standard def camera, and there has always been debate as to how well it would/does perform on the HD XL-H1 - I seem to remember even Canon don't recommend it. Then you have the issue of large format 35mm lenses being used on a much smaller format.
I'd say be careful and test each lens before you use it.
Many folks have also used Nikons via mechanical adapters, this gets rid of any problem with SD glass in the EF adapter.
Steve

Stuart Brontman
July 15th, 2010, 10:24 AM
Thanks. I would probably not use the EF adapter frequently if at all - just a nice option down the road. I've got one Nikon manual focus lens (a 20mm) that does nice work on my 5D mkII. I already have the tape free solution with the 5D mkII, but for corporate stuff it's not a very good solution (at least until I've had more time to improve my skills with it). As a still shot camera, I love it.

Michael Galvan
July 16th, 2010, 07:06 AM
Well I have the XL H1S and Nanoflash combo, and it produces amazing results. I am very happy with the image quality and have no inclination to upgrade.

But if one of your main criteria is to improve low light performance over what you currently have, I'd probably look into the EX1R or new XF cams.

Cause while the Nano will improve the picture of the XL H1 into something looking as if it was captured uncompresssed, it doesn't do anything to it's low light capabilities.

But what it does afford is the ability to use a program like NeatVideo on the footage and pull off an extremely clean noise reduction. I've been able to get Nano XL footage to look close to as if I shot in 0DB, when in fact, I've shot at +12DB.

Hope this helps.

Stuart Brontman
July 16th, 2010, 08:19 AM
But what it does afford is the ability to use a program like NeatVideo on the footage and pull off an extremely clean noise reduction. I've been able to get Nano XL footage to look close to as if I shot in 0DB, when in fact, I've shot at +12DB.

Hope this helps.

This might be all I need. For super low-light situations I'd probably use the 5D mkII for now... Given the great reviews of the Nanoflash and the relatively cheap market for used XL-H1 cameras right now, it might be a good alternative to the EX-1 or XF-300/305. Plus, I still get tape backups for any unexpected CF card failures.

Michael Galvan
July 16th, 2010, 08:36 AM
Yeah, the Nanoflash was such a great purchase decision.

The XL H1S is such a great camera, but I was getting tired of having of capturing tapes. I shoot everything from indie film to broadcast to events here in NYC, so I am constantly in production, so everytime I was coming back to edit, I would always have to spend an extra day just capturing tapes, or hire someone to do it for me.

The Nano added several advantages ... obviously the increased image quality (better sharpness and detail, no artifacts, 3:2 pulldown removal upon capture, and 4:2:2 color). But of great importance is having all this on CF cards while having a 2nd copy on HDV tape.

Not only did import times decrease dramatically, but as I still have a lot of clients who ask for a tape at the end of the day, having both mediums has been a godsend.

If you want to see the XL H1s w/Nanoflash footage, here's the latest doc segment I shot and produced for NBC and the MLE on the Nathan's 4th of July Hot Dog Eating Competition:

YouTube - Retrospective: Nathan's Famous Hot Dog Eating Contest 2010 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ek0558U1cyg)

This is the Canon XL H1S w/Nano shooting at 50Mbps Long-GOP.

Watch in 1080P :)

I also have this and some other samples on my website link below if you want to see how the image looks in different platforms (broadcast/doc/film).

Stuart Brontman
July 16th, 2010, 08:51 AM
Thanks Michael. This is becoming an easier decision to make than I thought - tape backups, incredible image capture, no more tape captures (I hate that - such a waste of time), 4:2:2 color, choices of capture rates, and acceptance by broadcast groups if needed. It's time to put together a budget and find an XL-H1 at a good price. I've seen them going for anywhere from $3000-3500.

If you don't mind me asking, what lenses are you using with your XL-H1? Also, have you used the EF adapter? Is the quality obtained acceptable with other lenses?

Thanks again.

Michael Galvan
July 16th, 2010, 09:01 AM
Well I have the newer 's' version. I upgraded from the original XL H1, and found it to be a most worthwhile upgrade, cause although the imaging specs haven't changed, there were many functionality changes that made it so worth it (lens controls, finer image adjustments, variable peaking, which makes a HUGE difference in judging focus on the XL H1's low res viewfinder., etc.)

One main difference is the lens between the 2 models ... the newer 'S' version has several enhancements... a manual iris ring, larger rings with deeper 'teeth' for better grip, the ability to zoom and focus at the same time, and it seemed as if the image is slightly better, with less CA on the new 's' version's lens.

If you could swing trying to find the new cam, it's worth it in my opinion.

But if price is a major factor, finding the original H1 for the $3000ish range is a great deal!

And although I haven't really used it, I hear the 6x XL HD lens is the best lens ever made for the XL series... super sharp with virtually no CA and distortion.

Stuart Brontman
July 16th, 2010, 09:15 AM
Thanks again Michael. I'll take your suggestions and start doing my homework... My first big shoot with this setup probably won't be until late September so I've got a little time.

Michael Galvan
July 16th, 2010, 09:18 AM
No problem... one more thing to note... the 's' version embeds audio and timecode in the HD-SDI port, so it is just one cable from the XL to the Nano.

For the original H1, you will need to use 3 different cables out of the camera and into the Nano and let the Nano sync everything, since the HD-SDI port on the original H1 is video only.

Ok, I am going to edit now :)

Steve Siegel
July 22nd, 2010, 05:38 PM
Hi Stuart,
Sorry to muddy up the water, but you might be interested. I am a long-time Canon XLH1 user and still love the camera. However, recently I have had the opportunity to shoot a Sony EX3, and frankly, think it is a better instrument. It has a far superior viewfinder (makes the Canon viewfinder look like the bottom of a Coke bottle.) It has more control over the image with more menu settings. It has a histogram, which is very useful avoiding overexposure in outdoor light. It can be used with 35mm lenses with a glass-free adapter ($300). It is tapeless. I think the image is sharper. On the down side, the crop factor for 35 mm lenses is only 5, compared to Canon's 7. You'd have to switch to Nikon lenses, the Canon lens adapter for this camera is unworkable. Those Sandisc memory cards cost a fortune, compared to tape. The XLH1 and the EX3 are about the same price. If I had the money right now, I would switch.

Steve Phillipps
July 23rd, 2010, 03:14 AM
Pretty good summary Steve.
Note though that the XL-H1 can be used with glassless adapters too.
Also CCD vs CMOS which may be an issue.
But I agree, it's definitely a far superior camera for most purposes (including 720 60P for slomo).
Steve

Stuart Brontman
July 23rd, 2010, 07:49 AM
Thanks for the replies regarding the EX-3. Yes, if I can find a well-priced used EX-1/3, I'd be very tempted to pick it up. With the chance to upgrade to a Nanoflash at a later date, that would also be an amazing combination. So far, no final decisions...

Mark Job
August 9th, 2010, 08:53 PM
Hi Stuart, Steve, & Michael:
I wanted to add my 2 cents about using the XL H1 with a Convergent Design's Flash XDR (Father of the Nano Flash & uses exactly same technology). I highly recommend the purchase and use of Canon XL H1 with a Nano Flash or a Flash XDR (recently discontinued). The image quality obtainable from the H1 when shooting @ Long GOP 50 Mbps, or I-Frame 280 Mbps is utterly astounding and will easily blow away a Sony EX -1/3 camera. I still press the value of having a camera on hand with a built in VTR in it as a safety backup for simultaneous recording.
The Convergent Design recorders not only bring to the XL H1 camcorder an upgrade in color precision, but also full raster HD and 24 bit uncompressed PCM audio recording (Now up to 8 Channels via HD-SDI embedded stream as well as phantom 48 KHz 24 bit analogue input). I'm using the 4 CF card slot recorder version (Flash XDR) with my XL H1 and I can even do time lapse shooting, which is something the H1 could never do by itself. Get a used H1 and a new Nano Flash if you can. It is worth it.

Jacques Mersereau
August 18th, 2010, 09:38 AM
The XL-H1, Sony EX1 and EX3 all produce great images. IMHO, it is more about lighting and composition to get the best image. If you can do those well, you can rock with any of them.

Also, I would say when using the H1 with 35mm glass, the images can be sharp, but they can also be soft depending on many things. The great tendency is SOFT.
IF you really want to use 35mm, I would highly recommend a 5DMkII, which is sharp as a tack in almost all conditions.

Michael Galvan
August 22nd, 2010, 07:39 PM
Yes, I can second the XL H1s/Nano combo. Image quality really is superb. Especially with the 220+ mbp I-frame modes, really fantastic.

Norman Lang
September 3rd, 2010, 05:22 AM
I am using an AJA Ki Pro and loving it. I mounted it right on the tripod with the optional exoskeleton housing. The original H1, as was said, provides only video from its SDI port. This means you need to run separate audio cables, but the sound is pristine 24 bit through balanced, stereo XLR inputs. The cool thing is that it can record any flavor or Prores 422 directly to a disk that can be immediately edited via firewire 800 from the removable drive. This is high quality, high res 422 color. 1920 by 1080. It is also a great I/O box and up/down converter. You can control it wirelessly from your laptop, or with an app on your iPhone. It is bigger (3lbs); not "as run and gun" friendly as an FS unit. but it is worth trekking with after you realize how easy it is to edit the files. The unit comes standard with a 250gb drive. That is enough for about 3 1/2 to 4 hours of standard Prores 422 recording time. It is really worth taking a look at if you want a professional, no nonsense way to get the best that your H1 can give.

Glen Vandermolen
September 6th, 2010, 08:11 AM
I have to disagree with most of the responses here.
I would definitely go with a different camera, the EX or the XF line.
If cost is your concern, I checked into used prices on XL H1s, and good ones seem to be starting in the $4,000 range. Add the cost of a Nanoflash as some are suggesting and your camera is now in the $6,500 range. And for what? An HDV camera, with 1440x1080 chips. Granted, it's a very good HDV camera, but why settle for HDV?

For the same price, you can get the XF300, with native 1920x1080 chips, 50mbps 4:2:2 color codec, outstanding viewfinder and a cheap CF card recording medium. Its low light performance will surpass the XL's. You won't need a Nanoflash, the codec is already at broadcast level, fully approved by the BBC - try that with an XL. The lens is supposedly one of the best, an L-series Canon. If I were in your shoes, there would be no doubt as to which camera I would choose. The XF has the XL beat in every way, aside from the swappable lenses.
HDV tapes? Sorry to earn the ire of those with XL cams, but HDV is a dying HD medium. There's no way I'd consider going with HDV. The XF codec is far superior. But for those who insist, the XF can also record in an HDV mode.

Or get the EX line, with their 1/2" 1920x1080 chips, 35mbps recording, outstanding viewfinders. Granted, the SxS cards ain't cheap, but they're forever. You can get used EX1s in the $4,000 range.

Or even consider a used Panasonic HPX300, in the $6,000 range. Native 1920x1080 chips (see a trend here?), great AVC-intra 100 codec, full size form factor, swappable 1/3" lenses. The P2 cards are pretty costly, though.

Go with the latest and best out there, assuming it's in your price range. And if you're considering a used XL H1 with a Nanoflash, the EX, HPX and XF cams are definitely within that budget.

edit - B&H Photo has dropped the price on the XF line, so you can get the XF300 for $6,499, w/ free shipping. Better hurry, deal ends on Sept. 30.

Steve Phillipps
September 6th, 2010, 08:13 AM
CCD chips though don't forget, that can make a difference in some uses. All the alternatives you mention with their super high specs and low prices are mainly due the fact that they use CMOS sensors.
Steve

Glen Vandermolen
September 6th, 2010, 08:59 AM
Yup, and I'll take 1920x1080 2.2 megapixel CMOS chips over 1440x1080 1.67 megapixel CCD chips any day. Even with the rolling shutter. The CMOS chips on the EX, XF and HPX will give a better, sharper picture over the XL H1, and with better low light performance. Throw in the superior codecs and it's a win-win.

I'm not saying the XL H1s are bad cameras, not at all. But even Canon boasts the XF line are better cameras. And for the same price, go for the best.

Steve Phillipps
September 6th, 2010, 09:40 AM
The CMOS chips on the EX, XF and HPX will give a better, sharper picture over the XL H1

Of course you're entitled to your opinion, but in your quote above that's not an opinion, you say it WILL give a better picture, and that's not neccessarily true, not in all cases anyway. CMOS rolling shutter issues may result in a worse picture in some situations.

Just my opinion. Didn't mean any offence, always good to hear your thoughts Glen.

Steve

Stuart Brontman
September 6th, 2010, 09:52 AM
Thanks for everyone's thoughts... Unfortunately my budget will not allow for any of these choices short-term... For the interim I'm using CF card capture on my original XH A1 (via the Datavideo DN-60) and the Cineform full 1080 intermediate codec. It's not as clean as the XF or EX (or XL + Nanoflash) footage, but it's not bad either. Cineform footage properly graded can look GREAT even from original HDV footage. Of course that assumes you're starting with quality HDV footage - lots of light!!!

I do agree though, based on footage I've seen, that the XF series is pretty amazing. If the projects I'm expecting come through, early 2011 looks good. Until then it's my trusty A1, 5D mkII, my new hacked GH1 (GH13), and my little 60p wonder, the TM700K... For my industrial work, they do the job for now and my clients are happy. But I am dreaming of the XF series...

Michael Galvan
September 6th, 2010, 10:53 AM
I have to disagree with most of the responses here.
I would definitely go with a different camera, the EX or the XF line.
If cost is your concern, I checked into used prices on XL H1s, and good ones seem to be starting in the $4,000 range. Add the cost of a Nanoflash as some are suggesting and your camera is now in the $6,500 range. And for what? An HDV camera, with 1440x1080 chips. Granted, it's a very good HDV camera, but why settle for HDV?

For the same price, you can get the XF300, with native 1920x1080 chips, 50mbps 4:2:2 color codec, outstanding viewfinder and a cheap CF card recording medium. Its low light performance will surpass the XL's. You won't need a Nanoflash, the codec is already at broadcast level, fully approved by the BBC - try that with an XL. The lens is supposedly one of the best, an L-series Canon. If I were in your shoes, there would be no doubt as to which camera I would choose. The XF has the XL beat in every way, aside from the swappable lenses.
HDV tapes? Sorry to earn the ire of those with XL cams, but HDV is a dying HD medium. There's no way I'd consider going with HDV. The XF codec is far superior. But for those who insist, the XF can also record in an HDV mode.

Or get the EX line, with their 1/2" 1920x1080 chips, 35mbps recording, outstanding viewfinders. Granted, the SxS cards ain't cheap, but they're forever. You can get used EX1s in the $4,000 range.

Or even consider a used Panasonic HPX300, in the $6,000 range. Native 1920x1080 chips (see a trend here?), great AVC-intra 100 codec, full size form factor, swappable 1/3" lenses. The P2 cards are pretty costly, though.

Go with the latest and best out there, assuming it's in your price range. And if you're considering a used XL H1 with a Nanoflash, the EX, HPX and XF cams are definitely within that budget.

edit - B&H Photo has dropped the price on the XF line, so you can get the XF300 for $6,499, w/ free shipping. Better hurry, deal ends on Sept. 30.

Your comparison is a little strange here though. You are comparing the XL + Nanoflash's price as the same as the other camera options, yet you don't list the advantages gained at all from this combination. You just refer to it as a very good HDV camera, when adding the Nanoflash turns it into much more. You say why settle for HDV with this combo, but this combination takes your recording format far beyond HDV (and consequently what's being recorded on the XF). If you are going to compare the as the same price, gotta compare all that comes with it as well.

Like up to 280mb I-Frame shooting, full raster recording, 4:2:2, etc. The XL footage from the 200mb+ I-Frame modes looks incredible. Might also be due to the increase in resolution from the HD-SDI port (the XL chipset has horizontal pixel-shift, which can only be recorded out of the HD-SDI... it gets lost when recorded on HDV tape). Also to mention tape and tapeless together... which is a fantastic option, especially if you work for a lot of clients who still want a tape in hand (which I have many of).

I was thinking of getting the XF305, but decided to keep my XLH1S/Nano combo after using the XF300. I don't find the picture between both of them to be to much different. And I find the ergonomics and physical controls much better on the XL camera system. And can't give up interchangeable lenses ... use that too much.

But if Canon release an XF interchangeable lens shoulder mount camera, then I'll revisit this...

But of course, to each is own...

Stuart Brontman
September 6th, 2010, 11:14 AM
Michael, those are all valid thoughts. I'm certain Canon will eventually release an interchangeable lens version of the XF series or something comparable. A couple of months ago when I started looking into this, the abaility to have a back-up on tape is what led me in the XL-H1/Nanoflash direction. If money were no object, you can bet I would have gone that way back then since the XF series was still too new and unknown quality-wise.

There are also all sorts of rumors and hints from Canon that something is in the works to satisfy the Hollywood crowd on the shortcomings of the 5D mkII codec/compression schemes. I think in the not-too-distant future the hybrid systems will be very robust and the ultimate marriage of video and photo. We're just not there yet. Give me a video system with the ergonomics of the XL-H1/EX-1/3 series, coupled with pristine 4:2:2 high quality codecs, AND high level still photography capability and I'm all over it - along with a lot of others!

Steve Phillipps
September 6th, 2010, 01:12 PM
That'll be the Red Scarlet Stuart - if we ever see it!
Steve

Glen Vandermolen
September 6th, 2010, 01:21 PM
Michael, the reason for this thread was to get opinions on whether an XL H1 with a Nanoflash was a better value than a newer camera. As an academic exercise, if I was going to buy the choices given, I'd go for the XF300, or a used EX1.
But you did make that choice for real, and the XL H1 /Nano was better in your opinion. You backed it up with your money and I gotta respect that.

Stuart Brontman
September 6th, 2010, 01:26 PM
That'll be the Red Scarlet Stuart - if we ever see it!
Steve

If Red does not move fast, Canon or Panasonic will beat them to it... Lets also hope the competition will help keep the prices down to earth.

Michael Galvan
September 7th, 2010, 11:01 AM
Michael, the reason for this thread was to get opinions on whether an XL H1 with a Nanoflash was a better value than a newer camera. As an academic exercise, if I was going to buy the choices given, I'd go for the XF300, or a used EX1.
But you did make that choice for real, and the XL H1 /Nano was better in your opinion. You backed it up with your money and I gotta respect that.

Sure, choosing a camera system has so many variable unique to whoever is buying. I'm sure for a lot of people, my camera system may not work for them.

Best thing for anyone to do is really look at what they'll be using it for and physically try out the camera for a while to make sure it fits for them.

Glen... I just was pointing out that you mentioned the price of the XL/Nano combo but compared it to the other cams as if it was just the camera without the Nano. Just wanted to make sure those reading knew what you get with this system combo :)