I figured I'd put one up more comparison of the two cameras in a 2-cam shoot, since I know lots of folks are still wondering about the now long-anticipated XF100s. I couldn't be happier with how the two cameras pair. This was a ballet scenario -- where lighting was quite variable (and obviously couldn't be added by me). I'm particularly please with the shots from 00:17 - 00:40 where they have two of the dancers doing a quick skit in the dark audience. Both cameras do a nice job and pair evenly.

BoSoma | Marionette, 2011 | Film Preview on Vimeo

The XF100 is the long-view camera in the back, and the 300 is the the detail camera from the left. Only drawback in the whole scenario was that the side-cam had to be right next to a side-spotlight (throwing orange light at most points). It was the only space available for the close-up camera and just meant that the dancers' sides were often more orange than you'd see from the front view. But it's true to form and it's what the studio wanted as angles. They like the look.

looks great Tim. What were your settings for gain, bit rate, frame rate, shutter speed on both cameras?

Great video! Both cameras are very well matched. Little noise is apparent in the XF100 shots.

Pat

Seems like the XF100 had less noise than the XF300, were the gain settings the same? Very impressive.

looks great Tim. What were your settings for gain, bit rate, frame rate, shutter speed on both cameras?

Thanks, all.

They wanted full 1080, so both cameras are 1080/30p at 50mbs. Shutter is 30. (I usually like to try to keep to 60fps with movement, but it was just too dark.) Gain is 6db at all times on the stationary XF100 and is either 3 db or 6 db on the close-up XF300 depending on the lighting of that moment. 3200 kelvin. So, besides the occasional gain change, all settings identical.

I feel like, here again as in the other pairing video I posted earlier, that the XF300 is doing the harder work (non-stationary, close ups with lots of movement, and is next to that orange stage-side spotlight) and therefore-- especially with the vimeo degradation, takes a larger hit when you full-screen it. However, if the XF300 were the stationary one in the back, I'd have to assume it would be better than the XF100 as it has been the superior camera in when put in the same, optimal light. Though I can't really complain here with the results of the 100. Also, the vimeo conversion tends to cause an occasional "flicker" (change in lightness) at clip changes. But that only seems to happen during my vimeo workflow. Never blu-ray or DVD.

Here are two still images, one from each camera, so you can see the differences without vimeo compression:

This seems to indicate that the XF100 may be slightly better in low light, a counter intuitive result. What is going on?

That's funny... I see the XF300's image as less grainy. (That same wall in the back compared with the other image's back wall). Again, I think that if you had the XF300 in the back, fully zoomed out, it would be better than the XF100, but I could be wrong of course.

But what do you think about the Chroma noise on the background wall?

I'm sure you could be right, Philip. Bottom line is I'm loving the two together. I still feel like the edges and lack of graininess are better on the 300 -- to my tastes-- in the dark spots. It certainly would be bizarre if the little guy were outperforming the big one in low light, but I guess not out of the question.

Thanks for posting. I can tell the XF300 just by the color depth. The XF100 looks a bit under saturated or less "full" compared to the XF300 shots. The single chip just can't match the three chips in this regard.

Detail wise it is quite a nice combo for $10,000

You mention the studio wanted 1080p. Did you deliver on Blu-ray or DVD?

Both/Either (BR or DVD) hence the 1080. Were you thinking the 720 would be better for light?

No, I was just wondering why the dance studio would care if it was shot in 1080p given you only have the choice of 24p or 30p. It seems so much still goes on DVD for this kind of stuff anyway.

I thinK the reason the XF100 may have les chroma noise is that it has less chroma information, way less, and the internal processing of chroma is very different.