As some of you know, I've been keenly awaiting user comments on the XF100 (and/or XF105) which are just begining to ship in Asia, should be shipping in Europe this week and USA next month - I believe.

At CES this week Canon also announced the XA10 which shares an identical 1/3 inch sensor and lens but offers the AVCHD codec and a few other compromises to get the price down (or at least put it in a different marketing defined segment than the XF100/105). This has made my decision more complicated (I'm not complaining, choice is a good thing!). So, with this new cam on the near horizon (Feb/March shipping I believe) I'm putting together a personal bullet list to help me decide which one I might buy. Ultimately, it will come down to how rich I'm feeling at the point of purchase, how much tax my business owes at the end of my Companies financial year etc. and how much better (or not) the XF Codec looks compared to AVCHD. I thought I'd share my list as I'm sure others may have a similar dilema. I hope it's useful to some of you and please feel free to add to the list any glaring ommissions and offer alternative opinions.

So my XF100 versus XA10 list (in no particular order)

Pros for the XF100:

Excellent codec
Much more customisation of image - should allow me a better chance of matching it to my Sony EX3 and Canon 7D
Superb build quality
Probably a bit better ergonomics/button/dial layout than the XA10
Some frame rate options for timelapse etc.

Cons for the XF100:

Steeper price ($3,300 area)
No on-board internal Flash memory (but fast CF cards are relatively cheap - I have a few fast 16GB ones already)
No 1080p50/60 like Panasonic and Sony's latest offerings in the high end Consumer cams.

Pros for the XA10:

Price ($2,000 area)
Some high end "consumer" cam features like touch/spot focus, face tracking, spot exposure etc. - I tend to shoot full manual but these features might come in handy in certain situations
Probably also superb build quality - I doubt it'll be anything other than that
Detachable handle/XLR box - excellent for tight corners/breakdown for travelling and those "I'm just a tourist" guerilla/stealth shots
On board 64GB of Flash and SDHC slots - I have lots of rarely used fast 16GB SDHC cards.

Cons for the XA10:

AVCHD - my workflow is mainly FCS2 on a very fast Mac Pro but also Vegas 9E on an also pretty fast i7 Win 7 box. I've no experience of AVCHD but expect it to be a bit of a pain
No 1080p50/60 like Panasonic and Sony's latest offerings in the high end Consumer cams. Now that this frame rate is starting to look like a "top end consumer cam must have feature" it's lack in "professional" low/mid level cams is going to look more and more obvious. Heck, I can buy a Panasonic consumer cam for £600 that shoots stunningly sharp 1080p50 yet my £7000 EX3 can only manage 720p50 (maybe I will get a little Panny anyway).

Any thoughts or ommisions to help me narrow it down a bit more whilst we await user feedback and footage?

[Chris/Mods - If you want this to be part of the XF100 thread please move but I though it might benefit from a new thread topic rather than dilute that one].

it does take longer with avchd ,ive been dealing with it for around 3 years now

the fastest workflow i have devised is to:

copy clips to hdd

transcode with cineform

edit

its really as simple as that ,it does take more time and space since you need to transcode ,but its not as bad as you may have heard

I have the A1, and I'm looking at options to go tapeless. The XF300 is out of my price range. I'm been considering the XF100, but the XA10 looks interesting for travel. I'm interested in hearing from anyone once you get your hands on the XA10 as to how it compares to the A1 in terms of video quality, ergonomics, manual controls, etc.

I suspect these 2 cameras will produce identical images, so it will come down to the codec issue. A bit like the choice between Panasonic's 170 and 150 cameras where side by side comparison's were impossible to tell between them. I guess if you are shooting for someone like the BBC you need to go with the 50 mbps, but most folks will be happy with the cheaper camera. Few clients i've had would know the difference.

Anyway, it's good that Canon are giving us a choice, and i have no doubt both cameras will produce superb images. I'm leaning towards the cheaper option at this point, as the higher end codec may not be necessary for my needs, and the cash saved would be welcome.

I tend to agree with Dom - in normal situations you'll probably be hard pressed to distinguish between pictures from the two cams. They probably share the same sensor.

But there are other differences between the two cameras:

*XA10:* A whopping 1065 min recording time. I shoot theater productions with an unmanned Cam for B-roll. It might not be Wagner, but it surely nice not having to change cards between acts.
*XF100*: A not so whopping 320 min recording time. Still plenty for most purposes though.

*XA10*: One control ring and a touch screen. Meaning that you wind up doing focus on the touch screen and exposure on the control ring. This makes use of monitor hoods difficult, and is a somewhat delicate operation.
*XF100*: One control ring and a control dial. Better.

*XA10*: Only compressed audio. Might not matter.
XF100*: PCM!

*XA10*: Consumer batteries
*XF100*: Pro batteries - this matters as Canon pro batteries are difficult to find - at least here in scandinavia.

One other thing I've just thought of too!

The XF100 has a Neutral Density facility (albeit an auto one - still looking for more details on how it works in real life situations). The XA10 lacks a ND (as far as I know so far).

Good point stressing the PCM audio of the XF100 too - I'd sort of lumped that in with AVCHD where it got a bit lost I think!

About the XF100 control ring and control dial. According to the full specs on the Canon USA website about the XA10 it has a control dial/wheel (on the back corner), which will allow similar function to the one on the XF100. Direct quote from Canon below:

"A Custom Key and Dial feature allows you to assign functions to an easily accessible key and adjust the settings with a control dial. They include:

Tv/Av: Use the dial to adjust shutter speed (Tv mode) or aperture (Av mode), as needed. In this mode the key has no effect.

Manual exposure: When manual control is selected, the dial can adjust aperture, shutter speed, or gain. Select items to adjust, such as aperture or other settings, with the key.

Exposure Lock can be set on or off as can the AGC Limit."

Good points. I'm in the same boat too, but currently am leaning more towards the XF100 at this point simply due to the potential higher quality footage (4 2 2 @ 50) and the fact that the "Handle" is built in already. It's "only" $1000 more. ^_^

Ideally I think I'd like to have one each:

XF300 (for the 3 chips and 18x zoom range)
XF100 (for the same codec)
XA10 (for use where smaller/hidden/unmanned camera is necessary and 64GB built in mem.)

One thing I do wonder is: Panasonic and Sony are introducing 1080 60p into their newer cameras. How much of a real difference is that going to make over 60i for work like weddings, dance recitals, marching band competitions etc? Is there any advantage for shooting in 60p over 60i?

Hi Kyle,

I think the key advantage is the beautiful slow motion that's possible with 1080p50/60 - there are some stunning videos on Vimeo using the Panasonic TM700/HS700 that demo this well - see the thread on those cams in this forum.

EDIT: Also, just found this video of the XA10 and XF100 being handled at CES one after the other. The narrator has got it wrong though - the XA10 has Flash memory (64GB), not an internal hard drive... and the XF100 is not really designed for "photos" (!) At least you can see the sliding SDHC etc. card door of the XA10 and a few other external features reasonably well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VfKM45MYgJQ&feature=player_embedded

EDIT 2: Here's a much better video by B&H on the XA10

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tn-iw8Aa3uY

Another very quick look comparative XF100/105 versus XA10 video...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZwY6zkM5eQ

Which camera (the XF100 or XA10) would make a better B-roll camera to the XF300? Would there be timeline compatibility issues with mixing codes between the XA10 and XF300?

Specifically, could I get away with using the XA10 as a long-shot/balcony-shot backup to the XF300 as main cam for weddings, etc.?

The XF100 would be a much better B-cam to the XF300
since both use the same codec (not to mention the same
media, batteries, power supply, etc). But the codec is the
main thing.

Yes - mixing codecs is at best a hazard. I have been using a Pana HMC-150 as B-cam to Sony EX1s. This is not very optimal. Besides different color rendition you get motion differences. It might not matter to you depending of the type of programming material you have. The effect is subtle and difficult to describe.

In my experience you can get by mixing Codec families. So

* JVC MP4 goes with AVCHD
* Canon MPEG2 goes with Sony MPEG2
* Any HDV goes with Any HDV
* Any AVDHD goes with any AVCHD
* Sony HDV goes with Pana AVCHD

I concur with the XF to XF idea, but a XA10 as b-cam might work depending of the type of work you are doing. You have to test.

My plan was to replace my aging Sony AVCHD CX12 B-cam with a XF-100 after testing. But the XA10 looks as the perfect candidate for taking its place on the Gorillapod

IMHO:
I look at this in terms of market segmentation. This is useful if you can plot yourself into the way Canon views the market:
The XA is a consumer camera for those who want something that looks more pro. It's positioned as a camera for consumers that want to move up. It looks goofy but it has the all important handle, lens shield and XLRs.
The XF is for pros who need a small camera to match something "bigger" (pros who move down).

The codec is not of much concern to me. All the cameras these days can be made to take good demo footage. What I think matters is:
1) How hard is it to control the camera so I get good exposure and focus?
2) Does it have good manual controls so I can get the shot in situations where the automatics don't work?
3) Does the camera accurately convey what I am about to record?
If I have those, I will come home with usable footage that will cut with my EX. If it's unreliably exposed or focussed, the codec is moot.

By comparison, at $750, the Panasonic TM700 has a lens ring, 60p, cine gamma 24p, focus tracking, peaking, zebras, does well in low light and cuts well with the EX. The just announced replacement HS900 adds a 400K LCD and the ability to add a 3D lens.

So looking at it as it appears the OP is, what does the XA have as a b-cam to your "bigger" stuff that's attractive at more than twice the price? The XF at 3x?

Just remembered something.

We did a test once. Took a Canon XL1 and a Sony cancorder with a touchscreen interface. I can not remember which Sony camera. Had the Sony guy mess with the settings for Canon camera and vice versa.

Then we timed the OMG-there-is-an-UFO-Landing-just-outside situation, where you grab a camera and have to start shooting *now*. The rules: full manual set up including WB - The little green men had to be properly green. Media was installed and ready, and the cameras was powered up - just like real life.

The results?

Time from grab of camera to recording state with correct exposure and WB. Audio on auto

XL1: 8 seconds
Sony: 27 seconds

Both operators was experienced in their cameras.

This is of course not a totally serious test. But it says that UFO-hunters and others with the need for rapid setups might look beyond a XA10.

The Sony CX12 I have been living with has been quite a leaning experience. You learn where the automatic settings will go wrong and change those to manual. It spends most of its time doing total shots unmanned on a gorillapod hanging somewhere. I usually end up with manual focus, auto WB and manual/auto (50%/50%) exposure. Used more traditionally I use spot focus a lot.

IMHO:
By comparison, at $750, the Panasonic TM700 has a lens ring, 60p, cine gamma 24p, focus tracking, peaking, zebras, does well in low light and cuts well with the EX. The just announced replacement HS900 adds a 400K LCD and the ability to add a 3D lens.

So looking at it as it appears the OP is, what does the XA have as a b-cam to your "bigger" stuff that's attractive at more than twice the price? The XF at 3x?

Les, this is a very valid point and I am indeed (have been for some time) interested in picking up a SD700, TM700 more likely a new, just announced at CES, 900 version (as it has a better, though still not perfect, screen resolution and improved power jack location - minor upgrades I know, but worth having). This cam will be for B or C cam work (Corporate) + as a main cam for family holiday stuff. I'm also looking hard at the newly announced Sony CX700 (upgraded version of the CX550).

Main reasons these particular Panasonic and Sony consumer camcorders attract me is the small form factor, relatively inexpensive, superb price performance ratio and a really great thing that even my EX3 won't do, 1080p50/60. 1-2 years time I suspect all pro cams will do it - but we're not there yet.

I'll admit I'm struggling to decide how much I want and need to pay for the features I'd like to compliment my EX3 and 7D but that's something I will resolve in the coming weeks. XF100 is at the top of the pile, XA10 in the middle and a soon to be discontinued/discounted (I imagine) TM700 or SD700 is at the bottom, in terms of price. It's a big range of features and price!!!!

However, the XF100 gives me superb audio and image codec, image controls and is a true pro cam (and looks it) so that I won't feel embarrassed about getting out in front of a client - yes I know!!! - but like it or not these things do matter to some (of my) clients. I might get away with it with the XA10 (as long as I "display" the EX3 first, maybe!). Not sure with the others though. I fully appreciate it's the end result that matters not the size or wow factor of the cam but you have to be aware that your corporate customers (CEOs', MDs etc.) may not see it that way - at least not initially - they always seem to love my end result, fortunately, in case you were wondering! But this is a digression from the theme of this thread.... so no more of it.

Next stop for me is BVE in London mid-Feb to get hands on with the XF100 (again - I handled it at the Canon event late last year...it was almost love at first sight) as well as some of these new guys, hopefully, and then I should narrow it down - a lot. I just need to have it nailed before the end of my financial year so I've got plenty of "agonizing time" to go yet whilst I try and decide!

Bottom line, ideal World and all that, I'd have a XF100 (or actually a 105) AND a Panasonic HS900 and just pick the best cam for the particular situation, with or without the EX3 and/or 7D also in use. My little HC1 rarely comes out to play now but does the odd stint when the light is good. But, I'm still awaiting decent user footage and user feedback on the XF100 before I decide as it's still a bit unknown as to how will that single chip will perform - and so is it worthy of it's high price, relative to my current alternatives? We'll see soon, I hope!

The XF100 has a Neutral Density facility (albeit an auto one - still looking for more details on how it works in real life situations). The XA10 lacks a ND (as far as I know so far).

Actually Michael Galvan posted some pics from CES in another thread and it looks like the XA10 has a switchable ND filter as well.

Enlarging on Andy's points, the main thing about the XF100/105 that appeals to me is that it ought to be able to be set up according to the way that Alan Roberts has set up the 300/305, to BBC specs.
I'm hoping that one can dig into the menus enough to get the same gamma settings etc that he has reccommended...
Most of my work is in the broadcast sector, so it's really a no-brainer for me as to which camera to choose, but it's really good to see Canon pulling out so many stops these days!

anyone think a nanoflash/xf100 combo would add value to the rig?

be well

rob

The XF100 has a Neutral Density facility (albeit an auto one - still looking for more details on how it works in real life situations). The XA10 lacks a ND (as far as I know so far).

It is switchable between OFF and automatic (the ND filter will take effect when the camera thinks it needs it.)

Thanks for that - saw your pics of the ND menu on another thread (and thanks for that too!)

That is what worries me a bit about these small Canons, "when the camera thinks it needs it". Ah well, I guess you can't have everything (i.e. total control) at this size/price point!

michael/andy-

i do agree, a flip of a lever activating the nd filters as in a larger pro camera would have be nice.

that said, i wonder if a 58mm set of nd filters (2x, 4x, 8x) would allow us the control that is needed.

ymmv

be well

rob

Yes, the ND looks like it will work in the same way as the HFS/HV series has before ... come on when needed.

The new cams just give the option to either turn this on or off.

Hi:

I've also looked at the XA10 vs. XH100 while waiting for them to be available, but I spent little time considering XA10. So, running through the specs on the Canon site, just mentioning what I find most interesting:

Camera:

All the same

Recording:

Pro XF100:
- Dual CF hot swap meaning essentially indefinite recording time, more durable card format.
- Codec MXF (MPEG2 Long GOP 4:2:2 50Mbps) vs. AVCHD (MPEG4 4:2:0 25Mbps), here the 4:2:2 and double bit rate should be a significant improvement.
- 720p 50fps and 25fps
- Options for 35Mbps VBR and 25Mbps CBR in 4:2:0

System:

Pro XF100:
- More custom keys

Shooting functions:

Pro XF100:
- More gain settings
- 6 way color matrix
- RGB ±50 white balance offset
- knee, sharpness, NR, 6 gamma profiles and a lot of other controls not listed on the XA10

Finally, regarding build quality: The detachable handle on the XA10 makes it nicely compact for travel, but this design choice does introduce a weak point.

Conclusion: While the sensor and optical system is the same for both cameras, the XA10 offers nowhere near the same control over the recording. The overlooked difference seems to be the white balance and 6 way color matrix. Since both use a compressed image format it is crucial to get these settings right when recording, the XA10 does not offer that level of control.

If you want to have full control, there is no choice: Only the XF100.

BR, Erik

Yep, that's my conclusion too. In the end I decided to buy a Panasonic TM900 (it arrives on Tuesday) and may still consider the XF100 for more serious stuff where I need a more portable camera than the EX3 and my 7D (+ full lens kit). The XA10 was just going to be too limiting for me in my professional work for the reasons so well highlighted above.

The big decider for me was after reading the in-depth camcorderinfo review of the HFG10 (which is basically a XA10 without the handle but otherwise essentially identical - still very pricey though). Whilst it looks like Canon are onto a winner for a 1/3 single full raster 1920x1080 sensor regarding low light ability, it looks (at least to me from what I've read and clips I've seen) that this brings some loss of sharpness - as is to be expected with this single sensor design choice. It also seems to show some loss of colour saturation - that slightly washed out look. I'm not saying it's bad, just it's a balance of compromises as with all cameras and it's up to each one of us to choose the camera with the strongest features that are most important for our particular needs.

So in the end I paid £775 for a Panasonic TM900 which is 3 chip, does lovely 1080p50 and has the sharpness and colour saturation and most of all portability I want in a really small "C" cam. Sure, it's not got all the manual control and features I'd want.... but it was £775 and it has a lot of them! It has peaking, zebras, manual focus ring etc. and a much better LCD than the one in it's much acclaimed predecessor, the TM700. The XA10 was going to be, maybe, nearly £1000 more than the TM900. That buys slightly better low light and XLR inputs but brings with it a little less sharpness/colour saturation and no 1080p50 capability - and this last thing is something I really want. Also, note, the XA10 is still not PCM audio (as its highly compressed AVCHD audio).

Bottom line, with these caveats, the XA10 would not do anything (for my needs) that the Panny TM900 can't do really well so I'd rather save that cash and put it towards other gear - and that might still be a XF100.

I'll decide on the XF100 once they are out and about and people have had a really good chance to comment on them from real world experience. That's a £2,750 (ish) decision - so one I'm happy to sit on for a while whilst I enjoy the TM900!

Oh one other thing, I just read on the web that the TM900 has a change in the design of the fan/ventilation - so it no longer produces any noise (which some had complained about on the TM700). Not sure how accurate that is - but there you go.

1080p50 here I come!

anyone think a nanoflash/xf100 combo would add value to the rig?

be well

rob

I don't see why you'd need a nano. It already records at a broadcast spec 50mbps, 4:2:2 color.

glen=

i meant to suggest a xa10/nanoflash combo, not the xf100/105.

mea culpa

be well

rob

I'm a bit confused on the real differences between the codecs here.

MPEG2 is said to be a less efficient codec than MPEG4, and according to Panasonic, handles motion altogether differently. Much has been writen about how much more "efficient" MPEG 4 is as compared to MPEG 2. Therefore there is no real way to compare 50 mbps MPEG2 with 24 mbps AVCHD....its comparing apples and oranges, isn't it?

Similarly, I understand that Canon's MPEG 2 50mbps codec has the advantage of a 4.2.2 color space and that is significant, as it records twice the color info as HDV. But again, HDV is not AVCHD, so how would the two cams actually compare in terms of color performance? Does the new Canon version of MPEG 2 also record twice the color info as Sony's EX-1, which is also 4.2.0?

Not trying to be a pain, but I am really finding it challenging to understand the actual differences, and what to reasonably expect. I currently shoot a pair of HMC150's and a Canon HFS-10 for some crane work. Looking to upgrade from the HFS-10 to something a bit better in low light and a bit more control over image settings, etc. May also add a Canon 5D or 60D. Not sure the AF100 is a good fit for me. I do a lot in capturing the performing arts, some training vids, etc.

I guess I am somewhat skeptical that the differences in codec equate to an advantage for the XF over XA. Am I right, or....

Yep, that's my conclusion too. In the end I decided to buy a Panasonic TM900 (it arrives on Tuesday) and may still consider the XF100 for more serious stuff where I need a more portable camera than the EX3 and my 7D (+ full lens kit). The XA10 was just going to be too limiting for me in my professional work for the reasons so well highlighted above.

The big decider for me was after reading the in-depth camcorderinfo review of the HFG10 (which is basically a XA10 without the handle but otherwise essentially identical - still very pricey though). Whilst it looks like Canon are onto a winner for a 1/3 single full raster 1920x1080 sensor regarding low light ability, it looks (at least to me from what I've read and clips I've seen) that this brings some loss of sharpness - as is to be expected with this single sensor design choice. It also seems to show some loss of colour saturation - that slightly washed out look. I'm not saying it's bad, just it's a balance of compromises as with all cameras and it's up to each one of us to choose the camera with the strongest features that are most important for our particular needs.

So in the end I paid £775 for a Panasonic TM900 which is 3 chip, does lovely 1080p50 and has the sharpness and colour saturation and most of all portability I want in a really small "C" cam. Sure, it's not got all the manual control and features I'd want.... but it was £775 and it has a lot of them! It has peaking, zebras, manual focus ring etc. and a much better LCD than the one in it's much acclaimed predecessor, the TM700. The XA10 was going to be, maybe, nearly £1000 more than the TM900. That buys slightly better low light and XLR inputs but brings with it a little less sharpness/colour saturation and no 1080p50 capability - and this last thing is something I really want. Also, note, the XA10 is still not PCM audio (as its highly compressed AVCHD audio).

Bottom line, with these caveats, the XA10 would not do anything (for my needs) that the Panny TM900 can't do really well so I'd rather save that cash and put it towards other gear - and that might still be a XF100.

I'll decide on the XF100 once they are out and about and people have had a really good chance to comment on them from real world experience. That's a £2,750 (ish) decision - so one I'm happy to sit on for a while whilst I enjoy the TM900!

Oh one other thing, I just read on the web that the TM900 has a change in the design of the fan/ventilation - so it no longer produces any noise (which some had complained about on the TM700). Not sure how accurate that is - but there you go.

1080p50 here I come!



Andy, sounds like a great cam. But does the TM900 have any input for a LANC-type device? Can I use my Bogen 522P with it?

I'm a bit confused on the real differences between the codecs here.

MPEG2 is said to be a less efficient codec than MPEG4, and according to Panasonic, handles motion altogether differently. Much has been writen about how much more "efficient" MPEG 4 is as compared to MPEG 2. Therefore there is no real way to compare 50 mbps MPEG2 with 24 mbps AVCHD....its comparing apples and oranges, isn't it?

Similarly, I understand that Canon's MPEG 2 50mbps codec has the advantage of a 4.2.2 color space and that is significant, as it records twice the color info as HDV. But again, HDV is not AVCHD, so how would the two cams actually compare in terms of color performance? Does the new Canon version of MPEG 2 also record twice the color info as Sony's EX-1, which is also 4.2.0?


It's not easy to find your way around the codec-zoo, sometimes I also get lost.

The Canon XF-series shoot XMF (container file format) using MPEG2 (video codec) 4:2:2 and PCM audio at 50Mbps. MPEG2 is the older video format, it is less efficient meaning: at the same bit rate the image quality is inferior to MPEG4. MPEG2 is widely supported and used for DVD and not very processor intensive, this means that it's relatively easy to import in any workflow.

The Canon XA10 shoot AVCHD which is MPEG4-AVC/H.264 (video codec) in 4:2:0 and AC-3 audio at 25Mbps. MPEG4 is the modern codec, it is more efficient than MPEG2 meaning at the same bit rate offers better image quality, but it comes at a cost: It is more processor intensive and not as widely supported which means you may have to use intermediate formats in your workflow. MPEG4 has been chosen as standard for Blue-Ray and is also preferred for the web as bandwidth is more of concern than the processing power required to reproduce the video.

MPEG4 has been reported to give the same image quality as MPEG2 whilst at half bit rate. So, MPEG2 4:2:0 at 50Mbps and MPEG4 4:2:0 at 25Mbps should provide similar image quality. Now the XF100 uses 4:2:2 color sampling which gives you more control of color correction in post production, which may be a significant advantage.

When the codec used by XF100 is being hailed it's also because this codec/sampling/bitrate is approved for HD broadcast by the BBC. BBC defines standard definition as any acquisition format using interframe compression below 50Mbps. This does not imply that the image at 50Mbps is better, only that it is approved.

EDIT: BTW, while the XF300 is approved by the BBC for independent HD productions, the XF100 may not, I suppose they won't approve it until it hits market and they have time to test it.

BR, Erik

Erik,
Actually, the XF300/305 has been approved for ALL HD productions for the BBC, both internal and from independent producers. The "Beeb" also bought 50 of them.
I doubt the one chip XF100 will receive the same accolades, but we'll see.

Erik,
Actually, the XF300/305 has been approved for ALL HD productions for the BBC, both internal and from independent producers.

I only found this page listing the Canon XF300s for independent productions only,

BBC - Commissioning - Producing High-Definition TV (http://www.bbc.co.uk/commissioning/production/hd.shtml)

I only found this page listing the Canon XF300s for independent productions only,

BBC - Commissioning - Producing High-Definition TV (http://www.bbc.co.uk/commissioning/production/hd.shtml)

Yes, but that list was made earlier last year. The XF30X has had its status updated earlier this year:

BBC Approves Canon XF305 & XF300 for HD Production | PhotographyBLOG (http://www.photographyblog.com/news/bbc_approves_canon_xf305_xf300_for_hd_production/)

It's not easy to find your way around the codec-zoo, sometimes I also get lost.

The Canon XF-series shoot XMF (container file format) using MPEG2 (video codec) 4:2:2 and PCM audio at 50Mbps. MPEG2 is the older video format, it is less efficient meaning: at the same bit rate the image quality is inferior to MPEG4. MPEG2 is widely supported and used for DVD and not very processor intensive, this means that it's relatively easy to import in any workflow.

The Canon XA10 shoot AVCHD which is MPEG4-AVC/H.264 (video codec) in 4:2:0 and AC-3 audio at 25Mbps. MPEG4 is the modern codec, it is more efficient than MPEG2 meaning at the same bit rate offers better image quality, but it comes at a cost: It is more processor intensive and not as widely supported which means you may have to use intermediate formats in your workflow. MPEG4 has been chosen as standard for Blue-Ray and is also preferred for the web as bandwidth is more of concern than the processing power required to reproduce the video.

MPEG4 has been reported to give the same image quality as MPEG2 whilst at half bit rate. So, MPEG2 4:2:0 at 50Mbps and MPEG4 4:2:0 at 25Mbps should provide similar image quality. Now the XF100 uses 4:2:2 color sampling which gives you more control of color correction in post production, which may be a significant advantage.

When the codec used by XF100 is being hailed it's also because this codec/sampling/bitrate is approved for HD broadcast by the BBC. BBC defines standard definition as any acquisition format using interframe compression below 50Mbps. This does not imply that the image at 50Mbps is better, only that it is approved.

EDIT: BTW, while the XF300 is approved by the BBC for independent HD productions, the XF100 may not, I suppose they won't approve it until it hits market and they have time to test it.

BR, Erik



Thanks Erik, that does clarify it a bit. Sounds like the real advantage is in the 4.2.2 color space. I did not realize that it was BBC approved, that would potentially be a big deal to independent film makers.
I'm looking forward to seeing both cams at the up-coming HD Expo in LA early in March.

Alan Roberts, who is the now retired cam tester for the BBC, did a test on a preproduction. XF105. The results are confidential pending retesting with a production model and Canon's approval, but he did drop some hints.

"The new Canon XF105 has to be a runner as well. I've just finished testing it and it's rather nice, although a fair bit more pricey than the A1.". Since then the price has come down by 1000 Euros.

He also stated that the XF100 series creates 720p from a 1080p downsize, not from an interlaced signal as with the Xf300 series. His only other comments that I saw where that the XF100. series had a low electrical consumption rate and that the IR mode was 2-3 stops faster than the normal mode.

There is a test of the XF100 and also of the HF M41 that uses the same sensor (along with the XA10, HF G10, HF M40 and HF M400) on the German slashcam website. Google Translate (http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?hl=en&langpair=de|en&u=http://www.camcorder-test.com/campair-DE.shtml&rurl=translate.google.com&client=tmpg&usg=ALkJrhhy30sUvHvSrbbLinR3ak1T7Z2RRw)

I find the low light performance to be one of the best available even on the cheap HF M41.

I spent a LOT of time looking and handling the XA10, the XF100 and 105 on the Canon stand (and another) at BVE yesterday. Man it was busy at Earls Court!

It's now very clear to me that the XA10 is definitely a spruced up camcorder whereas the XF100/105s are true pro cams. The LCDs on all of them are lovely. The XA10's body is quite a bit smaller than the baby XFs - when you see and handle them side by side it's very noticeable.

The XA10 feels a bit cheap and plasticky and I REALLY did not like the positioning of the lens ring so close to the LCD. If you tilt the LCD at all it becomes almost impossible to use the lens ring easily - the cam is just too small - it almost looks like a childs toy with that goofy XLR handle! I also did not like the touch screen menu driven system - but I know others will love that approach. I'm really glad I did not pin my hopes on a XA10 as a B or C cam - it was a big disappointment for me (others will love it I'm sure - it's all down to the images it'll create after all).

Now the baby XFs. They are LOVELY. In the last hour of the show (before we dived in a pub!) I had at least 30-45 minutes "quality time" going through all the menus and controls and just seeing how they handle - as well as a lot of time handling them earlier in the day when it was really busy - see it was so nice I went back for more!

Peaking is great (actually better than on my EX3 as it remains "on" even when you switch to expanded focus). I found that I soon got used to the single lens ring with the 3 position switch (Focus-Zoom-Iris), although as also noted by some others I was talking to, this switch is still a bit close to the back of the LCD and can be a little difficult to operate sometimes depending how you hold the cam/tilt the LCD screen. The little knob control also worked well. The menu system seems pretty easy to use and not too dissimilar to the joystick approach on the EX3 (except the little joystick button is on the edge of the LCD). Seemed just fine. The balance of the cam in the hand is great and the build quality superb and it's really not heavy at all - this cam will be great on a Steadicam I think! The zoom rocker (even the top handle rocker) seemed to be capable of lovely slow creeping zooms (the only kind I typically want to use "in shot") - you can adjust these types of things in the menus. Everything just worked and worked well (that I tried). The focus and Iris worked really well even in auto modes but I did not try the face recognition system etc. The lens ring also had a good feel to it for a camera of this class I thought.

One thing I did find awkward (and maybe I missed it somewhere in the menus) but on my EX3 one of my most used buttons/features is last clip review. With the baby XFs the only way we found to review the clip was to switch the camera off then to Media and then the last clips thumbnail is highlighted and ready to play - if you then hit the play button on the side of the cam. I hope this is not the only way to review a clip - and I'm happy if someone can correct me if I'm wrong. So does anyone know, can you review the last clip whilst still in camera mode or not?

Bottom line - there is no comparison between the XA10 and the XF100/105 (I thought there was when I started this thread). They are very different animals and I know which one I like, and I like A LOT.

As an aside, my little Panasonic TM900 arrived yesterday whilst I was at BVE - a day later than promised but no sweat. Wow, it looks lovely. I'll report elsewhere on the forum what I think of it - when I've had a chance to test it out (might not be for a while as I have a lot of corporate work going on right now).

Finally, to the fellow visitors I met on the Canon stand - cheers! It was great to meet you all (especially the guy from Hungary) and discuss the XF100 together!

Many thanks for your feedback on the XF100 from BVE. Was eagerly waiting to see how you got on with it. Seriously thinking about going for one of these cams to compliment the 7D. Like the small form factor, and the features it packs into it.

So does anyone know, can you review the last clip whilst still in camera mode or not?


Hi Andy

Yes we can.
Please see my answer to your question on the “Canon introduces XF105 and XF100” thread.

Great! That was the right answer!

The Canon rep I asked at BVE (after spending some time trying to figure it out on an XF100 ....without the benefit of a manual in front of me I will add!) did not know how to do it other than the clunky way that I described earlier.

So pleased that's now put to bed.

YouTube - Canon XA10 & XF105 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7KcSyveCTrA)

Head to head with an XA10 and a XF105, with the XA in 24p progressive and the XF in interlaced 60i, a mode that reduces vertical information and sharpness.

XA set to consumer preferences with more sharpening and saturation. XF has more chroma detail, and less color banding. Look at the trees behind the moving footbal nets, the XF does not break the tree limbs up as does the XA. One is set up for post production with pros, and one set up for consumers. MPEG2 4:2:2 has more detail in areas that AVCHD renders as a single block of color. Pros will care, most consumers will not. Overall both cams please their respective audiences, but the XA falls below my threshold, but I m sure my family members would prefer the XA because is designed for viewing without grading, and they never see the details that are missed.

Does this mean that the old rule of thumb that AVCHD is twice as efficient as MPEG2 is not accurate? Does not seem so here.

I saw the video.

The two cameras have two differents settings so it is difficult to say which is the better. Anyway to my eyes the XA10 look more good. When you looking a video you look the video with the eyes not with the instruments.
But before I can sure we need to see a test like this with the two cameras with the same settings.

It's now very clear to me that the XA10 is definitely a spruced up camcorder whereas the XF100/105s are true pro camsThese were my conclusions exactly. The XA10 is very expensive for what it is.

Actually they both are.

Actually they both are.

What would you suggest as alternatives that provide either:
- same features and qualities at lower price, or
- more features and qualities at same price

?

Thanks, Erik

Erik,
They seem to have a lot of competition from Panasonic. But that's already been discussed a lot, no need to run through it again here.
So yes there are choices out there each with their own trade-offs.
Is it possible that the advantages of being able to shoot in 1080/60p may be as signicant as having the ability to shoot with the 4.2.2 color space? That remains to be seen.
I just think that for what Canon is offering, they are somewhat pricey at the moment. But then again, most cams are, when they are first introduced, aren't they?
Nothing beats a hands-on evaluation, I hope to have that chance in march at the HD Expo in LA.

YouTube - Canon XA10 & XF105 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7KcSyveCTrA)

Head to head with an XA10 and a XF105, with the XA in 24p progressive and the XF in interlaced 60i, a mode that reduces vertical information and sharpness.

It was surprising to see how much more detail there was in the XA10 in several of the scenes. This seemed to go beyond simple in-camera sharpening.

I have seen footage from the XF100/5 and from the XA10.

To me it seems that the XA10 performs better in low-light conditions. My understanding is that both cameras use the same sensor, similar in size and specifications. So does the XA10 really perform better under low light than does the XF100/5, or is it just my imagination?


According to Canon, minimum illumination is as follows:

XA10: -- Auto mode 1.5 lux (with auto slow shutter selected - shutter speed 1/30)

XF100/5: Full AUTO mode: 4.5 lux (Shutter speed 1/60, Gain +24dB)

I've used files from the Canon T2i ( .mov files ) which are AVCHD, that have also been converted using Cineform, and I don't see any different at all.

Is that normal ?

it does take longer with avchd ,ive been dealing with it for around 3 years now

the fastest workflow i have devised is to:

copy clips to hdd

transcode with cineform

edit

its really as simple as that ,it does take more time and space since you need to transcode ,but its not as bad as you may have heard

That is because the SLR cameras use a higher bitrate to begin with.

As I understand it h.264 is the compression used in both DSLR mov files and AVCHD mts files

Shot with my XA10, no lights and some shots in very poor lighting. The cam is far better than some here give it credit for. Certainly more versatile IMO than the Panasonic 900 which I owned and am now selling. Much better manual control options on the XA10. I also found both the good light and low light PQ to be better on the XA10. To see the true PQ, I strongly advise downloading the full rez file and playing on a good quality HDTV.

Josh & Alison's Wedding on Vimeo

Hello Ken love the xa10 to as you know. (gso125) just started posting over here about the xf100 more owners on this forum