Canon XF100 versus Canon XA10

[Adam Palomer]

I have seen footage from the XF100/5 and from the XA10.

To me it seems that the XA10 performs better in low-light conditions. My understanding is that both cameras use the same sensor, similar in size and specifications. So does the XA10 really perform better under low light than does the XF100/5, or is it just my imagination?


According to Canon, minimum illumination is as follows:

XA10: -- Auto mode 1.5 lux (with auto slow shutter selected - shutter speed 1/30)

XF100/5: Full AUTO mode: 4.5 lux (Shutter speed 1/60, Gain +24dB)

[David Zeno]

I've used files from the Canon T2i ( .mov files ) which are AVCHD, that have also been converted using Cineform, and I don't see any different at all.

Is that normal ?

Originally Posted by Tom Bostick

it does take longer with avchd ,ive been dealing with it for around 3 years now

the fastest workflow i have devised is to:

copy clips to hdd

transcode with cineform

edit

its really as simple as that ,it does take more time and space since you need to transcode ,but its not as bad as you may have heard

[Laurence Janus]

That is because the SLR cameras use a higher bitrate to begin with.

As I understand it h.264 is the compression used in both DSLR mov files and AVCHD mts files

[Ken Ross]

Shot with my XA10, no lights and some shots in very poor lighting. The cam is far better than some here give it credit for. Certainly more versatile IMO than the Panasonic 900 which I owned and am now selling. Much better manual control options on the XA10. I also found both the good light and low light PQ to be better on the XA10. To see the true PQ, I strongly advise downloading the full rez file and playing on a good quality HDTV.

Josh & Alison's Wedding on Vimeo

[Gerald OConnor]

Hello Ken love the xa10 to as you know. (gso125) just started posting over here about the xf100 more owners on this forum

[Geoffrey Cox]

As a completely neutral observer and notwithstanding the features and ease of use of the cameras, the Youtube comparison clearly shows to my eye, that the XA10 has a clearer, more pleasing image.

[Pavel Sedlak]

I have both of these camcorders right here and it is clear, that XA10 is a perfect consumer tool while XF100 is a tool for work. There is no doubt that there is a big difference between them in the concept of the camcorder.

[Lou Bruno]

I made 5 different settings on my XF-100. There can be probably hundreds of variations via the profile menu.

Each setting looks different-for different situations. I can "pop" the colors on one setting to equal the "VIVID" mode of the XA10. The beauty of the XF-100 is that am not stuck with presets like the VIXIA line. I make my own profiles and save them to a SD card. However, I do like the XA10 it is just not as flexible.

Originally Posted by Geoffrey Cox

As a completely neutral observer and notwithstanding the features and ease of use of the cameras, the Youtube comparison clearly shows to my eye, that the XA10 has a clearer, more pleasing image.

[Gerald OConnor]

Originally Posted by Pavel Sedlak

I have both of these camcorders right here and it is clear, that XA10 is a perfect consumer tool while XF100 is a tool for work. There is no doubt that there is a big difference between them in the concept of the camcorder.

Is there much difference in size and weight. I had the Xa10 and returned it for the Xf100. Waiting for it to ship. If you could is there anyway you could take a picture or two of them togeather to compare size and post them.Thanks

Originally Posted by Lou Bruno

I made 5 different settings on my XF-100. There can be probably hundreds of variations via the profile menu.

Each setting looks different-for different situations. I can "pop" the colors on one setting to equal the "VIVID" mode of the XA10. The beauty of the XF-100 is that am not stuck with presets like the VIXIA line. I make my own profiles and save them to a SD card. However, I do like the XA10 it is just not as flexible.

Do you mind sharing your settings. Would it be useful to have a thread for settings that are proven for good results. Just a thought. Thanks

[Chris Hurd]

Originally Posted by Gerald OConnor

is there anyway you could take a picture or two of them togeather to compare size and post them.

Kind of sloppy, but here's all three -- click to see 'em big.

[Gerald OConnor]

Wow thank you very much.

[Andreas Schmidt]

After reading a lot I think I decided for the xa10. Main reason the big difference in price. In Europe more then 1200 Euro. For those I can get a Nikon D5100 w/ lens in addition.

[Ken Ross]

I should have mentioned that I did not use 'vivid' for the settings in my wedding video. I'm not a big fan of that setting in that it doesn't look natural to me. I prefer simply using MWB without any of the presets. To my eyes this results in a very natuarl look...very close to what I saw when I was there.

[David Chilson]

The UPS guy just dropped of my XF100 and if you think a watched pot doesn't boil, try watching the battery charge for a new camera!

Yesterday my HFG10 arrived and first impressions are I love the picture, playing it back on a 50" plasma looked great. But I'm not too keen with the touch screen menu system, You get a little stylus to use but I will lose that pronto, if I haven't already.....

The XF100 menu is better, but if you are coming from an XHA1 type cam be advised, it's a different way to work.

I went with the HFG10 over the XA10 because I wasn't planning on using XLR mics with the cam and it was $500 bucks towards the XF100. (Actually 2 16gb UDMA cards and an extra battery ate up that cash...)

Well hopefully it will stop raining and I can get out and see how these camera's do side by side.

[Andy Wilkinson]

Great pic! We all look forward to reading how you get on with these two cams. Have fun (as I'm sure you will when the battery charger shows it's FULL).