Agreed. I'm looking forward to the release of this camera to do some real world comparisons with my HMC.

Well, here we have it, folks. The replacement for the XH-A1, just with a shorter zoom length. Looks like Canon are responding to an emerging market - amateur videographers who are stuck (for the time being) with higher-end consumer-grade camcorders that don't have enough manual controls.

This will sell like hotcakes, and probably out-do the new Sony NEX-VG10.

If they can get the price down to $2500CDN, I'll beg, borrow, or steal to get one. This looks like a sweet little camera. At that price, it would be a very compelling alternative to a used XH-A1 or Sony V1U/Z1U.

Way to go, Canon.

It would make for an intersting b-cam. I like that codec.
But how will a single 1/3" CMOS perform? Is it superior to the competition's 1/4" 3 CMOS?

Apart from the 10X lens vs 18X lens the XF100 has pretty much the same features as the XF300 although the controls are more limited given the smaller size. Also unless I missed it this new Double Slot Recording – a feature that allows users to record the same footage to two separate CF cards simultaneously isn't available on the XF300 nor is the IR recording. It will be fascinating to see some video from this camera as on paper it should be near identical to the XF300 with the same CODEC & near identical sensor. I was planning on buying an XF300 but it looks like for the same money I could buy two of these & still have change.

The FX7 uses 1/4" sensors. The smaller the sensor, the easier it is to make outrageous zoom ranges. What suffers mostly is the wide end, hence you normally see 38-44mm (in 35FF equiv) as their widest. But they can go 20x so, your long end can be 500mm-800mm easy.

As the sensor gets bigger, increasing that zoom range is still possible but it will cost more taming the optical abberations that accompanies lenses that will be good for large sensors. You have to add more esoteric glass to control them, in the process driving costs up. Problem is, you also compromise your widest apertures, and introduce more complications.

That is why you can see a 43-580mm equiv in 1/5" or 1/6" easy. But once the sensor gets larger, you can't offer a wide zoom range and wide angle like 28mm or 30mm equiv at the widest, and sitll have a f1.8 aperture at that without driving the cost up. Now whether these companies are gouging us for such improvements, I cannot say. What is certain is, the larger sensors do require better lenses and do add to the cost.

I'm guessing it has something to do with the autofocus, as HD focusing at long focal lengths is no doubt much harder for the camera to maintain. I would think a shorter zoom would allow for a less powerful (i.e. cheaper) autofocus mechanism. The lens itself is probably cheaper too.

"Whether used as a companion to the XF305 or XF300, or as a stand-alone camcorder, the XF105 and XF100 ..," stated Yuichi Ishizuka, executive vice president and general manager, Consumer Imaging Group, Canon U.S.A.,

In my opinion, this is where its roots coming from the Consumer Imaging Group show, a market where zoom lenses in the 10x - 12x zoom range are standard. By contrast, the XH-A1, XF300 and XF305 all have an 18x zoom lens.

Actually the A1 has a 20x lens that I believe was classified an L series as it has the red line but I don't see it labelled as such. As an A1 user, I personally wouldn't consider this a replacement with only a 10x lens being a step backward for that market (IMHO) but moreso is the single ring lens control another step backward for an A1 user. The A1 was my first lens with an exposure ring and I'm never going back to any lens with less than three rings. :-)

Right, but it's 1xCMOS vs 3xCMOS... I'd be really interested to know what impact on IQ this will have.

Also, the VF is around 1/4 the resolution, the LCD is smaller and lower res. But it looks like a great little camera.

Looks like a great B cam for DSLR folks who needs some continous shooting

I find it interesting that nobody has compared this to the Panasonic HMC-40 which is one heck of a camera.

For the most part both cameras seem to do about the same thing in terms of resolution and framerate options. Both cameras also look very much alike.

The big difference of course is one shoots AVCHD at 24mbps and the other mpeg2 at 50mbits.

The Panasonic also has 3 cmos 1/4" chips so it will be interesting to see which is actually better. In recent years I think people have started to realize that single chip designs are not as bad anymore. They do tend to be slightly softer but in terms of color and noise rendition there is not a huge difference.

So on one hand you have Panasonic with 3 chips but with a very slow 1/4" and it uses 4:2:0 color for recording. Then on the other you have Canon with only a single cmos chip but it is 1/3" and records 4:2:2 color which may help compensate and end up giving a better color recording.

With the way bayer works however I think the HMC40 would still win in terms of raw detail. Bayer needs to much interpolation to have a pixel perfect rendition. I do think the Canon would win in terms of low light however which is the one area that has hurt the HMC40.

I would pay money to see a shootout between this new camera and the HMC40. (well maybe not but I would really like to see it anyway.)

I already own a HMC40 but I may get a second camera soon and instead of the HMC40 or HMC80 I may get one of these instead. I love the HMC40 but if this new Canon has a slight edge in low light that may win me over.

Sorry to disappoint, but as Josh points out - it's one 1920x1080 sensor (with bayer filtering) rather than three as in the XF300.

The effect is likely to be that after de-bayering you can expect the resolution to be very roughly equivalent to a camera with 3x 1megapixel chips - so I'd expect it to be in the same league as Sonys NX5 in this respect, and better than an HMC151. But with a far better codec.....
I think a far better comparison is the HMC150 in Panasonics range, or the NX5 in Sonys range. It looks like being several hundred dollars cheaper than the HMC150, and considerably cheaper than the NX5. Yet with equal or better performance than either of them in the front end, and a far superior codec.

I'd expect it to easily outperform the HMC40 in terms of quality, especially low light performance, but the HMC40 is cheaper - more like $2,000 as opposed to $3,000 for the XF100.

David you are comparing market price from one camera to the msrp from another camera. I think once the cheaper Canon actually hits the market the price will be much closer to the HMC-40. You also have to consider the XLR is built into the Canon. Once you add the XLR adapter for the HMC-40 I think the prices will definitely be comparable.

I also would not go as far as to say the Canon will have superior image quality. We don't really know yet what it will look like. The HMC-40 is known to have detail and quality equal to the SONY EX1 in decent lighting. A bayer based camera can never have that same level of raw detail. Canon also doesn't exactly have the best track record when it comes to gain use in low light which is something the HMC40 is very good at. I have seen the HMC40 at 24DB of gain look better then some HD cameras at 12 DB of gain. I have seen and used a couple of other single cmos 1/3" cameras that just do not cut it compared to the HMC-40 in really dark situations. Of course nobody can say for sure if the quality will be better. About the only thing I think we can say for sure is that at 0DB of gain will will without a doubt be more sensitive then the HMC-40. Now this may matter to a lot of people including myself but if the gain is really bad compared to the gain on the HMC-40 then it may not matter. Shooting at 0DB with any HD camera can only get you so far. At some point you either have to use light or bump up the gain. To me that will be the true test of what the Canon's can do. Not what it is like at 0DB.

For the HMC40 i looked up the price. For the Canon I was going on an earlier post (post #18) talking of "The Estimated Street Price for the XF100 is $2999 and the Estimated Street Price for the XF105 is $3999." Note "Estimated Street Price" - not MSRP. It's also on actual street price for the HMC150 and "Estimated Street Price" for the XF100 I was making the comparison there.
Good point. Yes, that I had overlooked.

As far as the rest goes - we'll have to wait and see.

Pics of XF100 series cams from Canon EXPO
 

Just got back from Canon Expo here in NYC. I took several pics of the XF105, which they had on display.

Some thoughts:

- Wow, this cam is smaller than I thought it would be. Very light and well balanced in the hand.
- On ring on the lens that you can switch between focus, iris, zoom
- Has the same control dial that is on the VIXIA HFS21... at least this will allow for using the main lens ring for focus and the control dial for iris control, which is a very good thing (2 control rings total)
- Lens diameter 58mm with IAF sensor below lens. This lens setup looks literally like they took the lens off the HFS21 and slapped it on this camera.

Overall, I was very impressed.. may get one of these to use alongside my XL H1S. Looks like a great smaller alternative for when I don't have to use the bigger camera.

Personally, I think that with only a 1/3" sensor in the XF100, Canon is going to have a tough time selling it at a price of $3000+. The HMC40 started out with a price of $3295, it has three chips versus one, and Panasonic found they had to drop the price at least $1000.00 before it would start moving. And codecs aside, it doesn't seem to have any more features or capabilities than the XF100 does.

Some might argue that Canon's new codec alone would justify a price of around $3K. But it remains to be seen whether it is capable of leveraging the single sensor to the point where it can generate the same image quality of the HMC150 or the NX5. Plus, consider the fact that the JVC GY-HM100 has an advanced, 35mbps codec, and not even JVC could command an initial price of $3500.00 just on the strength of the codec alone.

Bottom line, I think the XF100 will probably end up selling for close to $2395 - 2495, and the HD-SDI version will go for something like $2995. Any higher than that, and they'll start losing sales to Panasonic's HMC40, which I see as the closest competitor.

And now that I know that the XF100 uses a lot of HF-S21 components (lens, LCD display, viewfinder, image sensor), I'm inclined to think that it's simply a really pimped-out HF-S21 with a more extensive suite of manual controls.

One thing I really like about the XF100 (from what little info there is) is that it doesn't carry over the awful touch screen menu system from the HF-S series of cameras.

Well, the HMC40 and the HM100 both have three 1/4" chips. I'd rather have the single 1/3" chip.
The HCM150 and NX5U are another matter, but the XF100 looks to have a superior codec. I'm sure there'll be comparisons of all the cameras' video images soon.

This is definitely Canon's answer to the HM100 from JVC and HMC40/41 from Panasonic. It looks like it's aimed at exactly the same market, and from first glances it would be my first choice if I was buying now.

Not least, the stock lens is a LOT wider than the lens on the HM100 and HMC40, that alone would sell it to me.

(Not to mention it looks a lot less 1980s than the Panasonic!)

Will Canon ever produce a Camcorder with a 20x lens again? Am I wasting my time waiting for it?

Keep in mind that 1/3" is not the end all bench mark that equals better. A lot of Canons consumer HDV and AVCHD cameras were single 1/3" or very slightly larger and they fall behind the HMC40 in terms of low light or at least match it. Not all chip sizes are created equal and until we see some comparisons I would wait to assume we know exactly what it is going to do.

While I think at 0 db it may be a bit more sensitive then the 1/4" 3mos on the HMC40 I think the gain may be much cleaner which means in realistic situations where any HD camera would fall apart at 0 db may end up looking better with the HMC40.

The HMC40 can and does look much better then many current 1/3" single cmos cameras so lets take a wait and see.

Codec wise the only advantage I see is easier editing and 4:2:2 color. Well done AVCHD at 21 mbps can look just as good as mpeg2 at 35 or even 50 mbps. While of course 4:2:2 is better then 4:2:0 when it comes to true progressive recording this is not as much the case as it once was. For awhile now the EX1 has proven that you can do some amazing effects work with progressive 4:2:0 material. Sure 4:2:2 is still better but it just isn't super critical as it once was.

Again eveybody needs to remember that a single chip bayer system can never have the same level of detail as a 3 chip design. It is physically impossible due to the interpolation of every other pixel. Again in terms of detail the hmc40 blows away a lot of current single 1/3" cmos designs on the market.

I think you've hit the nail on the head here, Mike. When I look at the general size, shape and configuration of the XF100, I agree with your argument that Canon is going after the market niche that the HMC40/HM100 fit into. It seems we're witnessing the rise of the small, inexpensive prosumer camcorder here, as opposed to high-end consumer-grade camcorders that have some manual controls.

If Canon can keep the price relatively low (say $2295 - $2495), they'll have a seriously competitive product on their hands. I find the camera is very good-looking in terms of style - it looks like a mini XH-A1. It beats the Panasonic in the cosmetics department, and looks a bit more professional than the JVC.

I wouldn't compare the chips off of consumer HDV and AVCHD cameras to a CMOS chip off of the XF300. I'm sure the XF300 chips - hence, the XF100 chip - are vastly superior. All things being equal, 3 chips will always beat one, but you have to figure in the size of the chips. Are three 1/4" chips better than one 1/3" 2.2 megapixel chip? We'll soon see.

Here's an interesting video of chroma key tests between the XF305 and the XH G1. I'm not sure if both cameras are outputting 50 mbps 4:2:2 through their HD/SDI ports (it's in Japanese), or even if they're using their HD/SDI ports. The G1 might output 4:2:2 color through the HD/SDI, can anyone confirm this? Regardless, the superior 1920x1080 chip image is readily apparent:

YouTube - canon422-305.mov

My belief is to always, always start with the best image you can get. The better it is at the start, the better it will look through post. If a 2.2 megapixel chip, 50mbps, 4:2:2 camera will help get that better image, then by all means use it.

With the little bit of testing I've done with my little HDC TM700K, I've been favorably impressed with what the three 1/4" CMOS sensors can do. Granted, it's the 1080 60p footage that really shines, but I'd love to do a comparison with the TM700K and the new Canon XF105/100... It won't replace a higher-end camera, but it shows what can be done with three small chips and a higher bitrate. Now if we could just get monitors and hardware to deal more effectively with 1080 60p...

If it was the same price of the HMC40 or close, I'd be undersided but if by the time this thing is released, Panasonic releases a successor to the HMC40 with 1080 60p, the choice would be extremely easy for me. Canon would be forced to think twice about releasing the low model for anywhere close to $3,000. A street price of $2,000 would be perfect although $2,300 probably wouldn't be that bad.

I can't believe Sony is able to get away with selling the V1u for so much. They are very lucky.
They really need to release an AVCHD version of it.

Perhaps, but I will still be intensely interested in any and all HF-S21 / 20 / 200 vs. XF100 comparisons.

Back when the V1 was released it was the first Sony prosumer HD camcorder with 24p on the market at that price. The other HD camcorder was the HVX200 which was quite expensive once you added in the P2 cards. They were able to charge what they did. Now I agree with you that they need to release a avchd version of it. It was a nice little camera back in the day.

Back then was one thing, but the current price is around $3,300 at B&H. That's a little over $1,000 more than the current price of the HMC40 with the XLR adapter.

I know, but that's kind of my point. Sony sold enough of the V1's that they probably feel no need to drop the price. Kind of like Canon and the Gl2 which is still selling new just under $2,000 at some places. They figure someone will buy it at that price no need to drop it.

Actually, the XH-A1 w/ 24p/f came out before the V1 by about six months.....

Jim Martin
FilmTools.com

Yes you are correct. Ooops. :)

released for sale
 

Any news or speculation, when this cam is released for sale?

According to the official press release from Canon, the release date is targeted for January 2011.

Being a fan of Canon's cameras I am excited to see this model. I held off on the HFS20 or equivalent model. In on sense its a no brainer for me to pick one up, but I feel that its a HFS20 one step up. While it has many pro features it should be priced at $2K or less sharing the same price point as the old GL 1 and 2s.

Since we have a XF300 and a XF100 model line up it raises the question, is there a XF200?

Chad

Will there be an XL F? That's what I want to know...

Ditto....Ditto...Ditto............Chris, You are supposed to be in Amsterdam....or Deutchland.....telling us all about whats a comin'.......

Jim Martin
FilmTools.com

Hd xm1?
 

Is this the "HD XM1" that I've wanted for the last 4 years? Maybe... It certainly looks very interesting, and I'm eagerly looking forward to reading about it's capabilities, in it's own right and relative to the small JVC and Panasonic cameras.

I'll keep an open mind about the single chip design, and the missing red stripe on the lens until there's some comparitive footage available. Given how increadibly good the XF300 is supposed to be, I'm hopeful that the XF100 will punch above its weight, too. Personally, I'd prefer a longer zoom to the (impressive) width at the wide end. I've become used to the 650mm-equivalent reach of the XH-A1 and think I'd miss it. As was pointed out earlier, 3-chip designs and (especially) long zoom ranges cost money and add weight.

The pre-record cache is a great idea, but 3 seconds isn't quite long enough. A friend has the Sony CF recorder, which has a longer cache (10-seconds I think), which has saved his bacon several times. Is this something that can be "tweaked" before the final production units start to roll? Please?

What's the zoom like? Is it smooth? Is it controllable? Is it slow? I was underwhelmed by the zooms on the JVC HM100 and Panasonic HMC40. I love the constant-speed option on the XH-A1, with the little selector wheel exactly where I want it, and really like the sound of the improvements in the XH-A1s (though I've not tried one out). Is there a LANC socket for a zoom controller (ZR1000 and ZR2000 allow constant zoom speeds)? I couldn't spot one on the photos at the start of this thread.

What about the audio? The exhibition pictures show simple A/M switches (auto vs. manual I guess) for each channel, implying it probably doesn't have the "limiter" type controls in the XH-A1s. Shame. Never mind, it's got the internal/external switches that everyone clamoured for after the original XH-A1 arrived.

I know the Custom Picture settings are really useful for some people, but the complexity of the XH-A1 is rather beyond me. I use a couple of the gamma settings (black stretch sometimes , "Cine Gamma 1" most of the time) and the noise reduction in low light. A handful of carefully chosen factory presets (to use as starting points) would be a useful addition.

There was speculation earlier about what an XF-200 might look like. Given how long Canon left the yawning gap between HV40 and XH-A1 unfilled, I'd say there's no certainty that there'll be one. If there is, I'd guess at an XH-A1 with the XF encoder and CF-card recorder in place of the HDV encoder and tape drive. I think I'd be happy with an XF120 - just like an XF100 but with a 40 - 600mm equivalent x15 zoom. How about it, Canon?

What are people's thoughts about this camera as a balcony long shot backup to the XF300 in weddings?

No one knows for sure yet .. but some reviews should be out before we're able to grab one.

Cheers.

We don't have much info on the camera yet, but...

I think that'd be a terrific use for the new cam. Lock it down, catch all the action in a wide shot, then use the 300 for the close-ups.

When I saw this camera, that was my first thought. It would probably make a very cost effective "wide" shot camera, and the 300 used for everything else.