Press Release: Canon's New XF305 and XF300 Professional HD Camcorder

[Thomas Smet]

Originally Posted by Shawn Lam

Where are you getting 1/3" CMOS from? I assumed in my blog post this morning that it would be 1/2" but only because the full raster 1920x1080 resolution - guess I might need to make an adjustment.

Here is my brief post, with photos!

Canon XF300 and XF300 - Pre NAB 2010 announcement ? Shawn Lam Video

If you look at the specs page for both of these new cameras on the Canon website they list 1/3" CMOS at full 1920x1080 effective pixels.

[Daniel Caruso]

this is amazing news! thanks for the detailed write up chris, i am eagerly waiting for NAB, hopefully there may be some canon XF coverage somewhere on the net.

i have always liked what canon has made and this is no exception. i have hated my hdv 4:2:0 sample and this is great. when considering to the ex1r, despite the sensor size, when you add the cards on top of the sony price, these could be comparable. obviously cant tell until some footage is shown. i just hate how canon used two models still and a huge price difference in the two. even the nx5 has an hd-sdi out for 5000 camera. buying this camera for the long term i would want the most flexibility in my purchase, but the difference is hard to choose. can someone explain the sensor technology a little more(if we know more).

i also love the look and usability of the body design. seems slightly bigger than the a1, which i like a bigger camera, and the buttons seem roughly the same spot or added new ones. looks like a much better body design than the ex1r.

overall i am so excited for this product to come out and see some sample footage soon. very exciting news for my video world.

[Colin Rowe]

Originally Posted by Floris van Eck

Any news on UK/EURO MSRP pricing?

If its par for the course $7999 = £7999 or something very close. The exchange rate is never taken into account, I guess its what the market will stand. Its why here in the UK we are paying £5.40 for a gallon of petrol

[Thomas Smet]

Again with HDMI is HD-SDI output really that important to most of us? I totally agree that it is silly to charge that much just for HD-SDI but with HDMI output I just don't really need it. Only people who work with other broadcast gear is going to need HD-SDI. If you want a high quality capture method for uncompressed 4:2:2 then HDMI is more then enough unless of course you need 10bit video.

Everybody should also keep in mind that the new codec isn't just 4:2:2 but 50 mbits as well. Take a look at how much better 35 mbits was compared to 25 mbits. 50 mbits compared to 35 mbits is even better yet and is usually extremely clean and artifact free. To some people the 50 mbits recording alone will be well worth the price because it gives them piece of mind that even in the most complex situations their footage should be rock solid. This is the same super high quality form of Mpeg2 SONY uses for their higher end broadcast products.

The camera itself seems to also be built very well. I like very much what I see although I would have loved 4 channel audio.

[Tom Roper]

But it looks like it has a GREAT lcd and viewfinder. Also covers the bases with 35mbps 4:2:0 takes the output straight to Blu-ray without re-encoding, in addition to the keyable 50mbps 4:2:2. Did they really solve the CA problem of the XH-A1 with the new lens? If so, that's preferable to electronic reprocessing. And if the new optical image stabilization works well at 18x, then what they've managed to combine could be great for eng work.

Canon is late to the game for me, but what they usually manage to deliver is a thoroughly debugged, field ready camera with quality control, unlike the pun intended, betacams.

I'm not so sure this is overpriced, but the one reason that it could be will depend on how well it handles low light. Love the manageable size and weight, ergonomics look good. Also has that quick-focus thingy, the little lens to the side of the main one, that worked well for me on the XH-A1.

Put a fork in CCD, it's done.

I give this a thumbs up.

[Chris Hurd]

Originally Posted by Thomas Smet

Again with HDMI is HD-SDI output really that important to most of us?

Maybe not, but it is important to broadcasters who will want to integrate
this camcorder into their existing SDI infrastructure -- so it's there if you
need it. If you don't need SDI, then you should be looking at the XF300
model, which doesn't include it (but still has HDMI, of course).

Originally Posted by Thomas Smet

I totally agree that it is silly to charge that much just for HD-SDI...

Actually the premium for SDI has just now come way down in price. Previously
with the XH and XL H models, the pro connectivity jacks (SDI, GenLock and
TimeCode) involved a $3,000 price differential. Now it's just $1,000 which
means it's never been more affordable until now.

Originally Posted by Thomas Smet

Only people who work with other broadcast gear is going to need HD-SDI.

Correct, and that's exactly why they're offering two versions of this camcorder,
one with SDI (the XF305) and one without SDI (the XF300). They are probably
expecting to sell one XF305 for every nine or ten XF300's, just like the ratio
between the earlier XH A1 / A1S vs. the SDI-equipped XH G1 / G1S.

[Thomas Smet]

Most people who are in broadcast do not care about the cost as much which is why the 305 works well for them. My whole point is the indy market or smaller production house. With HDMI they don't really need HD-SDI so it isn't really a big deal now like it was for us Canon users before. With the other Canon models you either had component or HD-SDI. If you could not pay the premium for the HD-SDI version we were kind of SOL unless we wanted to use component. Now the HDMI is more then enough to fill the needs of most of the people here.

For me the HDMI, what looks to be a very sophisticated lens and the big LCD screen are pretty much worth the price. The 50 mbits mpeg2 should be a bit better then 21 mbit AVCHD as well. 21 mbit AVCHD is better then 35 mbit mpeg2 but 50 mbit mpeg2 should be equal to or better not to mention much easier to edit with. Although archiving footage is going to take twice as much space.

I should also note that I like the fact that you can record 50 mbit, 35 mbit and 25 mbit. This makes this camera pretty darn versatile and able to match with pretty much any other pro mpeg2 based HD camera out there.

Originally Posted by Tom Roper

Put a fork in CCD, it's done.

I agree. CCD is quickly being phased out. It just never really had it for HD cameras without a boat load of compromises. CCD in HD cameras only really works well for 1/2" or 2/3" cameras but the cost of those chips is way too high and usually only works for large shoulder mounted form factor cameras. Unless people want to continue to deal with split screen CCD's (JVC) pixel shifted soft image CCD's (Panasonic) or interlaced only CCD's (Canon) the only option is CMOS. Even still cameras like the 5D, 7D and even Red itself are CMOS based because there are dozens of pros compared to it's single con.

[Daniel Caruso]

does anyone know if the thread size will still be 72mm?

[Steve Phillipps]

Originally Posted by Laurence Janus

I was so excited... right up to the CMOS bit.

Same here - though I strongly suspected they would be CMOS - it's the only way to keep pace (spec-wise) at this price and size of camera.
Steve

[Steve Phillipps]

Originally Posted by Thomas Smet

I agree. CCD is quickly being phased out.

Except with high end cameras. I still don't see a mad rush by the folks with £1million budgets ditching their Varicams and F900s for PDW350s.
It's a funny situation now with this Canon vs the EX series - the Canon qualifies as EBU compliant due to codec but fails on chip size, while the EX qualifies on chip size and fails on codec. Anyone want to make a 1/2" camera with 50 mb/s codec? Hello?
Steve

[Tom Roper]

But let's see if anybody comes out with a new 1/2 - 2/3 CCD.

I think even Panasonic will no longer use them. It's not the same thing as saying everyone will ditch CCD and Varicam and FW900. Airline travel restrictions are growing tighter everyday, most recently Spirit announcing $45 fee for carry-on bags that go into the overhead, while still having to conform to 45 linear inches, 22 x 14 x 9 and 40 lbs, lithium battery restrictions etc. You're a news organization and want to ship oversize overweight baggage in the cargo hold? No problem for you!

Who is really pining for short battery life and high weight anyway?

[Steve Rusk]

Wow, talk about sticker shock...I was expecting about $1500 to $2000 less. I'm not going to go as far as to say its overpriced until I see the many head-to-head comparisons with the EX1r that are sure to come...but even if it's worth every penny, it's beyond my means at those prices.

Slinking back to the shallow end of the pool now...

[Chris Hurd]

Originally Posted by Daniel Caruso

does anyone know if the thread size will still be 72mm?

On the XF series it's now 82mm. They have a new 0.8x wide-angle adapter to go with it, the WA-H82.

[Steve Phillipps]

For high end productions though you're generally not talking about a single bag but rather 1/4 ton of gear so the weight of the actual camera is not that significant.
But you're right about weight and battery life.
Just more strength to the argument that the CMOS cameras are not quite good enough yet - even with all their advantages the high end folks are just not using them.
Steve

[Tim Polster]

Couple thoughts.

This camera looked very large for a "small form factor" camera in the photos posted last month By Chris Hurd. In my opinion, now that 1/3" chips are getting the nod and costing closer to $10,000 than $5,000. This form factor needs to be looked at. It is tough to handhold the EX-1 due to design and sheer weight. This new Canon camera looks like it might be a handful as well. To me, this camera design is in no-man's land. Too big to handhold for any length of time but does not go on a shoulder. Don't know why the JVC style has not been more popular.

CCD vs CMOS.

My main thought here is that so often it is said that CMOS is so much more affordable. Well the only camera that has proved that to me is the EX-1. Sony actually put 1/2" chips in a traditional 1/3" form factor and sells it for $6,000. The HPX-300/370 and this new Canon camera are going the opposite direction from their CCD forefathers with the same chip size and higher price with skew to boot. If they could take away all of the compromises then I could justify the higher price.

I like the step up to the plate with the codec by Canon and there is little doubt this camera will produce very nice images. If they had gone for a better form factor I think it would be easier to choose. All things being equal, the EX-1 still seems like the best value to me though as you can add a Nano if you need the bitrate.