Canon XF 300 7d or 5d at DVinfo.net

Doug Tessler · October 25th, 2010, 10:13 PM

I already have a JVC HM 100 for what it is I am able to make money with it all the time . So would I benefit
getting a 7d or 5d with lenses or the new Canon XF 300 .

Sincerely

Doug

Robert Turchick · October 26th, 2010, 12:06 AM

Buy all three! Ha ha!

OK, so I will start by saying after several years of working my a$$ off, I finally find myself happy with the cameras I bought not long ago. The XF300 and the 7D.

It's really the best of both worlds for me. A true HD camcorder that produces stunningly good video and has all the manual controls and pro audio. AND for b-roll and specialty shots like extreme DOF and pulling focus, the 7D which also happens to be a great still camera which I have actually started booking photo gigs with!

Enough about me...the reason I made those choices is what I want to express to you. If you are happy with the quality of video from the JVC then keep it for wide shots and pro audio section. If you can swing it, I can't say enough good things about the XF.

Now the tougher choice, 7D or 5D...
Neither will make a satisfactory replacement for a video camera unless you spend a ton of money on accessories and even then, you won't have continous auto focus, you will have to manually sync sound from an external device, you will have to have several lenses to cover the throw of a video camera and you will be limited to 12 min at a time recording.
What you will gain is killer low light performance and DOF at will!
Video-wise there's a slight difference in look but not enough to base a decision on. The 5D has slightly better low light ability but lacks the 7Ds full HD out via the hdmi which is great for sending to an external monitor. The 5D has a true 30fps rather than the normal 29.97 making it a bit trickier in post. Though Magic Lantern adds the extra frame rates.

Since my buddy uses a 5D, I can say they are both great for video but for stills the 5D is worth the extra money. Though the 7D can do a faster burst of stills which I really like.

So, in a nutshell, the dslr cams should not be considered as a replacement for a true video camera. They are a great tool for getting certain types of shots. If you want one camera to do it all, consider the panny af100 though the lens choices aren't as varied yet. Or wait til end of year when a couple other manufacturers should have solutions. If you can't wait, hope my opinions help!

Josh Dahlberg · October 26th, 2010, 12:26 AM

I agree with everything Robert says (my XF is paired with a 5D, I use them for different things).

What don't you like about your HM100, in which areas do you want improvement? If you want to replace the HM100 with a camera that will do the same things better (lens, codec, resolution, lcd etc), go with the XF.

If you want to complement (without replacing) the HM100 with camera that does particular tasks very well (tight DOF shots, low light shots, photography), the HDSLR might be a better choice.

Doug Tessler · October 26th, 2010, 02:25 AM

So is the Canon XF 300 better in low light than the JVC HM-100 because that is the real weakness
in the camera

Ty guys

Robert Turchick · October 26th, 2010, 07:45 AM

I have not used the hm100 but purely on printed specs, the XF will demolish the JVC in low light. 1/4" CCD vs 1/3" CMOS. The XF is better in low light than my previous camera, Panny's HMC-150 which had 1/3" CCDs.
I dare say the XF is the best 1/3" camera out there under $10k and I even prefer it to the 1/2" Sony EX1r and EX3 which I believe was the target Canon was aiming at. I have a lot of time on the Panasonic line (40/150/170/200) and the Canon is in a different league.
I haven't used any current JVC cameras so I can't comment there.

Brett Delmage · October 26th, 2010, 08:53 AM

Robert has already made some good points.

I own a 1D Mark IV and the XF-300 (both purchased shortly after they came out this year). Both have their advantages for video production. And while the 1D isn't under direct discussion, its strengths as a pro-body camera, such as excellent weather sealing for outdoor work (e.g. when I'm shooting in heavy rainstorms or -20C blizzards!) serve my needs and interests well. And it is wonderful for low light situations. I also do a lot of still photography with the Mark IV. I purchased it for still work knowing that I could also get some good quality video from it, not as my ultimate video camera. YMMV.

To be clear, I'm not advocating a 1D over a 5D or 7D. You know your own needs best and all are useful tools.

I do not regret owning both the 1D and XF-300. Collectively, they are expensive gear! But I have been using Canon DSLRs since their second model, the D60; they have held up and continued to work well for years. The cost per year is not unreasonable if you keep using them.

Brett

October 25th, 2010, 10:13 PM	#1
Doug Tessler Major Player Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: BOCa raton fl Posts: 342	Canon XF 300 7d or 5d I already have a JVC HM 100 for what it is I am able to make money with it all the time . So would I benefit getting a 7d or 5d with lenses or the new Canon XF 300 . Sincerely Doug

October 26th, 2010, 12:06 AM	#2
Robert Turchick Trustee Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Mesa, AZ Posts: 1,389	Buy all three! Ha ha! OK, so I will start by saying after several years of working my a$$ off, I finally find myself happy with the cameras I bought not long ago. The XF300 and the 7D. It's really the best of both worlds for me. A true HD camcorder that produces stunningly good video and has all the manual controls and pro audio. AND for b-roll and specialty shots like extreme DOF and pulling focus, the 7D which also happens to be a great still camera which I have actually started booking photo gigs with! Enough about me...the reason I made those choices is what I want to express to you. If you are happy with the quality of video from the JVC then keep it for wide shots and pro audio section. If you can swing it, I can't say enough good things about the XF. Now the tougher choice, 7D or 5D... Neither will make a satisfactory replacement for a video camera unless you spend a ton of money on accessories and even then, you won't have continous auto focus, you will have to manually sync sound from an external device, you will have to have several lenses to cover the throw of a video camera and you will be limited to 12 min at a time recording. What you will gain is killer low light performance and DOF at will! Video-wise there's a slight difference in look but not enough to base a decision on. The 5D has slightly better low light ability but lacks the 7Ds full HD out via the hdmi which is great for sending to an external monitor. The 5D has a true 30fps rather than the normal 29.97 making it a bit trickier in post. Though Magic Lantern adds the extra frame rates. Since my buddy uses a 5D, I can say they are both great for video but for stills the 5D is worth the extra money. Though the 7D can do a faster burst of stills which I really like. So, in a nutshell, the dslr cams should not be considered as a replacement for a true video camera. They are a great tool for getting certain types of shots. If you want one camera to do it all, consider the panny af100 though the lens choices aren't as varied yet. Or wait til end of year when a couple other manufacturers should have solutions. If you can't wait, hope my opinions help! __________________ The older I get, the better I was! Last edited by Robert Turchick; October 26th, 2010 at 12:38 AM.

October 26th, 2010, 02:25 AM	#4
Doug Tessler Major Player Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: BOCa raton fl Posts: 342	ty So is the Canon XF 300 better in low light than the JVC HM-100 because that is the real weakness in the camera Ty guys

October 26th, 2010, 07:45 AM	#5
Robert Turchick Trustee Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Mesa, AZ Posts: 1,389	I have not used the hm100 but purely on printed specs, the XF will demolish the JVC in low light. 1/4" CCD vs 1/3" CMOS. The XF is better in low light than my previous camera, Panny's HMC-150 which had 1/3" CCDs. I dare say the XF is the best 1/3" camera out there under $10k and I even prefer it to the 1/2" Sony EX1r and EX3 which I believe was the target Canon was aiming at. I have a lot of time on the Panasonic line (40/150/170/200) and the Canon is in a different league. I haven't used any current JVC cameras so I can't comment there. __________________ The older I get, the better I was!

October 26th, 2010, 12:26 AM	#3
Josh Dahlberg Major Player Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Wellington, New Zealand Posts: 513	I agree with everything Robert says (my XF is paired with a 5D, I use them for different things). What don't you like about your HM100, in which areas do you want improvement? If you want to replace the HM100 with a camera that will do the same things better (lens, codec, resolution, lcd etc), go with the XF. If you want to complement (without replacing) the HM100 with camera that does particular tasks very well (tight DOF shots, low light shots, photography), the HDSLR might be a better choice.

October 26th, 2010, 08:53 AM	#6
Brett Delmage Regular Crew Join Date: May 2010 Location: Ottawa, ON, Canada Posts: 34	Robert has already made some good points. I own a 1D Mark IV and the XF-300 (both purchased shortly after they came out this year). Both have their advantages for video production. And while the 1D isn't under direct discussion, its strengths as a pro-body camera, such as excellent weather sealing for outdoor work (e.g. when I'm shooting in heavy rainstorms or -20C blizzards!) serve my needs and interests well. And it is wonderful for low light situations. I also do a lot of still photography with the Mark IV. I purchased it for still work knowing that I could also get some good quality video from it, not as my ultimate video camera. YMMV. To be clear, I'm not advocating a 1D over a 5D or 7D. You know your own needs best and all are useful tools. I do not regret owning both the 1D and XF-300. Collectively, they are expensive gear! But I have been using Canon DSLRs since their second model, the D60; they have held up and continued to work well for years. The cost per year is not unreasonable if you keep using them. Brett