HPX 170 compared to XF300. Which would you consider?

[Nick Wilcox-Brown]

I'm interested to see a constructive test of OIS from the Canon. I used it heavily, trying both Dynamic and Powered for the car shoot. To be fair, the results were miraculous considering how I was being buffeted by wind at high road speeds (none of my clips had software treatment to stabilize them)

Powered seemed to have an edge, but nothing could be expected handle some of the vertical lurches (that I edited out of the clips) induced by British roads.

The only one thing I would love to see is some form of bracket to permit effective resting on shoulder for hand-held work. Anyone got possible suggestions?

Nick.

[Brian Woods]

Originally Posted by Nick Wilcox-Brown

The only one thing I would love to see is some form of bracket to permit effective resting on shoulder for hand-held work. Anyone got possible suggestions?

Nick.

Canon rep at Cinegear in Los Angeles said Canon would be coming out with one, but he didn:t give a time table.

[Nick Wilcox-Brown]

Really helpful Brian, thank you. I have been nagging Canon here in Europe, also for an adapter 'in the kit' for smaller diameter microphones: so much better than elastic bands!

[David Morgan]

A little late seeing this post but no one seems concerned about (1) the CMOS sensors and (#2) the lack of SD recording in the new Canon lineup. The rolling shutter and flash banding effects are pretty scary and I can't believe we're supposed to accept these artifacts when paying so much money for a camera.

At least the 170 has CCD sensors.

[Tim Polster]

David, this is an exisiting issue in marketplace. We, (camera purchasers & users) are not being complacent, just accepting the reality. CCDs are just too expensive to make full raster, especially in a small form factor. So CMOS is a tradeoff for increased resolution. The manufacturers have made their point and hopefully someday they can produce CMOS in a fashion that eliminates skew and banding.

I have integrated the EX-1 into my workflow and realised the flash banding goes by so quickly that it is often a non-issue. Skew bothers me but it too most often will go by un-noticed.

We are still in a transition period so to speak. Tradeoffs are part of getting new technical developments and affordable HD is still being developed. So we have celebrate the positives of the cameras which mostly outweigh the negatives.

[David Morgan]

thanks for the reply.
I take your points about evolution. However, from my point of view, in reference to the sensor, the cure is worse than the disease. I don't think CCD's not being full raster has stopped the production of HD content. In my opinion, it is a smaller compromise than the CMOS trade-off. Hasn't really accomplished the overall savings either...it seems. Maybe they saved on the chip itself but...
you can imagine why people are wondering about the cost of the 300 series. Almost twice as much! So the sensor technology is helping with the camera cost? And we're supposed to accept the artifacts on top of that when the CCD didn't have them? I find it difficult to accept paying upwards to 10k and in some cases more, depending on the manufacturer, for a camera with these kinds of problems.

[David Heath]

Originally Posted by David Morgan

A little late seeing this post but no one seems concerned about (1) the CMOS sensors and (#2) the lack of SD recording in the new Canon lineup. The rolling shutter and flash banding effects are pretty scary and I can't believe we're supposed to accept these artifacts when paying so much money for a camera.

CMOS is a way of not just upping resolution for the same size chip, but it also has advantages in terms of sensitivity and highlight handling, and lower camera power requirements. I hear what you are saying, but the current view is that the benefits outweigh the drawbacks overall - it may be comparable to when CCDs first came in (and displaced tubes). They had terrible vertical streaking on highlights, but overall the feeling was that it was a price to be paid given the benefits.

As for "paying so much" - then the very same artifacts are present in cameras costing very much more, Red being the obvious example.

I find the point about SD recording maybe more valid - but it depends what your work consists of. Some people may only want to shoot HD so it becomes a non-issue (maybe downconverting later), but for others, yes, it could be a big problem. (It wasn't on the original EX1, but had to be added to the EX1R due to demand.)

The only excuse may be that real time downconversion is very difficult to do well, at least without spending a lot of money. Maybe Canon just felt that rather than not do it well (or make the camera cost even more) better to not try to do it at all?

[David Morgan]

Yep, I can just hear it now. Manufacturers will be referring to these new cameras as "those first generation units" after we've spent all we have to purchase them now. As much as I like some of the concept of card based acquisition, I think I'm going to stay with my tape based, CCD pickup A1 and go the DTE route when I need it.
thanks for the thoughts.

[Nick Wilcox-Brown]

I have an XHG-1, but after using both XF300 and 305, I can hardly bear to go back to it; the difference is night and day. I'm happy to put up with some rolling shutter in return for all the other advantages CMOS brings to these cameras bring.

Ironically CMOS bought immeasurable improvements to my Canon DSLR cameras back in 2000, despite howls of protest from the CCD purists. Nothing new and all that?

Nick

[David Morgan]

Well I do a lot of theatrical work. Lots of strobe lights flashing at different rates and flash cameras in the audience too. I'm not too keen on experimentation when it comes to a paying gig. Also do whip pans and other fast panning techniques when not doing theatrical. Not too keen on adding the special effects of bending objects in the background! Although, maybe it would be cool. I must have missed the survey when the manufacturers decided that the CMOS artifacts were acceptable to professional videographers. :-)

anyway, to each his own.

[Tim Polster]

David, I totally agree with you, but I have accepted the reality of the situation. CMOS is not going anywhere not matter how unhappy we are.

I struggled with this for a while but I feel it is more important to be happy than hate. So I use the tools and live with the shortcomings that everybody else seems to think is not an issue.

I wish there was a survey. Given that a lot of stuff still gets delivered on DVD, the technical race and 1080p seems like running around in circles at times.

But I agree, from the outside, it does not look like CMOS is saving anybody much money given the latest Canon and Panasonic 1/3" chip models.

[Brian Drysdale]

Originally Posted by David Heath

I hear what you are saying, but the current view is that the benefits outweigh the drawbacks overall - it may be comparable to when CCDs first came in (and displaced tubes). They had terrible vertical streaking on highlights, but overall the feeling was that it was a price to be paid given the benefits.

As for "paying so much" - then the very same artifacts are present in cameras costing very much more, Red being the obvious example.

This seemed to the case when the BVW 400 Betacam SP came out without any (or at least noticeable) vertical streaks, but the then broadcasters became happy 1/3" cameras with horrendous vertical streaks, plus softer pictures. On the other hand, the small cameras were cheaper.

[Jay Houser]

My camcorder ownership has progressed over the years from VHS, Panasonic SVHS, Canon L-1 Hi8, Canon XL-1, XL-1s to XH-A1.

Bought a 5D mkII when they were first released, ditto for the 7D. After using these still cameras with their many limitations, I have acquired quite an inventory of Canon L glass as well as a couple examples of Zeiss glass. The low light capability and DOF control of these cameras - with good glass in front of them - yields some very impressive images.

My next proper video camera upgrade will have an AP-S sized sensor - or larger - with interchangeable lenses.

[Panagiotis Raris]

between the two, it would depend on whether is for work ie music videos or weddings, in which case i would choose the sharper non-pixel shifting XF300, versus creativity, where i would pick the HPX170 due to HD-SDI and variable framerates.

[Glen Vandermolen]

Go with the XF305. It has HD-SDI and variable frame rates.