I've got the HF-G10 and honestly, I'm not overly impressed I'm wondering if I should have considered the Canon 60D instead at a much lower price.

1. Why weren't you impressed by the HF-G10?
2. Why do you think the Canon 60D would be better for you?
3. What is it exactly you want to record/make with these cameras?

The 60d and the G10 are completely different cameras, and cannot be compared. The 60D requires lenses, and an array of lenses that will accomplish the same things as the g10 will cost you many hundreds of dollars.

The g10, with practice can capture beautiful video. Learn the camera before you give up on it.

Not sure how the Canon 60D is any cheaper... With a compable lens (18-200mm) to the G10's lens you'll be out $1499, and the G10 is around $1250-$1300 many places now.

Very different cameras, and both great at what they were built for, but definitely not built for the same thing. What uses did you have in mind?

I am in agreement that the cameras are different. I already own the HF-S20 and have not experienced a signifcant improvement to justify the cost for this camera. Thus far, they seem to be the same camera. I bought the camera as a backup camera for weddings , church services, anniversary parties, etc. The camera was also purchased as an introduction for me to Canon New technology as I am interested in both the XF100 and the 300.


The video imagery is good but I can't say that its blown me away. I do love the focus ring but using an XHA1s, I wish that there were two rings. The depth of field is not as good as. I believed it to be reading the many sites that I did and the low light didn't seem to improve much.

I am new at this and still trying to learn more about the camera and videography.

As noted by others, the G10 and 60D are very different beasts optimized for different purposes. You would have to do a requirements analysis (and business case) to determine which would be better suited to your needs. And for that matter, whether or not the upgrade from the HF-S20 was a good decision for you.

The same would apply to a move to a XF100 if you already have the G10 or XA10. The improvements or differences tend to be incremental with each step up teh line.

For example, two or three rings are valuable on a manned camera in manual mode, but arguably much less important on an unmanned camera that is locked down and running for the duration of an event.

The video imagery is good but I can't say that its blown me away. I do love the focus ring but using an XHA1s, I wish that there were two rings. The depth of field is not as good as. I believed it to be reading the many sites that I did and the low light didn't seem to improve much.

Maurice, no offends, but to be blown away by the image you need to spend a bit more than $1000 :)
I am guessing DOF is "not as good" means not as shallow as you expected, but it's 1/3", it is about 15x smaller than APSc, don't expect it to be FF f/0.9 shallow :),
and if you know any other video camera in the same price range that makes better video please let me know

Maurice, the problem was your expectations were too high. It's still a video camera.

Try this, though. Go into a relatively dark room set your gain at 18db max, and record. You will see no grain. That alone should be worth something. It's still a 1/3" sensor, but what lovely images it can capture. Same as XF100, pretty much, but without the nice buttons, etc that well all love.

Next step up would be, IMO, the AG130, but if you're looking to be blown away, and the Canon doesn't do it, the Panasonic might disappoint also.

If you really do regret the purchase, the 60D is a totally fantastic camera, but be prepared for a journey as you learn how to shoot with it. Early on with DSLR it can be very rough.

the 60D is a totally fantastic camera, but be prepared for a journey as you learn how to shoot with it. Early on with DSLR it can be very rough.

It seems those who "fall right in" to working with DSLRs are those who spent a long "involvement" behind the viewfinders of SLR cameras. A good grounding in the principles of photography helps tremendously.

When the 7D first came out and I got my hands on one I found for the first time in video I could apply to motion picture work all of the photographic principles I'd used in a career in professional photography.

The 60D is an incredible photographic tool, more features packed into that camera than I ever thought would be possible. Combine it with the discipline it takes to do good motion picture and you have an unbeatable combination.

Now, my advice to Maurice: Keep the G10 and add the 60D to your gear. Each will do things the other won't as well or as easily. You can rely on the G10 while you learn the "Way Of The DSLR".

The learning process: Lots of still photos. Research principles of Professional Photography on the web and apply what you find. Apply that to motion picture (once learned) will come easier.

Really great comment/feeback, Bruce. I am still awed by the depth of the knowledge required for great photography. As a self-taught videographer, my first DSLR (40D) rocked my world, in several ways. It was exciting and daunting at the same time. The relationship between shutter speed and exposure, and the zillion combinations of them still confuse me at times. I admire experienced, professional photographers, and feel wedding photography, done right, is a very difficult trade to learn. It's why I cringe every time I see a thread beating up photographers. I imagine myself trying to get a shot AND staying out of the video and it seems too daunting.

@ Jeff Harper (Try this, though. Go into a relatively dark room set your gain at 18db max, and record. You will see no grain.)

I tried this and there was a considerable amount of grain in the footage. Now that being said, it was much better than what I would have expected.

@ Bruce Foreman...I actually am a photographer first. The video is something that I just picked up and can't seem to put down. I know that I should probably stick to one or the other but as you know, being a photographer, it can become addictive. That being said, I'll keep the G10 given the convenience of carrying it instead of my XHA1s. As discussed throughout this forum, I will continue to play with the camera and hopefully master its features. As it relates to the 60D, having not really done anything substantial with HDSLR video, I cant imagine what this camera can't do that my HG10 can do other than shoot continuously for an extended period of time.

Sorry, Maurice, I thought the XA-10 was identical in that way. Apparently they are not, I'm sorry to hear that, as I have considered a G10 as a fourth cam. The XA-10 has absolutely no grain at 18db, and very little up to 21dB. That is truly a bummer. That being said, images I've seen from some around here on the G10 are awfully nice. Too bad it's not what you hoped for. I felt that way when I got my FX1000 light years ago. I was used to the PD150 and VX1000 and the FX1000 was a real letdown in the lowlight dept.

You know Jeff, its interesting that you say that about the grain. I have always thought that the sensor was the same too. Now let me offer this to you, I actually went out last night and shot moving footage (footage from a car) of the Christmas light decorations in the neighborhood. Grain was present in any area that was black. Meaning between houses where there was minimal or no light but where there were lights, big or small, the footage was very good but I could still see some grain. It probably wouldn't get discarded if I had to use it, if fact I know it wouldn't.

What are your other two Cams? Have you ever compared the XA10 to the HF-S20 (21)?

Jeff, is there a way that I can send a small clip of the footage to you. I believe my shutter was 1/48 with 18db @ 24P

You could email it to jeff at jeff harper video dot com if you want.

I'm not exaggerating about the lack of grain on my XA10. It's not there. It is pure black where it's dark, and it blows me away everytime I use it at a reception. On the other hand, it cannot hold up to my GH2s in low light, so matching footage is tough, and in a very dark hall I only run the XA10 for audio purposes, as it's audio circuitry is superb.

My settings more often than not are auto settings, and I set only the white balance and the gain limiter set to about 20db.

I've not use the other cam you have.

So are we 100% sure the sensors are not the same- I was under the impression the G10 and XA10 had same sensor (as well as the entire lineup of the M400/M40/M41 series)- ?

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the M400/M40/M41 series definitely doesn't have the same sensor as the XA10. I will contact Canon to confirm this but I'm pretty sure that they don't. That being said, I am not sure about the HF-G10 and the XA-10.

Does anyone know?

Okay, Here is the skinny. I just got off the telephone with Canon and it appears that the M400/M40/M41 series have totally different sensor from the HF-G10 and the XA-10. The senors are smaller in size and inferior to the aforementioned cameras.

The HF-G10 has a larger sensor that the M400/M40/M41 series but is NOT the same sensor as found in the XA-10. This was a surprise to me. The sensor in the XA-10 is larger but I was told that while the sensor is slightly larger in the XA-10, the price differential is largely due to the number of features that you get on the XA-10 that are no present on the HF-G10.

I was also told that the sensor that is on the XF100 is not the same as the one on the XA-10. Sure they both have a single chip but not the same single chip. The chip in the XF100 is even larger. The rep actually suggested that for someone like me who has the HF-S20, XHA1, and XHA1s, the most logical upgrade is to go to the XF100 or the XF300. This move would be justified by the price differential as opposed to the less expensive models.

I looks like I'm taking the HF-G10 back and I'm gonna upgrade to the XF100 or XF300 which is what I wanted anyway. I just couldn't wait to get a new model so I sacrificed.

Wow, Maurice, thanks, that is outstanding information.

Thank you for finding and posting this info, very good posting, informative.

I was also told that the sensor that is on the XF100 is not the same as the one on the XA-10. Sure they
both have a single chip but not the same single chip. The chip in the XF100 is even larger.

Interesting given that if we read the lens and sensor spec in the user manuals, they appear to be the same for the G10, XA10 and XF10. All three claim the DIGIC DV III DSP on the CANONDV web site information.

The same focal length range and same 35mm equivalent field of view implies the same active sensor size. And all three list the same pixel count (2,070,000 effective).

My impressionis that the main difference appears to be the CODEC/format used for the image, and of course camcorder features.

Don, you are right to question that information, and I wondered if the rep knew what he was talking about or not. You never know. A rep can be a know-it-all who knows little and just makes stuff up as he goes along, or they can be experts who know the gear inside and out. It depends on the company and their training, and I have no idea of what the situation is with Canon folks.

I'm sure Marice felt comfortable and confident with the rep, and until we know differently, it is good to know that what he reported is a possiblity. On the surface it makes sense, given the disparity in the images from cam to cam, but so do other scenarios.

Thanks for the vote of confidence. I do agree that some of the Canon representatives are only as good as the information in front of them. Nikon is even worse. That being said, I was very disappointed at what the rep told me, to say the least. According to the rep, the sensors are all different sizes which doesn't make sense considering that the XA10 and the HF-G10 are the same size. I to have read the specs but if you look closely, the wording is slightly different as it relates to the sensor. Maybe, i'll call again.

That is a good idea Maurice, sometimes a second call, asking to verify previous info given to you will cause a rep to double check it to be sure. We'll be interested, to say the least, if you do follow up.

If you are prepared to consider buying the HF105, you may try to test drive a Panasonic AC130 or AC160 just to compare. It's a 3-ring camera. Or maybe, test out a Canon DSLR. It might be exactly what you are looking for, who knows?

I always thought the G10 and XA10 had the same sensor too.

What is the HF-105

Right on Mark. I recommended in another thread the same thing as you, that Maurice check out the same Panasonics. Better low light, or so I've heard, even if only marginally, and a 22x zoom, very nice cameras.

Whoops: XF100 (105 is another model)..

Funny thing is - I had both the XA10 and the Canon 60D. I sold the 60D in between and got the Sony A65 but they are in principle very comparable (the 60D and the A65, with the A65 being much better)

The reason is that those are very different cameras for very different purposes. The XA10 (more or less the same then the HF-G10, but with the XLR inputs) is a real video camera with a 1/3" chip where as the 60D is more a large sensor cam.

The operating modes are very different, the XA10 can easily used handheld, has a great autofocus, really good audio. The 60D can have a small DOF. Autofocus or focus in general is better not used during shooting or if required only with additional proper gear. Btw - the Sony A65 autofocus does work ok (not great, but ok) while shooting.

Regarding the XF100 - for that price you can have both - the XA10 and the Canon 60D and I think the same goes for Panasonic AC130 or AC160.

I would imagine that the A65 would be much better as my understanding is that they are a leader in the manufacture of sensors for both Sony and Nilkon cameras. I don't know who canon uses.

I definitely wouldn't purchase a Sony HDSLR for any reason due to their history in this market. At one point I believe that they even declared that they would no longer seek to tap into the HDSLR market.

I'm sticking with canon and it looks like I'll keep my HF-G10 despite my dissatisfaction with it. My money will be better spend on the Nikon D4 which should have a much better video. (I do photography too)

At one time I believe that Canon used Panasonic mfgr CCDs (e.g., in the XL1), but they may be making their own now.

Didn't Sony take over Minolta a few years ago - their serious vehicle to enter the photography business.

Rather than answer Yes, I'll just say that, it's my understanding that Sony acquired Minolta.

They acquired the camera and optics portion of Konica/Minolta, not the imaging (copy machines) division, as I recall from the time.

I've got the HF-G10 and honestly, I'm not overly impressed I'm wondering if I should have considered the Canon 60D instead at a much lower price.
I shot part of a video documentary with a 7D, my group has a 60D and I have an HF G10. I usually shoot video with a standard-def Panasonic AG-DVX100p, a low-end professional camera.

I am very impressed with the HF G10. The stabilizer is great, on-board audio is good, lots of manual controls. It has a shallower DOF available than consumer camcorders with a 1/4" sensor, but it's no DSLR.

A video DSLR is great for static shots from a tripod -- interviews, architectural, establishing shots, people working, etc. DSLRs don't autofocus well or at all in video mode, don't have good on board sound, often don't have an earphone jack for monitoring, can't shoot wide open in bright light without external ND filters, usually don't have good video optical stabilization, and are just more complex to operate.

For "run and gun" hand held shooting, or shots of opportunity, a camcorder is better. The G10 is a better all-round video camera than a 60D. Having a 1/3" sensor and 1.8 lens, with careful planning it can do *some* of the DOF work of a DSLR.

The best approach is to use both: use video DSLRs at what they're best at -- static, pre-planned shots. This gives a nice cinematic look. Using external sound, focus pulling, etc is less an issue there. Then use the G10 or similar for more portable shots.

If you can't personally afford both, since most newer DSLRs can do video you might be able to borrow one. E.g, maybe a friend got a T2i to just shoot birthday parties, and it's sitting on a shelf.

Joe,

Actually since starting this post, I have taken my HF-G10 out and done some additional tests to determine just what I can make it do. The key here is that these tests are based on my abilities and I have concluded that for me there is somewhat of a learning curve. That being said, one of the earlier replies talked about the great low light recording capabilities of the XA-10 thinking that the HF-G10 shared the same sensor. I was able to confirm that they in fact do not share the same sensor BUT, the low light functionality of the camera has more than exceeded my expectations. Can I get the depth of field of the HDSLR; No, but , as you suggested, I am seriously considering a can HDSLR or possibly (believe it or not) the Canon XL1. I know you're thinking, WHAT!!!!!

To date, I have not had a client request blue ray to take advantage of the HD that I am able to present. I have burned many DVD's that look, in my opinion, less than desirable. Maybe I 'm doing something wrong. Anyway, I was thinking that if the footage will looks less than HD, I could invest $400.00 into a dinosaur of a camera and get the depth of field. The other option is to invest more money and purchase a newer HDSLR. I don't have any friends that would even consider loaning out their cameras but thanks for the suggestion.

So are we 100% sure the sensors are not the same- I was under the impression the G10 and XA10 had same sensor (as well as the entire lineup of the M400/M40/M41 series)- ?

Steve,

If you're interested, I have gone out to my local Calumet Photography store with my HF-G10 and shot test video with both my camera and the XA-10. I can tell you that there is a definitive difference between the two when holding them side by side and viewing the display. Now this could be due to a lack of resolution on the screen; I don't know. I am actually going to put the video on vimeo today or tomorrow for anyone interested. Based on what I saw, using the same settings, the XA-10 is sharper and brighter and handles the low light better.

Different lenses, different sensors, not the same cams at all. The conventional thinking has been the XA10 is merely an upgraded G10, but that is not the case. You do get what you pay for, especially in this case.

Jeff,

I couldn't agree more. I held these to cameras side by side and shot footage simultaneously with both and I can tell you that just looking at the image on the screen, the XA-10 looked much better. But some of the other more notable differences were the rear eyecup, the actual location of the hot shoe (they are in different places on each one), the infrared on the XA-10, (I didn't do my homework), and the obvious XLR jacks and added audio settings.

It is worth the addition $500-$700 if these features are used in ones work.

I've seen Buba K's work with the G10, which is outstanding, so it is a killer camera for sure, I guess it just depends on what you're using it for.

...I was able to confirm that they in fact do not share the same sensor
Maurice, the G10 and XA-10 are widely reported to have the same sensor, e.g:

Canon Unveils New Professional Camcorder: the XA10 - CamcorderInfo.com (http://www.camcorderinfo.com/News/Canon-Unveils-New-Professional-Camcorder-the-XA10.htm)
Notes On Video: Canon VIXIA HF G10 and "Pro" XA10 cameras (http://notesonvideo.blogspot.com/2011/01/canon-vixia-hf-g10-and-pro-xa10-cameras.html)

Admittedly that doesn't mean they do. But just because the material looks different doesn't mean the sensors are different. E.g, the T2i and 7D still cameras are sometimes described as having the "same sensor", but the output looks different. In this case the sensor is probably similar technology but number of readout channels and camera firmware (which affects image) is different.

...To date, I have not had a client request blue ray to take advantage of the HD that I am able to present
Yes, distribution is the problem for HD. Above HD, the problem is worse. The original Blu Ray spec didn't support 1080p/60, so just distributing that in a typical TV-playable format is difficult. The G10 doesn't do 60p, but lots of cameras do.

...I have burned many DVD's that look, in my opinion, less than desirable. Maybe I 'm doing something wrong.
Something may have gone wrong during the transcode phase. A DVD will never equal the best HD, but high bitrate DVD can look very good. My work usually combines HD and SD material intended for SD viewing, so I usually use a non-HD project. This obscures the potential quality from the HD material.

I'll try burning some G10 material in an HD project and let you know. I use Adobe Premiere Pro CS5.

I could invest $400.00 into a dinosaur of a camera and get the depth of field. The other option is to invest more money and purchase a newer HDSLR..
The XA-10 & G10 are really good cameras, I think you made the right decision. A less expensive way to add shallow DOF video is getting a lower-end video DSLR and putting a 50mm f/1.8 lens on it. A T2i body is about $500, and a Canon EF 50mm 1.8 lens is about $100. Despite being "lower end" products, these produce excellent imagery.

A poster in the XA10 forum has reported that he was told by a Canon rep the sensors in the G10 and XA10 are different.

We have discussed this topic ad nauseum in that forum.

The differences in low-light performance seem to be dramatic enough that I believe this is true, but I don't care enough to go to any effort to confirm it. Camcorderinfo is not my idea of a reliable source of info about any camera, IMO, FWIW.

...he was told by a Panasonic rep..

An authorative source for detailed information about Canon products no doubt. A bit like taking Ford's word about Chevys - or Newt's word about Mitt.

Back in the XL1 days Canon did use the same sensor as Panasonic on some camcorders.

In any case DSP programming will make a differnce in the output.

A big differnce in how DVD looks is the system used for display. Playing DVD on a good up-scaling BD player to a HD set over HDMI will look much better that a DVD played to the same set on an average DVD player with 480i output, especially if connected by s-video or composite.

IMHO, for the same source material on a good playback/display system, most viewers at a normal viewind distances (where they cannot resolve the individual pixels in the display) will not find a noticeable difference between a commercial DVD and the same material on a commercial BD unless they are primed or trained to look for it or doing a side-by-side comparison.

Sorry, meant Canon. Corrected post. Don, I thought you were in on the discussion I'm thinking of, guess not.

The poster specifically called Canon about this issue and was reportedly told about the specific differences, but again I'm not holding this information out as proof of anything.

I know the complaints about low light of the G10 vs the XA10 seem pretty dramatic to me. Many of us, including me, had seemed to assume the differences were due to different circuitry or whatever, but the report I allude to above seemed to explain things pretty well.

...
I'll try burning some G10 material in an HD project and let you know. I use Adobe Premiere Pro CS5...
Attached are cropped frame grabs from Windows Media Player of 24 mbps 1080p/30 material, and that same material burned to a DVD at 9.4 mbps and played in WMP.

The DVD looks pretty good when viewed full frame, 16:9 and in motion. It's not equal to 1080p/30, but lots of people wouldn't notice the difference unless given an A/B test.

I can personally confirm that, in my conversation with Canon's technical support, the XA-10 and the HF-G10 don't have the same sensor. I actually have some footage from both cameras. Unfortunately, at the time,the conditions did not allow me to test in low light conditions typical of say a church. That being said, you can see it on Vinson. Just type in my name and it should come up.

Regarding the frame taken from the DVD; I am doin.g something seriously wrong. I export using H.264 and usually widescreen 1080i. I have never tweaked the other settings because I really don'tknow how they work. Any help and/or suggestions would be great.

...Regarding the frame taken from the DVD; I am doin.g something seriously wrong. I export using H.264 and usually widescreen 1080i. I have never tweaked the other settings because I really don'tknow how they work. Any help and/or suggestions would be great.
I'm not a codec expert, so I am partially speculating here...

I think video DVD uses MPEG-2. Whether explicitly or implicitly, a transcode to MPEG-2 at 720x480 must happen before burning. At each transcode stage there are bitrate and various quality options (some not obvious).

Therefore if you are transcoding from the camera's AVCHD to H.264, it is probably being transcoded again to MPEG-2 before burning, whether you see this or not. You might be losing quality at each stage, especially if the highest quality and bitrate settings are not used.

If your software allows burning in a more direct path without going to H.264, try that. If you must render to an output file first, then burn it, pick "MPEG-2 DVD" if that's available, and make sure the export settings are all at the highest quality and bitrate. Before burning, play the file and inspect the quality. Then burn that using your DVD authoring software.

I just exported the previous test video to what CS5 calls "MPEG-2 DVD" which is 720x480, 29.97 fps, at 9 mbps, using 2-pass bitrate encoding and max render quality. It looks about like the previously-posted DVD still frame.

If your software allows burning in a more direct path without going to H.264, try that. If you must render to an output file first, then burn it, pick "MPEG-2 DVD" if that's available, and make sure the export settings are all at the highest quality and bitrate. Before burning, play the file and inspect the quality. Then burn that using your DVD authoring software.

I tried using the MPEG-2 DVD setting in Adobe and it was a SUCCESS!!!! Thank you for the direction. I just feel bad for my past clients that got a quality less than what I was actually capable of delivering. I actually maxed out a lot of the settings that made sense in an effort to get the best results. I took about 25 minutes for a 40 second clip.

I was only using the H.264 because it was the only format that seemed to work well with IMovie and IDVD. Out with the old and in with the new!!

Thanks again.