I am planning on replacing my XH-A1 with the XF100. It looks like the resolution will be comparable. Despite the shorter telephoto and small sensor size, I am looking forward to the better codec (having fewer motion artifacts is appealing) and the diversity of adjustments in a small, light-weight package.

Pat

Downresing doesn't make a better file. The extra pixels, as well as pixel depth, allow cropping and heavy adjustments without a large loss in quality. I've only shot and edited 1080, but the principals shouldn't change with larger files.

The sensor Red uses has 4096 by 2304 active photosites - over 4.5 times that of a 1920x1080 Bayer sensor. So by my logic it would be more than good enough for the big screen. More than enough for a 1920x1080 output even.

Actually, downressing can make a better result. As an example, we can only hear 20 Hz - 20 kHz. Sampling theory says that we should only need to sample at 40 kHz; however, anti-aliasing filters are not perfect brick walls. So, we sample at a higher rate (44.1 kHz for CDs, 48 kHz for film) to allow the filter a transition band.

It's the same for video. Optical anti-aliasing filters in cameras aren't perfect. The sharpest possible video shot with a 1080p sensor will alias when shown at 1080p. A camera that has a 1080p sensor with OLPF that removes all aliasing will look soft when shown at 1080p.

Shooting at higher res allows reframing. It also allows the image to be shot with greater than 1080p (or 2k) resolution without aliasing. We can then downres to 1080p or 2k and preserve the highest possible resolution without significant aliasing.

You simply can't get to that level of ideal performance with a single 1080p or 2K sensor when delivering at the same 1080p or 2K. That's not to say that video from a single 1080p sensor won't look very good and, in fact, good enough. But for the highest resolution without aliasing, we need more pixels and downressing to get the slow rolloff of the optical anti-aliasing filter out of the picture.

Manual Controls?
 

Sorry if this has been addressed, but I only see one manual control ring on the XF100/105. I have an XHA1, and although they are barely responsive, I still depend on the manual focus/zoom/iris rings daily for documentary shooting. Instead of improving these vital features, it appears that Canon has gone in the opposite direction and stripped them entirely. Is this true? The codec is far less important to me than framing, focusing, and exposing quickly and correctly.

Yeah, my feelings too with feedback here:-

http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/digital-...ml#post1583409

Grazie

Hi Alex, it's important to understand what the XF100 / 105 is. Basically it's a compact version of the XF300 / 305. If you need all three control rings, then you should be looking at the camera that has all three control rings, and that's the XF300 / 305. The only "direction" Canon has taken with the XF100 / 105 is to make it a pint-sized version of its big brother, the XF300 / 305. If the control rings are an issue, then the XF300 / 305 is what you want. Hope this helps,

Thanks, Chris. I see that Graham has raised a sufficient protest about the single ring for now. I don't know enough about camcorder design to understand the effect of the three-ring circus on MSRP.

I am keenly aware of the wonderfully improved XF300 lens controls; it's reportedly a far cry from the "wet spinach" feel of the A1 controls. That's why I consider the XF100's controls to be a step backward. Everyone gets that this is a new high in resolution at this price point; I just think Canon ought to know that people who look for 4:2:2 color, 50mbps recording, and especially who would use an HD field monitor, might be pained to give up manual controls.

But I'm putting this complaint to rest. It's amazing how personal the hunt for the right camera is, and when there are so many attractive choices that each have different flaws it can be maddening.

The XH A1 was discontinued quite awhile back. It's replacement, the XH A1S (as well as the G1S) has an entirely different feel to the control rings, fixing that problem completely.

I hate to repeat myself, but people who look for 4:2:2 color, 50mbps recording, and who would use an HD field monitor, don't have to give up manual controls -- because, once again, that's what the XF300 / 305 does.

You have to understand that the control ring on the XF100 / 105 isn't a step "backward" but is instead a step down in size. As I said before, the XF100 / 105 is simply a compact, pocket version of the XF300 / 305. If you need a small pro camcorder, that's what it's for. If you need the three control rings, the XF300 / 305 has them. The XF300 / 305 is the one you want, the one that has it all. The XF100 / 105 is its little brother. Just to reiterate one more time, if you want three control rings and the XF codec, then you've got them... not in the XF100 / 105 but instead the XF300 / 305.

The XF100 / 105 is just a subset of the XF300 / 305. It's important to understand that.

i have a production XF100 with me. Sadly, its one ring only. However i have to say its really well built. Have not played much with it yet.

When you have had time to play please let us all know what you think!

I messed ard with it and i kinda like it! The LCD is gorgeous, the audio controls are good and the wheel is pretty nice. i realised that i would set the aperature once normally.. (to the fastest having being so spoilt by DSLRs), and i would use the rocker 90% of the time for zooming. So the single ring didnt bother me that much. Only thing i didnt like was the ND filter had to be triggered by software. However there is a small ring like the one on the Sony Z1 which can be used to control the ND. I didnt try that. Will have a go tonight to see how it works.

The features are very similar to the XF300 series and i was impressed. It is truly a great B cam from my intial impressions. I heard from Canon Singapore the price would be quite attractive. I hope they price it right this time. Because i feel that the XF300 was overpriced when compared to the EX1R. In this market the competition would be the new Sony mini NXCAM MC50e which records in AVCHD compared to the nice mpeg2 50Mbps 422.

Hardly a protest? Rather, more like disappointment. But, as has been mentioned this camera can be used as a work-mate to the 300 or 350. And as such, one has to be reminded of the way Canon "appears"' to be moving their product line. Interesting.

Grazie

Thanks Sean

In the UK the pricing of new models probably puts the XF105 up against the Sony HXR NX5. The Sony has a 20x lens which is probably going to clinch it for my buying decision.

To me, the XF100 is more similar to the original GL1 (which I still use a lot).

For run and gun videos, I don't think having only the one ring is a big deal. On the GL1, it's for focus only, and I hardly ever use it. I would imagine the same would be true on the XF100 for my purposes.