Canon Introduces the Compact XA10 Professional Camcorder

Mike Brice · January 5th, 2011, 08:36 PM

I am a corporate communicator using video for our intranet. I have been hoping to upgrade from my HF10 something this summer or fall, and while the look and features of this camera appeal to me, the price is more than I would expect considering what $2,000 will get in other cameras.

Allan Black · January 5th, 2011, 11:33 PM

That new WM wireless rig looks interesting, seamless audio recording from up to 164 feet away. Wonder how they worked that out .. what happens at 165 feet?

And look at those shapes, the talent will baulk at the size of the mic .. does a wired lav plug into it.
What about '2 way communication' .. the talent would have to wear an earpiece and the cameraman a mic. Those boxes look like stand alones, there must be a fair amount of Bluetooth flying about.

Like to know more about this .. $250 is a clue.

Cheers.

Floris van Eck · January 6th, 2011, 12:59 AM

If BlueTooth mobile communication is a clue, I wouldn't want that technology in my wireless microphones. But I haven't tried it so we have to wait and see.

Jos Svendsen · January 6th, 2011, 01:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Allan Black

That new WM wireless rig looks interesting, seamless audio recording from up to 164 feet away. Wonder how they worked that out .. what happens at 165 feet?

Well - 164 feet is 50 meters, so this is probably just one of those conversion oddities. Bluetooth's got build in error correction in the audio profile so this is probably the line of sight distance, where they can guarantee error free transmission. Bluetooth operate in a frequency band with a lot of noise, so the milage might vary depending on the surroundings.

I have one of the Sony consumer wireless sets. It is fine up to 80 feet, and is quite an cost effective way of getting decent sound. It might not be up to Sennheiser standard, but it is cheaper and surely beats an on camera mic big time.

Chris Hurd · January 6th, 2011, 11:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andy Wilkinson

I think it also lacks the "little control thumbwheel"

It's there. It's been moved, along with the assignable custom button, to the back of the camera body. See the 4th image down, in the press release linked at the top of this thread.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zach Love

There is nothing stopping AVCHD from being recorded onto Compact Flash...

What's stopping it is the AVCHD consortium itself. See http://www.avchd-info.org/format/index.html and http://www.avchd-info.org/press/20060713.html. The only flash memory card types specified by the AVCHD consortium are Secure Digital and Memory Stick.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zach Love

One is Diet Coke, the other is Coke Zero.

If you're referring to Canon XF as "Diet Coke" then you're lumping Sony XDCAM and Panasonic P2 HD in with that description as well, due to their similarities. I don't think everyone will share your opinion. If you said that the "Diet Coke" of these HD formats was HDV then I would agree with you on that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evan C. King

Hey Chris, I can't find any pictures in that press release link.

Fixed...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zach Love

...don't think this is the place for a CCD vs CMOS debate.

Correct, this isn't the place for it because such a debate doesn't accomplish anything -- it doesn't change the situation. The *reality* is that CMOS is where it's all going, and nothing we say here is going to affect that. CCD is dead, as has been previously pointed out. What we're going to see instead are improvements to CMOS such as flash band compensation and other developments.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jonathan Schwartz

Does anyone know if this will have the assignable ring (aperture, zoom, focus) like the XF100? ALso will me varizoom lanc I use with my xh-a1 work with this as well?

Yes to both: yes to assignable ring and yes to wired remote control (the protocol formerly known as LANC -- same thing; different name). Hope this helps,

Peter Moretti · January 6th, 2011, 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zach Love

I believe they all use .MXF as the wrapper & MPEG-2 is the codec.

But the JVC HM100 & HM700 shoot in XDCam (MPEG-2 codec) in either a .MXF wrapper or a .MOV wrapper (built for FCP).

Codec vs. wrapper two very different & sometimes confusing things.
...

Zach,

FWIU, MPEG-2 <> MPEG-2 in many cases.

CJ Engel · January 6th, 2011, 01:38 PM

Hello everyone,

I've been out of the loop for the past couple years with regard to the trends and advances in video cam technology, but I decided it might be time to think about replacing my Sony HC9 miniDV cam. I've been reading about the latest offerings at CES this year and this Canon XA10 has really caught my attention for a number of reasons. I've owned 6 miniDV cams over the years. The last one I purchased was the Sony HC9 which in 2008 was considered one of the better consumer cams alongside a couple Canon models for under $1500. The AVCHD format was still relatively new a few years ago. I can recall a couple models that were available, but the miniDV tape format seemed to be already on the way out with everyone going to hard disk/flash. Nowadays, I'm seeing less and less of the miniDV format and more of the AVCHD. I always liked miniDV tapes because I didn't have the computer hard drive space to backup files and miniDV tapes were an instant archive. I just bought a brand new computer last month with huge drives and a Pioneer Blu-Ray burner so archiving digital footage would now be very easy for me to do. Considering 1 miniDV tape would only hold about an hour worth of footage, I can store much more material on blu-ray discs for much cheaper and much longer since losing quality over long periods of time shouldn't be an issue with a disc as compared to tape.

Basically, I'm kind of on the fence as to stay with the HC9 or upgrade to the XA10 (with a budget between $1500-2000). I would think that in the 3 years since I bought my HC9 that the video quality would have improved at least a little if not quite a bit with the new XA10. I use Sony Vegas 10 for editing so the miniDV vs. AVCHD format shouldn't be an issue with regard to editing. The 2 main things I've always disliked about the HC9 and the miniDV format has been transferring my footage to my computer in real time and also the lack of XLR inputs for external microphones. I solved the XLR input issue by simply adding a BeachTek XLR adapter. I'm not sure how fast footage can be transferred from the XA10 to a computer, but I'm sure it is faster than real time. I know the XA10 isn't available yet and hasn't been thoroughly reviewed, but it looks like a solid video cam from the specs and has the type of features I'm looking for with a budget between $1500-$2000. If I decide not to upgrade to the XA10, I'd probably just keep using my HC9 for another year to see what comes out in 2012. I've seen practically all of the other new video cams for 2011, and the XA10 was really the only one that I'd probably consider buying.

I'd love to hear some thoughts to help me decide on this potential upgrade.

Thanks!

Zach Love · January 6th, 2011, 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Hurd

What's stopping it is the AVCHD consortium itself. See AVCHD INFORMATION WEB SITE and AVCHD INFORMATION WEB SITE. The only flash memory card types allowed by the AVCHD consortium are Secure Digital and Memory Stick.

Some thing I didn't know, thanks for correcting me & the info.

I was more saying... recording AVCHD onto a CF card is NOT like putting diesel into a regular gas engine. There is nothing in the nature of CF or AVCHD that would make the combo impossible. Thus, the only thing stopping AVCHD on CF cards is the consortium & manufactures.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Hurd

If you're referring to Canon XF as "Diet Coke" then you're lumping Sony XDCAM and Panasonic P2 HD in with that description as well, due to their similarities. I don't think everyone will share your opinion. If you said that the "Diet Coke" of these HD formats was HDV then I would agree with you on that.

I wasn't meaning to go that deep. I really don't want to go into a debate about HDV = Diet Coke; BetaSP = Coke in a bottle from Mexico with real sugar; Pepsi = M2... but that does sound like it could be a humorous blog subject :-)

For the people who like Coke in a zero-calorie type... some people will choose Diet Coke, others Coke Zero & others Diet Coke with Splenda. There is no best zero-calorie Coke, just the best choice for the person who bought it.

Same thing for people looking to spend around $2k on a small HD video camera with pro features.... some will choose the Canon XA10, others will choose the JVC HM100 & others will choose the Panasonic HMC40. The best camera to buy, is the best camera for you. The worst camera is buy, is the camera that is best for someone else.

Buba Kastorski · January 6th, 2011, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CJ Engel

I use Sony Vegas 10 for editing so the miniDV vs. AVCHD format shouldn't be an issue with regard to editing.

actually I think that will be the only issue you will have after upgrade from HDV to AVCHD in general,
AVCHD is much heavier codec and takes a lot more processing power, but it also comes with solutions like cineform, plus tapeless workflow is a major advantage, so overall you'll gain more than loose.
Of course picture quality is improved since HC9, and looking at XA10/HF G10 it'll be an amazing camcorder and I can't wait to get one in my hands. I would certainly replace HC9 ( i used to own one) with XA10, but just in case wait for the footage comparison from TM900 and CX700.

Allan Black · January 6th, 2011, 07:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jos Svendsen

Well - 164 feet is 50 meters, so this is probably just one of those conversion oddities. Bluetooth's got build in error correction in the audio profile so this is probably the line of sight distance, where they can guarantee error free transmission. Bluetooth operate in a frequency band with a lot of noise, so the milage might vary depending on the surroundings.

I have one of the Sony consumer wireless sets. It is fine up to 80 feet, and is quite an cost effective way of getting decent sound. It might not be up to Sennheiser standard, but it is cheaper and surely beats an on camera mic big time.

Thanks for that Jos .. the 2 WM illustrations end on don't show the controls, so there's more to come. Wonder if the mic copes with dual XLRs and 48volts .. might not for $250.

Cheers.

Dave Blackhurst · January 6th, 2011, 09:33 PM

The Sony bluetooth wireless sets work surprisingly well - I've now modded a couple to have a hardwired lav mic for more versatile use - it would be NICE to have a input jack, but no such luck with the Sonys, though I did experiment with modding the latest ones that have an OUTPUT jack... but it won't work as an input when re-configured.

Jos Svendsen · January 7th, 2011, 02:53 PM

Hopefully Canon will put an input for a lav on the transmitter. It ooks like a minijack on top of the units. I doubt that they will go beyond a mini jack, as I think this mic is also an option for DSLRs, It is impossible to judge the size of the units, but they are probably the size of the Sony units, meaning that there is no room for anything like a XLR.

In my opinion there is a 200 USD sweetspot for wireless prosumer wireless mics. I have only an occasional need to for wireless mics, meaning that an investment in a Sennheiser kits is unrealistic. And I can easily live with prosumer build quality and mini jack I/O.

Andy Wilkinson · January 11th, 2011, 08:21 AM

As well as all the very detailed XA10 information on the Canon USA website that was posted at the start of CES 2011, see here:

http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consum...amcorders/xa10

I have also just found this Canon overview:

Canon Digital Learning Center - The XA10: Canon's Smallest and Lightest Pro Camcorder

Happy reading!

Robin Davies-Rollinson · January 11th, 2011, 09:27 AM

There are some lovely new exciting features about the XA10, but why does Canon seem to also go backward in some things.
I have enjoyed using the little HFS100 on a number of paid jobs, and getting some excellent images from it.
That particular camera had a larger chip than this new model, with many more pixels, allowing an intergral x1.7 "tele" function to be used which wasn't half bad. It looks like I'll need to purchase a separate tele-converter for the XA10...

Michael Galvan · January 11th, 2011, 10:05 AM

Its all about compromise with these cams. Canon saw that they wanted to maximize video quality this time around over features like hi res photos and the like. So using the 2.07MP chip allows for that.

The slightly higher yet much denser pixel packed sensor on the HFS100 allowed for that tele function as it was sampling a smaller section of the sensor.

The new sensor cannot do this because of its final native 1920X1080 size. But this trade off should increase overall image quality by a fairly significant amount over last years models.

January 5th, 2011, 08:36 PM	#31
Mike Brice Regular Crew Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Toledo, Ohio and SLC, Utah Posts: 69	A little steep I am a corporate communicator using video for our intranet. I have been hoping to upgrade from my HF10 something this summer or fall, and while the look and features of this camera appeal to me, the price is more than I would expect considering what $2,000 will get in other cameras.

January 5th, 2011, 11:33 PM	#32
Allan Black Inner Circle Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Sydney. Posts: 2,931	That new WM wireless rig looks interesting, seamless audio recording from up to 164 feet away. Wonder how they worked that out .. what happens at 165 feet? And look at those shapes, the talent will baulk at the size of the mic .. does a wired lav plug into it. What about '2 way communication' .. the talent would have to wear an earpiece and the cameraman a mic. Those boxes look like stand alones, there must be a fair amount of Bluetooth flying about. Like to know more about this .. $250 is a clue. Cheers. __________________ Drink more tap water. On admission at Sydney hospitals more than 5% of day patients are de-hydrated.

January 6th, 2011, 01:38 PM	#37
CJ Engel New Boot Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Hays, Kansas Posts: 10	Canon XA10 vs. Sony HC9 Hello everyone, I've been out of the loop for the past couple years with regard to the trends and advances in video cam technology, but I decided it might be time to think about replacing my Sony HC9 miniDV cam. I've been reading about the latest offerings at CES this year and this Canon XA10 has really caught my attention for a number of reasons. I've owned 6 miniDV cams over the years. The last one I purchased was the Sony HC9 which in 2008 was considered one of the better consumer cams alongside a couple Canon models for under $1500. The AVCHD format was still relatively new a few years ago. I can recall a couple models that were available, but the miniDV tape format seemed to be already on the way out with everyone going to hard disk/flash. Nowadays, I'm seeing less and less of the miniDV format and more of the AVCHD. I always liked miniDV tapes because I didn't have the computer hard drive space to backup files and miniDV tapes were an instant archive. I just bought a brand new computer last month with huge drives and a Pioneer Blu-Ray burner so archiving digital footage would now be very easy for me to do. Considering 1 miniDV tape would only hold about an hour worth of footage, I can store much more material on blu-ray discs for much cheaper and much longer since losing quality over long periods of time shouldn't be an issue with a disc as compared to tape. Basically, I'm kind of on the fence as to stay with the HC9 or upgrade to the XA10 (with a budget between $1500-2000). I would think that in the 3 years since I bought my HC9 that the video quality would have improved at least a little if not quite a bit with the new XA10. I use Sony Vegas 10 for editing so the miniDV vs. AVCHD format shouldn't be an issue with regard to editing. The 2 main things I've always disliked about the HC9 and the miniDV format has been transferring my footage to my computer in real time and also the lack of XLR inputs for external microphones. I solved the XLR input issue by simply adding a BeachTek XLR adapter. I'm not sure how fast footage can be transferred from the XA10 to a computer, but I'm sure it is faster than real time. I know the XA10 isn't available yet and hasn't been thoroughly reviewed, but it looks like a solid video cam from the specs and has the type of features I'm looking for with a budget between $1500-$2000. If I decide not to upgrade to the XA10, I'd probably just keep using my HC9 for another year to see what comes out in 2012. I've seen practically all of the other new video cams for 2011, and the XA10 was really the only one that I'd probably consider buying. I'd love to hear some thoughts to help me decide on this potential upgrade. Thanks!

January 7th, 2011, 02:53 PM	#42
Jos Svendsen Major Player Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Copenhagen, Denmark Posts: 221	Hopefully Canon will put an input for a lav on the transmitter. It ooks like a minijack on top of the units. I doubt that they will go beyond a mini jack, as I think this mic is also an option for DSLRs, It is impossible to judge the size of the units, but they are probably the size of the Sony units, meaning that there is no room for anything like a XLR. In my opinion there is a 200 USD sweetspot for wireless prosumer wireless mics. I have only an occasional need to for wireless mics, meaning that an investment in a Sennheiser kits is unrealistic. And I can easily live with prosumer build quality and mini jack I/O. __________________ ---------------------------- 12c41 JOS. Svendsen

January 11th, 2011, 08:21 AM	#43
Andy Wilkinson Inner Circle Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Cambridge UK Posts: 2,853	Canon XA10 Official Summary Document As well as all the very detailed XA10 information on the Canon USA website that was posted at the start of CES 2011, see here: http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consum...amcorders/xa10 I have also just found this Canon overview: Canon Digital Learning Center - The XA10: Canon's Smallest and Lightest Pro Camcorder Happy reading! __________________ Andy K Wilkinson - https://www.shootingimage.co.uk Cambridge (UK) Corporate Video Production

January 6th, 2011, 12:59 AM	#33
Floris van Eck Major Player Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 993	If BlueTooth mobile communication is a clue, I wouldn't want that technology in my wireless microphones. But I haven't tried it so we have to wait and see.

January 6th, 2011, 09:33 PM	#41
Dave Blackhurst Inner Circle Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Apple Valley CA Posts: 4,874	The Sony bluetooth wireless sets work surprisingly well - I've now modded a couple to have a hardwired lav mic for more versatile use - it would be NICE to have a input jack, but no such luck with the Sonys, though I did experiment with modding the latest ones that have an OUTPUT jack... but it won't work as an input when re-configured.

January 11th, 2011, 09:27 AM	#44
Robin Davies-Rollinson Trustee Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Gwaelod-y-garth, Cardiff, CYMRU/WALES Posts: 1,215	There are some lovely new exciting features about the XA10, but why does Canon seem to also go backward in some things. I have enjoyed using the little HFS100 on a number of paid jobs, and getting some excellent images from it. That particular camera had a larger chip than this new model, with many more pixels, allowing an intergral x1.7 "tele" function to be used which wasn't half bad. It looks like I'll need to purchase a separate tele-converter for the XA10...

January 11th, 2011, 10:05 AM	#45
Michael Galvan Major Player Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: New York, NY Posts: 775	Its all about compromise with these cams. Canon saw that they wanted to maximize video quality this time around over features like hi res photos and the like. So using the 2.07MP chip allows for that. The slightly higher yet much denser pixel packed sensor on the HFS100 allowed for that tele function as it was sampling a smaller section of the sensor. The new sensor cannot do this because of its final native 1920X1080 size. But this trade off should increase overall image quality by a fairly significant amount over last years models. __________________ www.michaelgalvan.com www.screenanthology.com