XF100 First impressions

[Erik Norgaard]

Originally Posted by Noa Put

Can't you assign focus to the ring on the lens and at the same time the iris to that small dial?

That's the setup I was referring to.

[Charles W. Hull]

I checked to see if the Focal Length Guide number is linear. The guide has 154 values (0 to 153); I set it to 0 with the focal length at 30.4mm; it then reads 153 at 304mm.

I compared the field of view to several lenses on a Canon 5DMkII, with the XF100 and the 5DMkII approximately the same diatance from a target (a bookshelf). As the target was fairly close the accuracy of this method for focal length is not good for the longer focal lengths, but I was only looking for the comparitive field of view. Also 35mm lens focal length numbers are not gospel, so the comparisons should be taken as approximate.

The Guide number is NOT linear. Here are the comparative numbers:

30.4mm FL# 0
40mm FL# 21 (Canon 17-40mm set to 40mm)
50mm FL# 31 (Sigma 50mm)
50mm FL# 35 (Canon 24-105mm set to 50mm mark)
70mm FL# 61 (Canon 70-200mm set to 70mm)
105mm FL# 83 (Canon 24-105mm set to 105mm)
200mm FL# 143 (Canon 70-200mm set to 200mm)
304mm FL# 153

As an example, if the FL# was linear, 40mm would be FL# 5 and 50mm would be FL# 11.

I do quite a bit of video around 50mm, so the FL# for 50mm is in the range of 31-35.

[Chris Hurd]

Originally Posted by Charles W. Hull

The Guide number is NOT linear.

Actually yes it is linear... just not in a way you might expect, that is,
not straight line or rectilinear. It is instead curvilinear. This was the
same situation with the previous XH and XL H camcorders as well,
by the way.

[Pat Reddy]

Just acquired an XF100, and I think I'm in love. I have not had time to really evaluate the image quality, but so far it seems fantastic - clean, sharp, and quite artifact free. This is the camera that I was hoping for shortly after I stopped using Sony's HC1. I thought seriously about getting an FX7, V1, HMC40, or one of the other pint size cameras that offer professional features, but this is the first camera that seems to hit the mark (at least for me). It solves a lot of issues I had with the XH-A1, and I think it's a substantial step up from the XH-A1 in every way except for its shorter telephoto reach and maybe a little less straight-forward access to controls on the fly - although I don't yet know what's possible with the XF100. The OIS is great.

I shot some low-light in my office at 24 P and a gain of 0 db, and it looked good to me - very little noise. But I also like the low-key look. I usually want the scene to look as dark as it really does. It may be a while before I could add to the sample clips that have already been posted.

The XF100 looks great, balances well, is quite small but clearly has a formidable array of adjustable settings. The lens seems quite good - only very minor CA at wide. I think Canon has a winner with this camera. I never had a chance to go though my typical 5 days of buyer's remorse.

Pat

[Noa Put]

I think it's a substantial step up from the XH-A1 in every way

I was thinking on getting the xf100 as a second cam and as a xh-a1 owner I"m trying to get as much as possible "real-life" feedback from current users, can I ask in what ways you think the xf100 is that much better? From what I see so far the image (color) quality and especially the sharpness look better, are there other points you see a significant improvement?

[Federico Perale]

has anyone compared the XF100 output with the Sony EX1r's?

I know they are completely different camcorders, and the chip size difference puts them into different leagues, but I've read somewhere that the XF100 holds it pretty well and has so much better ergonomics

[Pat Reddy]

Noa, I'll try to provide more feedback once I have had more time with the camera. So far, the image stabilization seems much better, the codec is cleaner, color gradations are more natural, it's easier to hold...

I used popular presets on the XH-A1. I wanted good resolution, but the image often showed tiny spidery noise even in good light - something that may have been less of a problem if I had managed the settings for less resolution and greater noise reduction. I'm not seeing this with the XF100. In full auto, everything looks sharp and clean, and I would be inclined to manage settings for less sharpness on this camera. The IAF on the XH-A1 would sometimes pulse as you zoomed in on a subject. So far I have seen little of this on the XF100.

I would characterize myself as a serious amateur with semi-pro leanings. I don't have to get out and shoot. The weight of the XH-A1 and some of the issues I've described were a deterrent in a way. My primary interest is nature and landscape videography. I might travel or hike with a smaller less competent camera than the XH-A1 if I didn't want to deal with the size, weight, and image characteristics of the XH-A1. I had high expectations for the XH-A1, and they were usually met, but not without a price.

I am also starting to get interested in doing music videos and events. While the XF100 may not be ideal for the former, it should pair nicely with a 5D II. It's size would make any shooting involving people less intrusive and more discreet. On the other hand, if it's important for you to have a camera that looks pro for a client, I think the XF100 will work for this as well. Apart from it's size, it actually looks a little more pro than the XH-A1.

[Pat Reddy]

Some other things that are better on the XF100 than on the XH-A1: The LCD is larger and much higher in resolution; it shoots in infrared night mode; it will do time lapse, slow motion, and fast motion video; it uses compact flash cards instead of tapes.

There are lot of things that are similar, custom presets, the battery looks to be good for about 4 hours, two zoom rockers, and more.

I think a lot of pros will choose to use this camera regardless of whether it ends up on BBC's approved list or not.

Pat

[Anthony Mozora]

thank u very much Pat for your info

I took my CANON XHA1 to a camera store for sale including WD72 wide lens and as soon this camera finds a buyer, I will buy XF100..

I was worying about the low light abilities of XF100 vs XHA1

[Pat Reddy]

Hi Anthony. You have probably seen this thread, but in case you haven't there is a comparison between the XH-A1s and XF100 in low light:

http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/canon-xf...100-vimeo.html

The XH-A1s may do a little better, which wouldn't be a big surprise given its 3 sensor design. What we don't know yet is how well the XF100 will do with a custom preset setup configured for optimal low light performance. There are only a few presets out there right now, but it shouldn't be too difficult to design your own if you understand the variables and are willing to experiment.

Pat

[Anthony Mozora]

thank u for ur reply Pat and the link, yes the canon xha1 seems to be a bit better in low light .but generally a much better camera and will be a good Investment for me..I am planing to use it as a second camera to my Sony nx5

[Martin Evans]

Hello, I'm new to this forum and had my XF100 for only couple of months. I'm trying to estimate focal length from the on camera guide so I can find DOF using say simple DOF. The camera gives me a number from 0-100 and I found this old thread below but Charles says he gets 0-153 which confuses me. Have Canon changed the focal length guide numbering. Anyone else have a tabulation of the focal length guide to actual lens focal length or a 35mm equiv.

Thanks in advance.

Originally Posted by Charles W. Hull

I checked to see if the Focal Length Guide number is linear. The guide has 154 values (0 to 153); I set it to 0 with the focal length at 30.4mm; it then reads 153 at 304mm.

I compared the field of view to several lenses on a Canon 5DMkII, with the XF100 and the 5DMkII approximately the same diatance from a target (a bookshelf). As the target was fairly close the accuracy of this method for focal length is not good for the longer focal lengths, but I was only looking for the comparitive field of view. Also 35mm lens focal length numbers are not gospel, so the comparisons should be taken as approximate.

The Guide number is NOT linear. Here are the comparative numbers:

30.4mm FL# 0
40mm FL# 21 (Canon 17-40mm set to 40mm)
50mm FL# 31 (Sigma 50mm)
50mm FL# 35 (Canon 24-105mm set to 50mm mark)
70mm FL# 61 (Canon 70-200mm set to 70mm)
105mm FL# 83 (Canon 24-105mm set to 105mm)
200mm FL# 143 (Canon 70-200mm set to 200mm)
304mm FL# 153

As an example, if the FL# was linear, 40mm would be FL# 5 and 50mm would be FL# 11.

I do quite a bit of video around 50mm, so the FL# for 50mm is in the range of 31-35.