Tom, larger sensors normally typically have inherently better dynamic range. That is why the Canon stands out from some of it's competition, it is native 1920x1080 and it is larger. It's not the be-all and end-all of camcorders, but as of right now there just isn't anything in it's price range that can beat it's IQ.

I've seen video sample of both, over and over, and there just isn't any comparison, IMO. I knew about the Panasonic long before the Canon, and if I had a preference for brand before this Canon came out, it was for Panasonic.

I wasn't interested in the Panasonic TM900 from day one, outdoors it does a poor job of resolving detail in green spaces, which is another hallmark of a 1/4" sensor. The first video I saw shot with the TM900 was outdoor wedding footage and it just couldn't cut it. The guy who shot the video thought it looked fine, and I just scratched my head. It looked pasty and weird to me.

And despite what some of it's owners say, it is relatively grainy in low light using a relatively modest amount of gain, and no I don't have to own it to know that, and Frederico just confirmed it for me.

I ran the XA10 today for a coroporate shoot, and it blew away my GH2 with a $1000 lens on it. Now granted, the lens was the weak link, but it was still a high grade Olympus lens. I went with the Canon and my images were much better. Equipped with a fast prime, my GH2 would blow away the Canon, of course, but that is besides the point. The sensor on the GH2 is like .75" or something crazy like that, so it's not even a fair comparison.

But I've run the Canon for two weddings at 18db or higher and the images are excellent. No noise that I can see at 18db. That is freaking phenomenal. There may be noise I'll pick up in editing later, but the raw footage was perfect as far as I could see.

So we can debate this endlessly, but to me it's a commons sense thing, matter of fact, no emotion, no real love for either brand. It is what it is. And I've been scared to use the Canon each time I take it out, because I normally shoot with the GH2, but every time I use the camera it performs beyond my expectations.

This debate is not dissimilar to one we had years ago re: the FX7. It had 1/4" chips also and the users of that camera would argue to the death about the greatness of that camera, and I never understood it. I got ganged up and beat up pretty badly in the FX7 forum over that. And there are still users of that camera that love it.

I had the FX7 for a month and sold it at a loss, and was glad to be rid of it. I had been warned by more experienced shooters that that it wouldn't hold up in low light, but I was on a budget and thought I could make it work. Even outdoors it looked like crap to me, it didn't look right, it wasn't grainy, it was instead pasty or something. On the other hand, I admit I did see some paintball footage shot by someone with it, and I had to admit it looked very nice.

Same with the TM900, in the right hands, it can certainly shoot some very nice footage, and some videos I've seen are really nice. However, for run and gun , I personally don't have the time to squeeze every ounce out of a camera like that. I need a camera that is excellent out of the box, and can produce great images in pretty much any situation I'll encounter.

I'll be the first to admit, I'm really not a particularly good shooter. I am not creative, and my footage is pretty run of the mill, so I need the best images I can afford to offset my weaknesses. That is why I am such a stickler on the low light ability of a camera, I need every advantage I can get.

Update: after using both camcorders like crazy I am more convinced that the Canon has a much superior quality to it.
it's not sharpness, it's the actual "depth", the perception the image is not flat.
still I've only managed to test in low light - this morning I shot some comparison shots with full auto mode in both cams in daylight and will report.

I have to say, though, that the OIS of the Canon seems definitely less ideal than the Panasonic.
I haven't really experienced wobble, but I sometimes see some stutter (barely noticeable but definitely there).
now... I am not sure if this is an inherent issue with CMOS sensors, but for some reason I don't see that at all with the Panasonic.
It's difficult to explain, it's as if the OIS in the Canon wasn't...smooth enough at times and you can see that in the playback. has anyone experienced this with the G10/XA10?

finally the Canon seems to be less efficient in terms of battery life: Panasonic has already outperformed as it's still running from my first charge whereas the Canon (with same amount of shots done) is almost gone.

ps. Jeff: once again my name is Federico, not Frederico (nearly there mate)

With respect to the final product the bigger issue with most decent camcorders is the skill of the shooter, and the editor for most video. Camcorder selected can make a difference when used at the edges of operating envelope by a skilled shooter.

In the days of tape, battery life mattered mainly if you had to change battery before you had to change tape. With flash memory with several hour capacity, that rule of thumb no longer applies. Given taht it takes only a 10 seconds or so to change battery, as long as extra batteries are available, and will give you run times longer than the longest continuous shot before a 30 second or so break, I do not see it as a major issue.

I've read that the TM900 is a minor update to the TM700, and that was a very nice camcorder for its price point. I am impresed with the XA10 (upgrade version of the G10), and from the limited time I've used it, prefer its video over the TM700,

In the end, buy what makes you feel good.

What battery are you using? I'm using the largest ones, and two get me through a whole day pretty well, but I don't use the camera for pre-ceremony only the ceremony and entire reception. The stock battery is pretty pathetic for the Canon, maybe gives an hour.

I've just discovered that for some stupid reason canon has the quality setting almost at the lowest setting by default (9bps) so all these comparisons were done with 9bps versus the (I think) almost 40bps of the Panasonic 50p!!

40bps, wow, large files. I had no idea. What codec does the Panny use, AVCHD or MPEG 2?

I will try to post an example, but the footage of the Canon looks at times jerky at times when panning - has anyone experienced anything similar? the tm900 seems MUCH better in that respect

I've seen several report of Jello issue for the Hf G10? I wonder if it's simply a matter of a not-so-great-OIS....

What mode are you shooting in? 24p is normally jerky, and yes it is on mine in 24p also. Same with the GH2, 24p is jerky, it is normal. 24p requires slow pans.

The Panasonic is known for producing extremely smooth footage, so your findings are typical, and this was true of the 700 as well. You will not be able to smooth out the Canon other than by slowing down your pans.

25p (in 50i)
Unfortunately the European version doesn't have native 25p

What??? That's awful. I don't shoot 24p, as I'm very happy with 60i, but still that really sucks. I use HDLink so it would be no issue to deinterlace, but how crappy that you have to do that.

Actually with 25p (60i) do you have to do anything with the footage when editing, or can you just output it for Bluray as 60i, and it will retain the 25p look?

I haven't tried yet, but I never shoot 50i, only 25p

I've shot my last twenty wedding in 720 60p, it's extremely nice. But because the Canon doesn't shoot 720p, I now shoot 60i so all my cameras match. It's still very nice.

24p or 25p is nice I suppose but I use DSLR type cameras that achieve a lot of things with DOF, which is more important to me than frame rate.

I miss 720 60p a little, but its no big loss. The Canon at 60i, is good enough for me. It's images are so good I'm going to sell of a DSLR and get another XA10. I will probably do like you and start shooting 24p at some point.

Update: after using both camcorders like crazy I am more convinced that the Canon has a much superior quality to it.
it's not sharpness, it's the actual "depth", the perception the image is not flat.
still I've only managed to test in low light - this morning I shot some comparison shots with full auto mode in both cams in daylight and will report.

I have to say, though, that the OIS of the Canon seems definitely less ideal than the Panasonic.
I haven't really experienced wobble, but I sometimes see some stutter (barely noticeable but definitely there).
now... I am not sure if this is an inherent issue with CMOS sensors, but for some reason I don't see that at all with the Panasonic.
It's difficult to explain, it's as if the OIS in the Canon wasn't...smooth enough at times and you can see that in the playback. has anyone experienced this with the G10/XA10?

finally the Canon seems to be less efficient in terms of battery life: Panasonic has already outperformed as it's still running from my first charge whereas the Canon (with same amount of shots done) is almost gone.

ps. Jeff: once again my name is Federico, not Frederico (nearly there mate)

an example of my point about the OIS of the Canon - I put together quite quickly a video I then uploaded to youtube (for some reason I can't seem to upload on vimeo today)
never mind of rough it is. it's intentionally panning fast
I did a few shots some with standard OIS and other with dynamic one

have a look at the following seconds - the point is that I see some "wobble" or at times the right side looks a bit stuttery.
20sec (buildings on the right side) , 40sec (again on the right side), 59sec (handle of the door), 1.59sec (right side)

what do you guys think?

prova canon HF g10 wobbleWMV.wmv - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kbCG9whSa9A)

incidentally does anyone know the best format to render to for youtube/vimeo? I tried MainConcept AVC but didn't like the end result. this one is actually WMV 6.7mbps, and it's not bad at all (please remember to select 1080 on youtube)

The XA10, and presumably the G10, defaults to recording in SP mode (7 Mbps), a substantially lower bit rate recording mode than the camcorder is capable of doing (MPX is 24 Mbps). Further SP is a nominal 1440x1080 (not square pixel) image.

For anything approaching serious work, I would use MXP mode.

Don, thanks. Mine was set at FXP, just checked. I am glad to know this now, and not after shooting my final few weddings of the season.

Thoughts about the clip I posted? Is that wobble/jitter within what's expectable from the camcorder?

Dynamic is said by some to be not so great, I don't know. If you're shooting in 24p, then the pans look very good to me when you're in normal mode. Panning is always tough in 24p. In 24p I don't think panning is advisable when handheld if you can avoid it. Pans in 24p are optimal when done very slowly from a tripod or when following a subject.

When handheld you should avoid panning if possible especially in 24p, just my opinion. Instead shoot in the classic style of fixed shots. Hit record, record shot, stop, frame your next shot, hit record.

24p is not suitable for run and gun, that is not how it is ideally used.

If you shoot run and gun, I would shoot in 60i, with your camera. 60p is ideal for run and gun, but we don't have it with this camera.

Dynamic is said by some to be not so great, I don't know. If you're shooting in 24p, then the pans look very good to me when you're in normal mode. Panning is always tough in 24p. In 24p I don't think panning is advisable when handheld if you can avoid it. Pans in 24p are optimal when done very slowly from a tripod or when following a subject.

When handheld you should avoid panning if possible especially in 24p, just my opinion. Instead shoot in the classic style of fixed shots. Hit record, record shot, stop, frame your next shot, hit record.

24p is not suitable for run and gun, that is not how it is ideally used.

If you shoot run and gun, I would shoot in 60i, with your camera. 60p is ideal for run and gun, but we don't have it with this camera.


I shoot in 25p (which is not native anyway) but I take your point about interlaced. thing is I do narrative so interlaced has that "news" look to it I don't always like it.
my point was trying to understand if my g10 is somewhat defective as I heard they sometimes have more issues than the xa10 with the OIS>
check out at 00:59.... doesn't it look a bit "stuttering"?

40bps, wow, large files. I had no idea. What codec does the Panny use, AVCHD or MPEG 2?
17 mbps AVCHD, 28 mbps 1080/50p

Thoughts about the clip I posted? Is that wobble/jitter within what's expectable from the camcorder?
Pefectely normal.

40bps, wow, large files. I had no idea. What codec does the Panny use, AVCHD or MPEG 2?

AVCHD..... strangely though, when I tried some slow motion on Vegas it didn't look THAT good anyway...
I even tried with Twixtor and I wasn't impressed...

what's amazing in the Panasonic is the smoothness and steadiness of the image...much more so than the canon

40bps, wow, large files. I had no idea. What codec does the Panny use, AVCHD or MPEG 2?

Pefectely normal.

thanks Colin.... I just thought it looked a bit wobbly at times... I think I have to live with the fact that the OIS is a bit of the Achille's heel compared to the Panasonic. for everything else I have no doubts I like the g10 more

times are quite exciting: just think about what can come up in the next few months/years for prosumers camcorders!! unthinkable just a few years back. If Canon finally releases a new XA10 with 50/60p it will be an incredible piece of kit (which it already is)
f

17 mbps AVCHD, 28 mbps 1080/50p

the TM900 has variable bit rate so at 50/60p some users have reported peaks of 38/40mbps

(The Official Panasonic HDC-TM900 Owners Thread - Page 25 - AVS Forum (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1321756&page=25))

60p or 50p has the best slow motion. You cannot have it both ways with the XA10. It doesn't have 50p.

You mention poor slow motion in 25p. That, again, is the nature of the frame rate you have chosen. 24p or 25p does not have the greatest slow motion.

If you are running the Panasonic in 50p, or whatever, (I don't remember what mode you are running the Panasonic or if you said) it will have smoother motion, because that is what 50p does, it produces very smooth images.

If you compare the two cameras you must shoot in the same frame rate to get an accurate comparison. If you are shooting at different frame rates it is apple to oranges.

To get the better images + smoothness you want you would have to buy another camera. The logical choice to "have it all" would be the XF100 or the upcoming new Panasonic AG130.

The panasonic has 50p, the Canon has the better sensor. That's is the problem. You want a camera that combines both.

17 mbps AVCHD, 28 mbps 1080/50p

60p or 50p has the best slow motion. You cannot have it both ways with the XA10. It doesn't have 50p.

You mention poor slow motion in 25p. That, again, is the nature of the frame rate you have chosen. 24p or 25p does not have the greatest slow motion.

If you are running the Panasonic in 50p, or whatever, (I don't remember what mode you are running the Panasonic or if you said) it will have smoother motion, because that is what 50p does, it produces very smooth images.

If you compare the two cameras you must shoot in the same frame rate to get an accurate comparison. If you are shooting at different frame rates it is apple to oranges.

To get the better images + smoothness you want you would have to buy another camera. The logical choice to "have it all" would be the XF100 or the upcoming new Panasonic AG130.

The panasonic has 50p, the Canon has the better sensor. That's is the problem. You want a camera that combines both.

I agree the best of both worlds would have been the XF100, but it's out of my budget, it's bigger than the G10, and does 50p only at 720 and not 1080. I 've made my decision and it's to keep the Canon as it's just a better camcorder. shame for the frame rate.

Yes, I know. I almost didn't buy it because of the lack of 60p, but am so glad I did anyway. 60i with the camera produces very good images. I'm about to put up a video today with footage from the XA10 and while I haven't see yet how it might be mangled by Vimeo, on my computer the video is very nice.

As I've said before, I have been shooting in 720 60p with the GH2, and it is beautiful. I can't even imagine what 1080 60p with a large sensor would look like.

A lot of discussion about frame rates, p vs. i, etc.

First and foremost - shoot with the final product and client in mind. We can dream of that illusive "film look" but if that does not matter to the client, is there any point in chasing it if it adds cost you cannot bill (except perhaps for personal gratification)? Why give a Rolex to a pig when it can do equally well with a Timex? (OK, I accept that some lurkers may have fashion pigs.)

What is important? My take on it is: Good audio, good shot composition, tight editing, on time delivery, and video that is acceptably (which does not mean totally) noise free considering the field conditions under which it was shot.

Slow shutter speeds or frame rates maker for stuttery motion and really bad pans/tilts. The early days of TV settled on 60i/50i to deal with issues of power line frequency, available bandwidth and acceptable motion. Film at 24 FPS was the minimal that produce acceptable motion on the big screen, and that requires skilful camera work. Faster frame rates eat film, increase cost.

Don, no matter how long I live I am astounded at learning how most everything comes down to money.

Your statement is fascinating, is it true? 24fps was selected as a way to save money? That just blows my mind.

I have NEVER understood the fascination with 24p. DOF with great lenses seems to me to be much more critical in achieving a great look much more so than frame rate.

Now I DO get the fascination with progressive at any speed, it is fantastic to me in comparison to interlaced, and I've seen some amazing 24p wedding videos, but it would seem the lenses and the shots, exposure, etc are what take them over the top, not the frame rate.

48 fields per second (24 Frames Per Second with a 2-blade shutter, or 16 FPS with a 3 blade shutter) was selected as the sweet spot for film projection (by Edison I'm told) where there was little to be gain by increasing beyond it. This is based in large part on how the eye-brain sees motion. 24 FPS was standardized for sound.

Film use is proportional to frame rate. 24 FPS uses 50% more film than 16 FPS, and thus film cost is 50% more. So if 24 FPS gave satisfactory motion an sound, why go to, say, 30 FPS if the cost increases by 25% with no additional benefit at the box office. After all - it is a business. These rates for film were standardized before TV.

Video at 25 or 30 FPS was in part to avoid a beat/interfenence with power line frequencies in the early days.

And of couirse the other part of setting a standard is getting all players (or at least the important ones) to agree to it.

Thanks for the explanation, really interesting. So to say it was a move to save money, not accurate, but as you say 24fps the best overall value.

So to say it was a move to save money, not accurate,

That addresses half of the equation. More likely a decision to "make money" and maximize profit. That is, to maximize the difference between the income from sales and the overall cost to produce that income.

Don, you have a gift for verbalizing concepts and for making clear explanations.

Film at 24 FPS was the minimal that produce acceptable motion on the big screen.
sorry Don, not the motion, 24 fps came with the sound, before sound people were watching from 14 to 26fps, sound film made a 24 fps a standard, but yes, with economy in mind :)

Very interesting thread and comments.
Just to throw a wrench into all the commentary- there are other options that might be considered: there's a Canon HF M41 that I believe uses the same sensor as the G10 and reportedly produces nearly the same video quality, has mic input and shooting modes- might be well worth considering as it costs 1/2 of what the G10 does! There is also the slightly lower cost M40 that is nearly identical to the 41 without the rear viewfinder and less internal memory (but can use SD cards.)

Steve, a quick look around and I'm reading that the viewfinder is pretty poor on the 40 and 41 and the lens is not the same. Obviously you've got to give up something for the huge price difference. I'd like to see one of the little ones anyway, sounds like a potentially cheap effective extra camera.

Jeff that's sad to hear about the lens not being the same- do you have a source for that info- I'd like to read about the differences.
As for the viewfinder being poor- I think it would be an acceptable allowance considering the budget pricing- but that's ME!

Thanks for the new info!

Cnet, I think, but I'm not sure. I googled HF G10 VS whatever the other one is, and wherever I landed said it was a grainy viewfinder, etc. I would definitely look for multiple reviews before buying. The $1400 G10 costs what it does for a reason, and since the lens is most of the cost of these cameras it makes perfect sense.

There is 30P which is what I shoot in...

Mark

On which camera? The XA10 or the G10?

Um, not sure what questions you are referring to but if it was the 30P question, the XA10 shoots 30P and I'm almost sure I read the G10 does as well. AFAIK, they both have the same lens too. I think the primary differences from the G10 are the handle, less internal memory and lacking a couple menu options. The XA is dark black as well.

Mark

Thanks Mark.