Canon introduces XF105 and XF100

[Jason Lowe]

Originally Posted by Mike Burgess

Whats with the 10X zoom? Why are these prosumer cams reducing their zooms? Myself, I love my FX7 with its 20X zoom. Why can't Canon (and Panasonic, and now Sony) continue to offer 20X on their newer prosumer cams? To get what I want, I will have to buy an additional lens to add to the cam. Bummer.

Mike

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.

[Bill Koehler]

Originally Posted by Mike Burgess

Whats with the 10X zoom? Why are these prosumer cams reducing their zooms? Myself, I love my FX7 with its 20X zoom. Why can't Canon (and Panasonic, and now Sony) continue to offer 20X on their newer prosumer cams? To get what I want, I will have to buy an additional lens to add to the cam. Bummer.

Mike

"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.

[Les Wilson]

Originally Posted by Bill Koehler

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. :-)

[Josh Dahlberg]

Originally Posted by Nigel Barker

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.

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.

[Sean Seah]

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

[Thomas Smet]

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.

[David Heath]

Originally Posted by Nigel Barker

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.

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.....

Originally Posted by Thomas Smet

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

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.

[Thomas Smet]

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.

[David Heath]

Originally Posted by Thomas Smet

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Thomas Smet

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.

Good point. Yes, that I had overlooked.

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

[Michael Galvan]

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.

[Steve Struthers]

Originally Posted by David Heath

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.

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.

[Glen Vandermolen]

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.

[Mike Beckett]

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!)

[David Rice]

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

[Thomas Smet]

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.