xf-300 vs sony EX1R sensor size?

[Steve Phillipps]

The folks at B&H are definitely over-simplifying things. The overall image quality of a 1/2" is not neccessarily better than a 1/3", it might be but not neccessarily.

The car analogy works here too: put a huge 6 litre V8 in a Cadilac and it'll get smoked by a 2 litre Subaru Impreza. This is because there is more to it than just engine size.

Steve

[Nick Wilcox-Brown]

B&H were right. 1/2" was better, but times change. I have shot an awful lot of material on this camera and it is very, very good.

I'm a stills photographer, used to 20 & 40Mpixel images - this is the first time that I have been happy with video stills, except from Red One.

Nick.

[Jim Martin]

The difference is not anywhere near as much as B & H says.....the lower light is a little bit better and the depth of field is a little bit better.......can I repeat...a little bit better (I'm pinching two fingers together). As I posted on another thread, Don't you think a 1/3" chip from 2010 might be better than a 1/2" from 2007??? And Canon glass is definitly better than Zeiss labeled Sony glass.....not to mention, the much bigger 50mb/422 color codec the Canon has.
I suspect that B&H has a lot of EXs in stock and would like to sell them now insted of have you wait a month or two to buy the Canon.

Jim Martin
FilmTools.com

[Tim Polster]

I think Canon could have had a real EX-1 rival if they had put 1/2" chips in this new camera at the same price.

It does seem polictical as this would have really separated the camera from the herd. There are a lot of 1/3" chip cameras and only the EX series in the 1/2" range. Kind of a shame.

It still looks like a great camera, but 1/2" would have perked everybody up for shure.

Tough choice to decide between the two!

[Dom Stevenson]

I rented an EX1 recently and found myself missing my old XHA1. I like the Canon glass, and prefer the ergonomics. I also hated the image stabilization on the Sony compared to the Canon.

However if the cheapest fixed lens XF option is going to cost 6 grand in the UK ($9000), i'm not sure if i can justify it. There are loads of excellent condition second hand EX1's around for half that, and of course they have a larger sensor and - most of the time - can record to cheaper memory cards.

[Steve Kalle]

Another important benefit of the EX1 over the Canon is not having to wait for all the bugs to be worked out since the EX1 has been around for a few years.

With the EX1, there are thousands of accessories already available, new and used.

An advantage of the EX cameras, that few ever mention, is Flash Band removal using Sony's ClibBrowser software. I have an EX1 and the software works nearly perfect.

[Steve Phillipps]

Originally Posted by Tim Polster

I think Canon could have had a real EX-1 rival if they had put 1/2" chips in this new camera at the same price.

It does seem polictical as this would have really separated the camera from the herd. There are a lot of 1/3" chip cameras and only the EX series in the 1/2" range. Kind of a shame.

I think it's more even than that though Tim, I think if they had put 1/2" sensors in it would actually then be challenging Sony and Panasonic's big bucks cameras as it'd be fully compliant with EBU HD specs - I'm sure they'd start to lose plenty of sales of PDW700, Varicam, HDW790 etc., for those who don't need interchangeable lenses. Why haven't Sony put the 50mb/s 422 codec into the PMW350? No-one is going to tell me that it would have been difficult, but as well as the £12,000 including lens PMW350 they also want to sell the £26,000 without lens or viewfinder PDW800.
Steve

[Steve Phillipps]

Originally Posted by Steve Kalle

Another important benefit of the EX1 over the Canon is not having to wait for all the bugs to be worked out since the EX1 has been around for a few years.

I get the feeling it's important to remember that we're talking about Canon here, not a small indy company that are field beta testing a bit of kit. I don't imagine for 1 second that there'll be any problems with the new camera.
Steve

[Michael Murie]

Originally Posted by Jim Martin

Don't you think a 1/3" chip from 2010 might be better than a 1/2" from 2007???

The EX-1R was released around October of last year with new EXMOR chips. Maybe they aren't better than the Canon's chips, but they aren't three - four year old chips...

[Brian Rhodes]

Originally Posted by Nick Wilcox-Brown

I think it is important to look at the bigger picture: Sony have market dominance in this price bracket and Canon (and others) want a piece of the action.

I have not managed to do the EX / XF comparison that I wanted to do, but I would be very surprised if Canon have not done their own detailed testing to ensure that the new camera equals and probably surpasses the current Sony products.

The XF 305/300 are clearly aimed at the ENG / independent TV production market and the results that I have seen from this camera to date suggest very good low light performance. As Chris says, sensor size is not everything and Canon have huge expertise in image processing and noise suppression.

The camera offers 50Mbs 4:2:2 without add-ons onto low cost CF cards. For anyone looking for a new camera, it would seem to make sense to see how the street price pans out a month or so after it goes on sale?
Nick.

Nick did you shoot any clips indoors with natural room lighting or any low light clips. When I compared the cams at NAB it seemed like there was a 1/2 stop differences between the cams If so could you post some of the clips. I only got to play with the cams for 2 hours most of the time was spent going though the menus and settings. I do Celeb. Interviews at clubs and also film concerts sometimes the cam light is not allowed. I was thinking about purchasing the XF 305 but the Low light would have to be equal to are better than the EX series for the type of work that I do.

[Jim Martin]

Originally Posted by Michael Murie

The EX-1R was released around October of last year with new EXMOR chips. Maybe they aren't better than the Canon's chips, but they aren't three - four year old chips...

True...but there are more of the older models out there than the new ones....aside from that, the Canon glass and the bigger codec still IMHO trump the EX........not to mention more camera adjusts, lens IM, etc

Again, they are all good cameras and depending on what you are doing, one might be better that the others.

Jim Martin

[Peter Moretti]

Right. If you need some hint of shallow DoF and the best possible low light performance, the EX1 will win. If not, I think the codec alone will make the XF yield a superior image.

[Steve Kalle]

The codec by itself will not make the XF produce a better image. Over in the nanoFlash forum, an EX1 owner provided stills of 35Mb from the EX1 and 50Mb 422 from the nanoflash. Only under high magnification can you see a difference.

The EX1r sensor is identical to the EX1 & EX3.

[Jad Meouchy]

Originally Posted by Steve Phillipps

Barry Green tested the new Panasonic HPX370 which has 1/3" chips and found that it compared very well vs the EX1/3, even in sensitivity it was within 1/4 of stop.
Steve

Barry Green is paid by Panasonic to do these kinds of "tests." I'm not saying anything against any camera, just saying that you might want to be aware of that when reading his articles.

[Jad Meouchy]

Originally Posted by Steve Kalle

The EX1r sensor is identical to the EX1 & EX3.

I believe the EX1R has a better IR filter. While they do have the same sensor, there is just a little bit of a change in front of that sensor. The result should be a cleaner image in high light situations.