FWIW: B&H shows the XF200 in stock, XF205 is still shown preorder status.

Can't wait to hear some user reviews!

Videomaker Magazine has a review of the XF205 on their website. Not a comprehensive review, I"m afraid.

Videomaker Magazine has a review of the XF205 on their website. Not a comprehensive review, I"m afraid.

Thanks for pointing that out. I agree, not very comprehensive, but pretty typical of Videomaker. (e.g., "The XF205 has more than 20 buttons and switches." -- very useful....)

And I would really like to hear how the wireless connectivity is with this device!

Received my XF200 Thursday so have not had very much time to play with it. But my first impressions are very good. In - 6 and -3db exceptional image quality in good light. Any gain introduces too much noise, even at +3db the image starts to fall apart. I knew not to expect great low light performance with this camera as it has a single 1/3" sensor, that's where my DSLR's large sensor come in.

Almost bought a XA 20 and glad I waited for the XF200. The 200 is a lot more money, but the on board buttons/ switches make this camera very usable where as the XA 20's touch screen menu would make changes on the fly a pain.

Nice to have the dual codec. Can record to 4:2:2 and backup to Mpeg4.
4:2:2 in a small camera a definite plus. And real over cranking slowmo. The camera feels a bit plastic but I like the low weight.

I'm impressed with the Wide DR Gamma (600%) setting, it really does help keep the highlights from blowing out as well as keeping the shadow detail, not bad for a single 1/3" sensor.

I have not had time to play with the wireless connectivity yet, going to need some help setting it up, the manual has me a bit confused in that area. My GoPro 3 was very easy to connect Wi-Fi.. Canon, not so easy.

The camera is sort of a replacement for my aging XLH1 (original) I still love that camera...may still get a Samurai Blade, but with all the extra cables and all, not a good run and gun cam.

The XF200 is small, but not too small. Clients will still feel you are shooting with a pro camera.
Will try and post some footage soon.

Look forward to all reviews. Thanks Hank!

WiFi. Interesting (maybe?).

Just for interest too, there's a 58mm front thread - yes? I have a Canon WA58, great Canon glassware, that may just push me forward too..... It has an ND "system". Canon: ND filter Built-in gradation ND filter. Reading further there's a 1/4 and 1/8 (stops? yes?). Are these glass or some clever s/w? This wasn't clear from what I read.

I gotta ask . . With the SONY 4K'ers, what, where, when and just how is Canon going to respond? At this level of expenditure.

Off we go . . again . . . .

Grazie

The ND are physical filters in the light path.

The sensor is 1/3" (0.333") class,but actually speced at 1/2.84 (0.352"), just a wee bit larger.

Look forward to all reviews.

I just got mine here in the UK; am about to upload the obligatory unboxing and first look to YouTube. Then - lucky me - I have the next few days off work so will be experimenting with the cam and will post up some reviews and tests etc soon after.

Any specific questions or queries, I'm happy to answer if I can!

Cheers
David

I just got mine here in the UK; am about to upload the obligatory unboxing and first look to YouTube. Then - lucky me - I have the next few days off work so will be experimenting with the cam and will post up some reviews and tests etc soon after.

Any specific questions or queries, I'm happy to answer if I can!

Cheers
David

Great! I'm curious about low-light performance (I know it's not going to be great, but wonder if there's any improvement over the XF100) and the quality of the 60fps 1080p in MP4.

Thanks.

Good questions. The Canon promo video for the XF205 (search You Tube) that features the Japanese costume performances in the remote village, has some low-light shots. Also, Chuck Westfall, in an interview, suggested that the low light performace was close to the same as the XF300 (not great, but better than the XF100).

I would be interested to know how the new viewfinder performs outdoors (on paper it is something like 5 times better than the XF100), and it has what appears to be a good eyecup.

I would also like to know how well the "hybrid" image stabilization works.

Also, I think the ND is actually not physical filters, though the promo materials and the new manual are vague about this topic.

David:

Are you also planning to test it for "banding" when flashes go off (like at a wedding, for example)?

The type of ND debate raged in the XA discussions and was finally resolved in favor of a physical filter.that slides into the light path within the lens itself.

Don, you may be right. But read this promo article on the Canon Europe Professiomal site.

Google "In Expert Hands - Getting to grips with the Canon Xf205"

I assume that Canon proofs all the articles.

The piece reads "When I saw that there were no real ND filters I was very afraid, for instance, but when you shoot using the electronic filters and leave it on Auto, it works so well."

Per page 67 of the manual, the ND is automatic (no user switch/lever for levels - just a menu option to disable the ND) and automatically moves in when turning the aperture past F4. At F4 the aperture does not stop down further until the full ND is in place. I suspect this is to reduce the diffraction effects with small apertures. It is electronic in that it is automatic and works when in auto exposure modes.

If I recall correctly one XA20 user reported he could see the filter move in/out when carefully looking into the lens while adjusting the aperture.

Thanks, Don.

I know this pup has a small sensor, and no 4K, but I am quite interested in it. LensRentals has them available. I may rent one and try it out.

David: Are you also planning to test it for "banding" when flashes go off (like at a wedding, for example)?

Yes indeed and also for that peculiar XA20 flash-induced "shimmer" that occurs sometimes for half a second or so after a flash.

I spent a couple of hours this afternoon having an initial play with it; I like it so far but it seems the LCD is unviewable in daylight (granted, most of them are like that) and the waveform monitor only appears on the LCD not the viewfinder (unless there's a setting somewhere I need to tweak). That's annoying (but it's very pleasing to have the WFM at all)

It's very easy to operate and get focus. Fast autofocus too for those who like that kind of thing, also fast auto iris should you want it. Manual controls are easy to use and access and the plethora of assignable buttons make it very fast to switch. Zoom is quite nippy, handy for re-framing.

Pleased that the expanded focus works while recording too, nice to have that as an "emergency check" while filming. Image stabilisation in Dynamic and Powered modes is pretty good, much like the XA20.

By golly, you're going to notice the fan if you're filming in a quiet room though! When I first turned it on I was rather shocked. Good thing it has an auto shut-off during filming mode.

Regards
David

<<< Yes indeed and also for that peculiar XA20 flash-induced "shimmer" that occurs sometimes for half a second or so after a flash >>>>


That is called Rolling Shutter. Every Cmos camera suffers from it.

Its easy to correct: just remove one or two frames. Nobody will notice.

CMOS Rolling Shutter (http://dvxuser.com/jason/CMOS-CCD/)

>>>
That is called Rolling Shutter. Every Cmos camera suffers from it. Its easy to correct: just remove one or two frames. Nobody will notice
<<<

NO. That is not what I'm referring to. As I said, this is an issue specific to the XA20 where there is a shimmering of rolling lines across the image for about half a second after a flash.

NOT the same as rolling shutter flash banding. It is a bug in that camcorder.

Canon acknowledged the bug (to a chap on YouTube who pointed it out to them) and offered no fix except to change the shutter speed.

Regards
David

About 1/2 sec - is that a single GOP worth?

I suppose it would be, yes, though that timing from me was just a guess based on visual observation of the effect on the LCD screen, rather than measuring it or examining it more closely on an editor.

There's a chap called WorldofYPod (I think) on YouTube who first spotted this, or at least first flagged it up with filmed examples. He brought it to my attention and I was able to replicate it easily by just setting off a flash a few times. Oddly, it doesn't happen every time.

I notice item 1 on the latest version of the XA20 firmware (1.0.4.0) stated "Fixes a phenomenon in which flicker compensation may be incorrectly applied when shooting, resulting in flicker and horizontal color stripes in the footage." so if this is relating to the same issue, it may have been fixed and therefore not present in the XF200 but I have yet to check either.

Regards
Dave

I suspect that a single frame/field phenomenon can have artifacts throughout a GOP when interframe compression is used.

How is the 3 lens rings?
Are they sensitive enough to detect really slow turns or do they simply ignore anything under their threshold?

Hank in BC and David in the UK:

I know it is early in your time with the XF200, but are you generally pleased with your purchase? Logistical issues will likely force me to act in the next day or two.

Over 24 hours and no reply.........

Probably out having too much fun with it <g>.

Over 24 hours and no reply.........

Hey steady on ... contrary to popular opinion, I don't spend ALL my time on the Internet.

In a word, "yes". I do like it. Whether the extra cost over an XF100 is worth it will depend on whether you want / need the new features of course (lens, WiFi, control rings, sensitivity etc)

But I like the XF200. It's very controllable, very portable, very configurable. Very usable, all the right buttons are there to get things set up right.

There is a caveat though: I've spent so much time over the last few days just playing with it and testing various settings that I haven't actually shot anything "real"!! So when I start using it for proper jobs, I may yet find things I don't like.

Oh - it falls over. With my top mic mounted on a Rycote Softie Lyre, it overbalances while sitting on its tripod plate! This can be counterbalanced by rotating the handgrip ;-)

Not sure if that helps...

Cheers
Dave

Thanks.

I ordered mine this morning. Will get it in two days, but will immediately loan it out to a co-volunteer who will use it along side an XF100 for a wedding. She will have two weeks to get familiar with it before the wedding.

I will get it back after that.

Will use Sandisk Extreme Pro 32 GB UDMA 7 CF cards.

Hi all there!

I'm from Hong Kong and thanks a lot for all these great sharing and discussiins. Very helpful indeed.

I bought the xf200 some days ago, and I have used xf100 for quite a long time.

I like xf200, the ways it is adapted to the gun-and-run shooting. Very fine performance. But, I've just found a big problem with it. I like to use slow zooming a lot, however, the zoom ring in xf200 has been poorly designed that when I zoom it out from the extreme and would like to slowly make it a bit faster, the picture gets a sudden jump. The slow zoom is not smooth at all.

Right now I need to use the button zoom, which is OK but I like my more humane zooming.

I'm curious if other users would have the same problem.

I contacted the Canon customer service in HK, which is very efficient and helpful, they did acknowledge the problem and said they would reflect it to Canon Japan.

I look forward to if they will try out some firmware to rectify the problem.

Cheers,
Wai

Hi Wai,
I also own the xf100 and I also feel the zoom using the lens ring is fantastic. However I tried an xf300, and it had the exact same problem you are experiencing. The xf300 has a mechanical ring as opposed to the xf100 servo. If your 200 has mechanical, maybe this is a common problem?

David Johns:

Thanks for your XF200 videos on YouTube. The one addressing low-light situations suggests that the XF200 is much better in low light than the XA20. If they basically have the same lens and the same sensor, to what do you atrribute the improvement? In-camera processing?

On a related note, the Canon "promo" videos for the XF205, also on YouTube, with the oriental costumed performers, also have good low light footage (presumably shot with manual iris and very careful treatment of gain).

Hi Wai,
I also own the xf100 and I also feel the zoom using the lens ring is fantastic. However I tried an xf300, and it had the exact same problem you are experiencing. The xf300 has a mechanical ring as opposed to the xf100 servo. If your 200 has mechanical, maybe this is a common problem?

Thanks, Scott.

I think what you are pointing out is right. I thought Canon would only improve from xf100 but not the other way round. The zoom movement in xf100 is much better.

In that case, do you know anything can be dealt with that? do you know whether the mechanical zoom ring in other brands have the same problem? or is it a canon-specific problem in xf200 and xf300?

Wai

Hi,

I'm a bit puzzled by this. I don't usually touch the zoom ring at all, preferring either the rocker (for setting up shots) or a remote LANC controller for gentle filmed zooms.

However, I tried using the ring after your comment and had no problem either zooming in or out slowly or fast, and no jump in the speed if I pushed the ring faster or slower - the zoom just sped up as I moved the ring exactly as I'd expect.

Can you post a video demonstrating the issue?

Regards
Dave

David Johns: Thanks for your XF200 videos on YouTube. The one addressing low-light situations suggests that the XF200 is much better in low light than the XA20. If they basically have the same lens and the same sensor, to what do you atrribute the improvement? In-camera processing?

I must confess I'm baffled by it. I was so puzzled that I ran the tests several times in different environments and each time the XF comes up with a brighter image. Settings were identical on each eg 50p / 35Mbps / f1.8 / fully wide / 0dB gain / 1/50th shutter (or whatever).

The only thing I noticed while playing with all the settings is that the black balance of the XF200 seems rather high, so I wondered if everything in the image is just raised a bit giving the appearance of a brighter image - but when you adjust for this in an editor, lowering the overall level on both clips so that the darkest areas hit "0" on the waveform monitor, the XF still has a much brighter image.

I wondered also if I'd managed to cripple the XA20 accidentally somehow but I can't think how (and if anyone can suggest a way to get the same level of low light out of it as the XF, I'll be delighted to have my idiocy revealed!)

So I have no answer; it's beyond my understanding of camera technology! I'm just a simple point-and-shoot news guy.

Regards
Dave

David:

Thanks you very much, and thanks for your videos on You Tube.

Chuck Westfall, in an interview, did say that the low light capability was very close to that of the XF 300 / 305, despite having one chip rather than three. Must be magic....

My new XF200 was immediately loaned to someone for in upcoming wedding shoot. However, I met with her for other reasons. We tried the zoom from the "long end" back to "wide" and did not see any issues (other than the reinforcement that shooting handheld on the long end is a really bad idea).

On a tripod, I always use a LANC controller and fine tune the zoom to slow and smooth, and the total zoom transition is typically modest.

So..... I guess I would never be in a position to make a hand-held zoom from the very long end of the zoom range, speeding up the zoom speed.

Sorry.