Is The HF-G10 vs. Canon 60D

[Maurice Covington]

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)

[Don Palomaki]

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.

[Maurice Covington]

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

[Mark Goodsell]

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

[Joe Marler]

Originally Posted by Maurice Covington

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.

[Maurice Covington]

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.

[Maurice Covington]

Originally Posted by Steve Nunez

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.

[Jeff Harper]

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.

[Maurice Covington]

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.

[Jeff Harper]

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.

[Joe Marler]

Originally Posted by Maurice Covington

...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
Notes On Video: Canon VIXIA HF G10 and "Pro" XA10 cameras

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.

Originally Posted by Maurice Covington

...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.

Originally Posted by Maurice Covington

...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.

Originally Posted by Maurice Covington

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.

[Jeff Harper]

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.

[Don Palomaki]

...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.

[Jeff Harper]

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.

[Joe Marler]

Originally Posted by Joe Marler

...
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.