I am currently using an XHA1s and am looking to take the next step up. How does the image quality of the XF300 compare to the 7d? I know the DOF isn't there with the XF but I am more concerned with getting that great "film" look that people are getting with the 7d. Yes, I know there is a huge price difference, I just want to know about image quality.

I have the XF305 and also used the 7D on my last DVD production "a guide to DSLR photography"

The 7D will produce excellent movies. However, there are many shortcomings with shooting on a HDSLR compared to a dedicated camcorder. The best option is to use both, especially if you you want to do wide angle work.

Whats the recording time like on the XF? I heard with the 7d you can only get about 8 minutes per card.

Recording times vary with the memory card size. With a 16gb card on the XF using 1920 x 1080 or 1280x720 I get 40 minutes.@ 50mbs, using 35mbs I get 57 minutes. The 7D has a shorter maximum recording time for any take, but you can start a new recording(s) to fill the card. The limitation of a short recording time is no big deal unless you want to record an entire wedding or other long production.

Also look at the XF100 (we have both and also 7D + 5D2 etc).

The XF cameras mix very well with the DSLR footage, but as you know you can't get the shallow DOF (which is often more hassle than it's worth).

DSLR recording times are approx 12 mins for every 4GB of card space, so a 32GB card gets you 8x4GB = 8x12 mins = 96 mins (approx). The same card in the XF gives us 82mins (50mbs 4:2:2).

Best solution is to have both! ;)

They do blend nicely BUT you have to tweak the in camera setting to get that to happen unless you like a lot of work in post.
Ive shot both of my cameras for a nationally airing TV show and also a local PBS show that airs in HD.
Depending on the subject, I've used them both for a-cam/b-cam rolls and they work great in either roll.
If you can't swing the 300 and 7D, substitute a T2i which has the same video quality (just not as controllable settings-wise) as the 7D for half the price. Get a 50mm f1.4 and you're all set for the best of both worlds.

The big problem with the shallow DOF is that if you don't get your focus spot on then the result will look dreadful on a 40 or 50" screen. Achieving accurate focus on a HDSLR is not that easy, unless you invest in a decent finder.

LOL! It's not that easy even with a decent viewfinder! As with anything regarding camerawork, it takes practice...lots of practice to become really proficient.

Thanks for the input. Eventually I would like to be dual wielding the 7d and 300, but budget wise I might pick up the 7d first unless I can sell my XHA1s for a decent price.

What it is about the 7D that you consider it "a step up". When I was ready for a step up from the A1, it was because of limitations of the A1. In many ways, you'll be giving up things in a move to the 7D. Also, overcoming the limitations of shooting with DSLRs entails additional equipment costs so look at the total cost. Are you limited by only spending what you sell your used A1s for? The type of shooting you do is also a factor.

To chirp in a little late, I have multiple A1's and 7D's. The 7D's are great for shallow DOF, but focus can be a real PIA especially if you are shooting lower than F4. The resolution isn't there on the 7D's and to be perfectly honest the XF300 would be a million times more useful if I had to pick. Also I suppose it depends on what work you do, for general corporate / event / low end broadcast I would go straight to the XF300. If you want to do multi camera shoots and use a 7D for a few money shots great. But for the entire event it is a big risk. Other option could be a 2nd hand Ex1 and a capture device and a 2nd hand 7D??? Remember the cost of lenses with the 7D, you will need a few.

I sold my A1 for a Canon 60D. I went with the 60D over the 7d because of the articulated LCD monitor. Which is a BIG improvement over the 7d. I shoot only from a tripod, and only at pretty stationary targets. I don't move around much.

The 60D does have a better overall picture quality. However, you can't believe all of the important shots I have missed since buying it.

When a object, bird, or person is moving toward you, or away from you, forget. You can't keep it focused.

Filming a Bald Eagle flying past you? forget it. Following any kind of fast moving object, forget it. Following a person in a crowd of people, I hear it's possible with hours of practice. But, I still can't do it.

Looking back, I should have kept the A1, it's a incredible camera, and adapts well to any situation. I should have waited out Canon for it's replacement. Which I know is frustrating. I should have kept the A1. I suggest you do the same.

No, I won't trade. But I will sell when Canon releases a camcorder to replace the A1 and that wonderful 20x lens.

Dave

The big problem with the shallow DOF is that if you don't get your focus spot on then the result will look dreadful on a 40 or 50" screen. Achieving accurate focus on a HDSLR is not that easy, unless you invest in a decent finder.

It will look even worse on a deep dof camera such as the XF-series. I've seen a lot of poorly shot documentary footage where the focus is on the backwall instead of the speaker. Never seen anything like that even with poorly shot DSLR footage. It's just way more difficult to spot where the focus actually is when everything is in focus. And when looking at a very sharp HD footage from the xf300, the focus is very apparent compared to the lcd. Not so with DSLR's as they are not that sharp to begin with. And they also lack autofocus which is great, people will actually have to focus.

Also I suppose it depends on what work you do, for general corporate / event / low end broadcast I would go straight to the XF300. If you want to do multi camera shoots and use a 7D for a few money shots great. But for the entire event it is a big risk.

Yes, these 1/3 inch cameras are great for event work. But where the DSLR's shine is narrative work. You do double audio anyway and everything is controlled. The positives outweight the negatives.

The xf300, great as it is for event work, is just not cutting it for narrative as none of the small sensor cameras do. Pick the camera depending on what you do. And on how rich you are ;)

Filming a Bald Eagle flying past you? forget it. Following any kind of fast moving object, forget it.
Filming a Bald Eagle and filming a wedding is a slightly different thing, and being event videographer myself I would recommend at least to try DSLR as video tool to anyone who likes to film, i love Canon DSLRs and probably will use them as long as they will support (and improve) video capability;
Mark, I would check 60D as a possible alternative to 7D, it has flip LCD, longer battery life and never overheats, 7D does;
and speaking about Bald Eagle, with the practice you can follow focus fast moving object,
do you think that cameras used for the sport events have autofocus?
Tom Guilmette - Sony HDC-910 HD 1080i camera & Canon 75x lens (9.3-700mm zoom) - Twitvid (http://www.twitvid.com/MF16T)

In terms of depth of field, the XF300 will look just like your old XHA1. But the color and dynamic range will be a zillion times better.

The 'film look' you're after needs good lenses on the 7D, so there's very little price difference once you've added all the lenses and accessories you'll need - with the XF300 probably coming out cheaper.

They're apples and oranges - completelly different tools for different jobs.

Get a T3i and a 50mm lens to play with shallow depth of field AND an XF100 to film events and you won't break the bank (or your budget) and will have your cake and eat it too.

The XF300 gets 41 minutes from a 16gb card at the best quality setting.

I've got an A1, XF300 and a 7d.

I got the 7d for the DoF and film look. On a few occasions, I tried to use the camera as a replacement for the XF but gave up. It's just not the same as a Camcorder. Plus you end up spending more $$$ to turn it into a camcorder equivelant.

I use the 7d for artistic shots only and it's great with the Philip Bloom slider.

Personally, I wouldn't change the A1 for a 7d. I'd get a 7d and use it with the A1.

Ideally, I'd rather have an XF and an AF101.

All depends on what you are going to use it for.

Totally agree regarding the 60D compared to 7D, overheating is a real problem and a pain. Flip LCD is great. The only plus of the 7D is build quality, I shoot sometimes with another guy and he has a 60D and the rubber is coming off the body and it looks pretty tired. 7D is better if it is lightly raining too. If you are gentle with it then the 60D wins by far.

It will look even worse on a deep dof camera such as the XF-series. I've seen a lot of poorly shot documentary footage where the focus is on the backwall instead of the speaker. Never seen anything like that even with poorly shot DSLR footage

Simple answer, don't rely on the autofocus.

Maybe I haven't seen the backwall footage you describe, but I have seen plenty of poor video shot with a DSLR, come to that I have also seen plenty of excellent footage shot with the same. Cameras, HDSLR or camcorders are a means to an end, in experienced hands they will deliver stunning footage, in other hands they may be better left in the box.

Simple answer, don't rely on the autofocus.
in experienced hands they will deliver stunning footage, in other hands they may be better left in the box.
Well said.

I've got an A1, XF300 and a 7d.

I got the 7d for the DoF and film look. On a few occasions, I tried to use the camera as a replacement for the XF but gave up. It's just not the same as a Camcorder. Plus you end up spending more $$$ to turn it into a camcorder equivelant.

I use the 7d for artistic shots only and it's great with the Philip Bloom slider.

Personally, I wouldn't change the A1 for a 7d. I'd get a 7d and use it with the A1.

Ideally, I'd rather have an XF and an AF101.

All depends on what you are going to use it for.

Syeed,

Image wise, how do you compare the XF and the A1? I've heard that the XF is heads and shoulders above and I've also heard it's not all that much better. Since you actually own both cameras, I'd love to hear your take on how the two compare image wise.

Thanks much!

The Ai is a HDTV (1440 x 1080) and SD whereas the the XF 300/305 offers full HD 1920x1080, 1280 x 720 and 1440 x 1080. Image quality the XF is head and shoulders better than the Ai, and it uses memory cards not that black stuff - forget the name as I haven't used it for a few years.

The 7D is a great camera but I personally wouldn't use it as my number 1 camera, you need too many bits to bring it up to spec and then you defeat the whole object of using a light portable HDSLR camera, and with all the extra bits added you look like a walking hardware store.

Just my view

Syeed,

Image wise, how do you compare the XF and the A1? I've heard that the XF is heads and shoulders above and I've also heard it's not all that much better. Since you actually own both cameras, I'd love to hear your take on how the two compare image wise.

Thanks much!

Hi Peter,

Straight from the camera and without any tweaking in post I prefer the footage from the A1. Where the A1 footage looks rich and warm, I find the XF a little cold and clinical.

(I'm alternating between the Vortex and BBC settings for the XF and one of the custom pre-sets from this forum for the A1.)

The XF is a nice camera and apart from the zoom selector option a great camera to use. I'm not disappointed that I purchased it and also I wouldn't have been disappointed if it gave the same footage as the A1.

I also prefer the look of the 7d over the XF and the A1.

When I first got the 7d I used it as a second camera just to test it out. After seeing the footage, I forgot about the XF footage and used the 7d footage for the interview parts. It just looks so much nicer. See: Concours D'Elegance 2011 preview - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GM6CHju-B3Q)

Wow, a lot of feedback in the last couple of days. Its good to see and I am picking up a lot of useful info on the 2 cameras. I really like that piece you posted Syeed. I love the look of it. I have gotten into shooting automotive videos as well but it is not what I do exclusively. Was that all on a 7d?

Hi Peter,

Straight from the camera and without any tweaking in post I prefer the footage from the A1. Where the A1 footage looks rich and warm, I find the XF a little cold and clinical.

[/url]

That surprises me, the XF must be so much nicer to colour grade though? Did you mainly use your A1 in 50i or 25p

Straight from the camera and without any tweaking in post I prefer the footage from the A1. Where the A1 footage looks rich and warm, I find the XF a little cold and clinical...

I also prefer the look of the 7d over the XF and the A1.

When I first got the 7d I used it as a second camera just to test it out. After seeing the footage, I forgot about the XF footage and used the 7d footage for the interview parts. It just looks so much nicer. See: Concours D'Elegance 2011 preview - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GM6CHju-B3Q)

Interesting Syeed, just shows how personal/subjective our preferences are :-)

I've owned a couple of XH-A1s, the 7D, and currently have a 5DII and XF300. For me the XF is quite a step up from the A1 in colour/detail, and the lens is far superior (no noticeable CA for example). In terms of usability - with the scopes, larger VF, CF media etc - there's no contest. And then, when it comes to post, the codec makes a massive difference with grading/keying.

When comparing the 5DII/7D to the XF, the differences are even more stark. I've been shooting almost exclusively with the XF this year (occasionally I use the DSLR for a cutaway) and when I mix and match shots for reel purposes etc, there's just a massive difference in IQ when playing at 720p and up. The XF footage is so much more detailed, the gradients far superior, and it's not messed up but wacky moire/aftifacting.

The XF takes more work in post to achieve great results - I do CC a lot, but for me the IQ is very pleasing vis-a-vis the DSLRs. I won't even touch on the usability issues!

But yes, it's very much a matter of personal preference: I'm planning to embark on a feature in the coming months and I'll be using the XF, the 5DII will be restricted to stills.

Just to add another dimension to this thread. I am currently working on a HDSLR DVD using the Nikon D7000. At times I felt I was fighting a losing battle, but then I used some of my old series Nikkor lenses which give full aperture control etc. and the results are outstanding. I will syill use the XF305 and Sony EX3 as my main video cameras but will supplement the video with clips shot on the D7000. Last year I used the Canon 7D for my "a guide to DSLR photography" DVD. I wasn't too impressed with the video material I shot with this camera, but then I didn't have full manual control on the lenses I was given.

Interesting times :-)

I really like the look of the videos these guys make: wagenwerks's videos on Vimeo (http://vimeo.com/wagenwerks/videos)
Ultimately, that is what I would like my stuff to look like.

Ultimately, that is what I would like my stuff to look like.
Mark, you don't need $7K camera for that look , any DSLR with decent lens will do the job, i'm pretty sure majority, if not all, of the stuff was shot with DSLRs, when we're talking about look, it is mostly about lighting, shot composition and post work,
I said it many times, i'll say it again, some people shoot better with HV20 than some with Epic :)

Ahhh, if only I had the money for an Epic. Hell, I would take a RED One if I could afford it.

Was that all on a 7d?

I think there may be a couple of shots that were from the XF in that video. Can't remember.

This video, was also done with a 7d and the XF. The first and last scene are XF, all the sliding shots and some of the stationary shots are with the 7d. Engine shot and the panning through window are from the XF. I used the Kessler pocket dolly for the sliding shots.

Mussolinin's 1939 Alfa Romeo 6C 2500 S Berlinetta - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4yS0m5_RHc)



That surprises me, the XF must be so much nicer to colour grade though? Did you mainly use your A1 in 50i or 25p

50i on the A1. Now I shoot predominately 50p or 25p.

I think the issue I have with the A1 and XF may be unique to me. On the A1, footage comes out very similar to what I see on the cameras LCD. The majority of footage I do end up uploading to youtube, I don't do any post correction.

With the XF however, I can never get it right. On the LCD the picture looks great, but when viewed later, it comes out slightly over exposed. Which means I always need to do post correction. Tried the wave form monitor and also calibrated the LCD screen, but the problem still exists. Not as bad as when I first got it though.



Interesting Syeed, just shows how personal/subjective our preferences are :-)


To be honest, I'm far from being an expert.

I really like the look of the videos these guys make: wagenwerks's videos on Vimeo (http://vimeo.com/wagenwerks/videos)
Ultimately, that is what I would like my stuff to look like.

How did he do those moving shots!!!

With the XF however, I can never get it right. On the LCD the picture looks great, but when viewed later, it comes out slightly over exposed. Which means I always need to do post correction. Tried the wave form monitor and also calibrated the LCD screen, but the problem still exists. Not as bad as when I first got it though.



Ok, I thought it was just me - but I'm finding things slightly overexposed as well. It looks just great on the screen, but in Premiere Pro 5.5, It looks QUITE a bit washed out. I shoot way too much on full auto, so I thought that was some of the problem (I'm sure it is), but I've seen this as well.

Anyone else? What are you doing to compensate? I'm giving up shooting on Auto unless I have no choice, but what else? I wonder if I have something set wrong somewhere... I'm using either mojo settings from the Vimeo board, or the outdoor settings from the Vortex Media video.

Larry

I have mine on full manual and PP5.5 and I still get the washed out look.

Hi Larry,

I love the XF but I also grade practically everything I shoot. I must admit, if I'm not grading footage at all, then I do prefer the look of the DSLRs. I just shot some interviews with the 5DII yesterday and they look good straight out of the camera. With the XF, I almost always do a round of Magic Bullet Colorista II using scopes to get the highs/lows where I want them.

It's critical not to overexpose with the XF. If you are using auto, you can set the exposure compensation to a negative value, erring on the side of caution.

When shooting people, set the zebras to around 65% with the +/- 5% threshold. Then expose so the zebras appear only on the highlights of the face (nose, cheekbone facing the principal light source). You can't go wrong if you do this, perfect skin exposure every time.

When shooting objects, use the built-in scopes (making sure your whites just touch 100 and your black just touch 0), or set your second set of zebras at 95% so only the pure whites zebra.

In other words, rely on your scopes/zebras for exposure and you'll do very well. The screen is next to useless.

Profiling your monitor will help to display accurate colours

Hi Vincent,

Sorry for the delayed response - busy weekend... My monitor is profiled - I've been shooting DSLR photography for a while now, and was profiling my monitor before anyone else I knew. I do my own photo printing and learned over a decade ago that if the monitor is out of whack, nothing will look right.

I use a Colormunki, but sometimes I use a real monkey... whichever gives the best results... hahahaha ha. So sorry...

What do you use to profile your monitor?

Josh - I've been thinking about Colorista II. I have their free QuickLooks Limited that came as a registration bonus with the latest Adobe upgrade - and that's actually pretty cool. Colorista II looks pretty sweet.

I have to admit that I just did another shoot last week while I was running sound and setup for a group at church, and I didn't have time to run the XF300 on manual - there was a LOT happening with changing lighting and locations in the church. Auto seemed the smart thing to do, anyway. But it came out better than the last time I did it - all settings the same (for auto). Confusing, but I'll keep shooting and get it down.

Larry

The Color Munki should produce good results, no problem there (I use the Spyder and a iOne amongst others). I also use a JVC CRT studio monitor for colour correction work, this is not profiled with a spyder but I use the SMPTE colour bars to set up the display. You can add the bars to a timeline and set up your LCD screen prior to working on a project. Premiere will generate them for you or use the ones generated by the XF camera. Spend some time setting up your video colours using the bars and you should see a difference.

I also have the Canon XF305 and it does produce a brighter image than my Sony EX3

When shooting people, set the zebras to around 65% with the +/- 5% threshold. Then expose so the zebras appear only on the highlights of the face (nose, cheekbone facing the principal light source). You can't go wrong if you do this, perfect skin exposure every time. .

Really? You're saying that 65% is going to give you perfect exposure on an albino, a black person, a latino, and everyone in between? That is impossible. I would never use zebras to judge exposure on skin tone because I cannot know the reflectance value of the person's skin. 65% might be perfect on a white guy, but totally wrong on an Asian. If you use zebras on skin tone, you're just guessing. Well, I can guess too, without even using zebras! Only bright white and a calibrated 18% gray card are reliable indicators of exposure when using zebras -- because you already know what the reflectance value is of those targets. Using zebras in any other way is really just taking an educated guess. I believe that anyone who says they use "_____% zebras" for skin tones is really just fooling themselves into thinking they are using zebras. What they are actually doing is guessing, based on how the picture looks, and zebras aren't really telling them anything important.

If you want to get perfectly exposed images every time, and never have to grade in post, you can't use histograms, you can't use the built-in waveform monitor, you just need to learn to use zebras properly. The camera has excellent, and very accurate zebras, so there's no exuse for getting washed out or over exposed images. And the great thing about zebras is that they are universal. Once you know how to use them proplerly on one camera, you can apply that skill to every professional camera you encounter.

http://www.vortexmedia.com/DVD_XF305.html

Ahhh, if only I had the money for an Epic. Hell, I would take a RED One if I could afford it.
XF300 is a $7K camcorder, Red Scarlet fixed lens kit priced to be around $6K, it is not an Epic, and it is not a Red1, but in my opinion 2/3" RAW 120fps @3k + HDR - totally worth the money;
when it's out :)

Doug, can you give us a quick rundown on how you use Zebras? I am probably doing it wrong too.

XF300 is a $7K camcorder, Red Scarlet fixed lens kit priced to be around $6K, it is not an Epic, and it is not a Red1, but in my opinion 2/3" RAW 120fps @3k + HDR - totally worth the money;
when it's out :)

I didnt realize that was going to be the price point on it. Any word on a release date?

I have the XF100, and found Doug Jensen's Vortex DVD series (on the XF300/5) to be a fantastic help with it. One of the best things about it (and completely unexpected) was that in the training he shows how he set up the adjustments on the lcd screen. I did those exact settings and find it to be VERY close for my (admittedly non-pro) use. I have found that I can rely on the viewfinder for color, exposure, etc. and it really is very close to WYSIWYG once imported into FCP.

It wouldn't be appropriate for me to post those settings, but just wanted to make the point that it was definitely possible to tweak the lcd to a usable state.

David - thanks for the suggestion! I watched Doug Jensen's Vortex Media training videos on the XF 300/305 a month or so when I got the XF300, and looked at my settings, but didn't do much other than to try to calibrate them to what I saw -live- probably not a good idea. I compared my settings to what I saw on the training video today (btw, disk 1 at about 51:25) and I was WAY off... especially on brightness, which is probably the most critical element... at least from the issues that I was having.

I'll give his settings a try as a starting point and see how it goes. I have an interview to shoot this weekend. I MAY even shoot on manual (GASP! I KNOW!). This is funny and embarassing. I shoot manual FLASH on my Canon 1DIII and 5DII all the time... Some of you experienced camera operators must just be cringing when you read these posts. Thanks for a place to learn, though!

Larry

Glad to be of help. For what it's worth, I'm pretty much just a hobbyist myself, but with the XF I'm loving the Gain button for controlling exposure - sort of semi-manual exposure I guess. I've set the 4 Gain button options to 0db, 4.5db, 9db and of course the fourth is Auto, but I have it limited to 15db max. I just look at the scene and bump the Gain to the lowest setting that looks like a decent compromise between highlights and shadows, letting the iris self-adjust (indoors it usually is between 1.8 and 4.0, and in bright sun I change those Gain button settings to lower ones). I find the XF has so much shadow lattitude that I can usually just make sure the important highlights aren't blown and things turn out well. I do need to add zebras to this approach probably to make it more objective and less seat-of-the-pants.

One thing from Doug's DVD set that I'm NOT using is his custom picture file. I don't know if it just doesn't work as well on the XF100, or if I just have amateur tastes, but it's just not, well, punchy enough for me. I use CPs with more vivid color, higher sharpness, and deeper shadows.

I just retired and got the XF100 as a present to myself, and am really loving it, especially once I trashed all the factory settings :-)

Hi David and Larry,

I'm pleased to hear that my DVD has been a help to you both, but just to make everything perfectly clear, I hope that I didn't give you the impression that you should set up the LCD so that you can then use it to judge exposure, white balance, picture quality, contrast, color, or anything else except focus. I would never recommend that anyone ever use the LCD to judge any of those things (except focus). Setting up the LCD so it looks better just gives me a nicer picture to look at during the shoot, but I would NEVER judge what I see on it to make any critical decision about exposure. That is what the zebras are for. I recommend that you go back to the DVD and review what I say about zebras in the exposure chapter. You'll find the information you need there to better understand zebras, and now that you've been using your camera for awhile longer, it might make more sense now. There is a lot to learn about these cameras and it sometimes takes awhile for it all to sink in.

David, I don't know if my recommended profile settings for the XF305/300 translate very well to the XF100 or not because I have never tried them on that camera. But the important thing is that you gave them a try and then came to your own conclusions about whether or not they worked for you. GREAT! That is exactly the right thing to do -- even if you had a XF305/300. Never take anyone elses' profile settings as gospel. Profile settings are mostly just personal preferences and there are no right or wrong settings. If you have created settings that you like better, by all means, use them!

Exposure is different, though. There are definite right and wrong exposure settings, and the easiest way you can get it consistently right is by mastering the use of zebras.

Doug, thanks for the personal reply. I've already re-watched the DVD section on zebras and been experimenting. I think I have the gist of it, but...

1. What if there isn't a pure bright white in the scene to set zebras from? If there's time, use a white card?

2. If the scene is dark enough that zebras don't appear even at max iris, just gain up until you CAN see them and adjust from there?

Thanks!

Doug,

Thanks also for the personally directed reply! And, I'm afraid, in my case, you're absolutely right - I was using the LCD monitor to try to judge exposure, rather than run with Zebras. I went over your video on Exposure and Zebras again today - I like your suggestion about Zebra 2 and have set it up that way and will try it this weekend.

I think this, along with shooting on full auto, is at the core of my problem. And with the brightness set to "normal," I was misjudging the exposure - thinking it was ok when it was really "bright." Using zebra 2 set as you suggest will help judge what's actually at 100%..

And this doesn't even get to the issue of white balance - which I also have been running on auto. I'm having to do A LOT of grading to get the skin tones to look right. I bought your Warm Cards a month or so ago and will do a custom balance. This shoot is going to be in a single setting with a camera mounted on a tripod so a custom white balance is possible and helpful.

Thanks again!

Larry

I own a 5D2, a 60D and XH-A1. Having employed the 5D2 and A1 for a few years now, I am firmly of the belief that it hugely depends what type of work you are doing. Since my work ranges wildly from professional music promos to corporate events, I find myself taking the 5D2 and 60D off the shelf for some jobs, and A1 for others.

For work that demands artistic merit, I would never use a camcorder and much prefer the footage from the HDDSLRs. For interviews, ENG, corporate events, I don't have time to be faffing around with interchangeable lenses, filters, variable NDs and the like, it's the A1 every time and pretty much exclusively.

When I first started using the 5D2, I loved the footage so much, I considered selling the A1. But it's only after a few years working solidly that I've come to realise that each has its place. I'm glad I didn't sell.

Although I have come to this thread to see if it's worth upgrading my A1 to an XF 300.
I'm particularly attracted to the fact that the 300 is a BBC approved camera. I always get raised eyebrows when handing over work done on an HDDSLR!