XF 300 Model life

[Ron Cooper]

This may be a bit premature but I am interested in getting one of these (or similar), in a few months time & notice that it has been out for about 3 yrs. Hence it begs the question, how long is it likely to be before Canon replaces it ?

I am at present using a Sony NEX-VG20 which is AVCHD and recently became aware of the XF-300 and assume that the MX format would be much better, particularly in low light even though it has a smaller sensor. Also I like the smaller size. I edit with Vegas Pro 11 and assume it will handle MX files.

Maybe I am wrong here, but after my older Canon HF-S10, I find the Sony menus etc a pain in operation, but it does have a nice viewfinder. - Any comments.

RonC.

[Craig Chartier]

I would wait and get the 200 series when it comes out in June.

[Ron Cooper]

Great, Graig. Thanks for the prompt reply. Is there any info on it yet ?

RonC.

[Mark Koha]

It's basically the love child of the 100 and 300. There's a whole press release on this forum.

[Craig Chartier]

The 200/205 is more so the mixing of what advances are put into the XF25/20 model, however, with the pro level of MXF video recording (422) in the older lines. Better lower light. wifi modes, better glass,, etc.

[Erick Perdomo]

does anyone here have a XF200/205 to verify that it really has better low light response and better glass?
I own a XF300 and XF100 and sometimes under low light (but never complete darkness!) the pic is poor...let's be honest here..under optimal lighting, they are both great- as long as the gain is not over +6db..and yes I have adjusted all the video parameters as per many of the settings suggested in many forums- i even tried one that tries to match the pic profiles of the XF300 with the XF100 and I sure increased the noise reduction values a bit..but under low light...they are not very good..of course I bring my Aputure LED light and I use it everytime I have to...or just bring my Canon 70D with the Sigma Lens f1.8 ...
So, we cannot really say that the XF200/205 is better in low light until someone gets one and compares it under the same conditions to the XF300/XF200...I for sure will not "upgrade" my XF100..it serves me well..under good/decent lighting conditions...
(and it's better than the XHa1s it replaced).

Erick

[Bill Petropoulos]

The XF200/205 has been said to share the same lens and sensor as the XA20/25 cams.
Highly doubtful that there will be an image improvement over the XF300/305's.

I had a go with the XF200 at NAB. Great ergonomics. Really like the rotating handle.
Great viewfinder. It does many things right, but I think the lens and sensor should be better.
But I'm still considering it as a purchase...

[Al Bergstein]

I tend to agree with Erick. I have owned a xf105 and 305, and sold the 105 as it was no where near as good a camera as the 305. The ND operation along with the Iris was horrible compared to the 305. The reach of the 300/305 telephoto is much better. Optics are better. On the good side, it was wonderful with IR. But the low light performance of both of these cameras are not anywhere near a C100 or the like. I often used it as a second camera to my 305 for stage shows. Establish the wide shot with the xf105, and do the zoom in's with the 305.

Ron, I would be surprised if it was replaced before next NAB, which mean middle of next year. It's widely used around the world, and is one of the best run and gun cameras out there. when you need a camcorder, this one really does a great job. When the light is right the mxf 4:2:2 is really wonderful, and many AVCHD shooters buy a Ninja to get that level of quality. I actually bought a ninja to bring my C100 up to the 4:2:2 quality. The 305 doesn't have the DOF of the C100. But that's not why you use a camcorder. When you need to get a wide and deep DOF the xf300 is great.

The viewfinder of the XF300 is superb. I love it.

But you didn't say why you needed a camcorder. If that's the form factor you need, the 305 is superb. If not, check out the C100. But for run and gun doc style stuff, I really like having a zoom I can just punch in during a fast shoot.

[Craig Chartier]

The 300 hit the streets in June of 2010. So if you say that it takes Canon two years to design a camera that would be state of the art 6 years ago. This was the first wave Canon came up with to replace tape based camcorders. I am not saying that its not a great camera. I still have working XL-2s 5DII's and that "Old" C300 making great 1080 pictures. I've put a Ninja on the XA25 and it looks better than the 105 for sure.

At 3 years in I wouldn't buy another C300 at full price, so at 5 years+ I wouldn't buy a 300 at full price either.

[Al Bergstein]

Craig, not sure I get your drift. Your post mentions a C300. This is about the xf300. The xf300 is much cheaper than when it came out (I know I paid list price then!). At it's current price of $5k I still think it is a very good product for what it was designed for. (and you can buy them used for much less). A run and gun camcorder, or can be used in a studio like setting to get superb high quality 4:2:2 footage. The lens is fabulous and parfocal. It's not a DSLR but not made to be. When I use it, I love using it. But often I now shift over to my C100 because it's got great latitude, low light handling. I still use the XF300 for B cam. Should this be sold at $3500? you bet. Will it be? Eventually.

It may be what Ron, the OP, is looking for. To his original question, whether Canon replaces it next year or the year after is possible. But if he needs this tool now, he should get it. I just don't know what he needs it for.

[Don Palomaki]

About 3 years has been the typical market life for Canon's pro camcorders before a new model or upgrade (e.g., "s" level) comes out. The GL2 was a notable exception, as was the L2 in the analog days. The announcement of the XF200/205 could be used to argue that a 400/405 is not far behind, or at least a 300s/305s. But only time (or a Canon insider) will tell. (Product announcements are not always timed for NAB.)

Buy when you realy need it, allowing for learning curve, and not much before, is usually a good policy when money matters.

[Craig Chartier]

My thought at the time of my last reply, and it seems I didn't get my point across all the way. is that regardless of what 300 you want I personally would not buy either brand new at this time. THere are way too many good used C300s and XF300's out there that can be had much cheaper then spending full pop on older tech. If your wanting the lasted controls. switches , software, swivel do hickies, and wifi control, you do not buy the 300. If you have a need to earn money with it right now buy used. save some cash.

Originally Posted by Craig Chartier

I would wait and get the 200 series when it comes out in June.

I was talking to someone at Canon a couple weeks ago and he implied that we should expect a replacement for the XF-300/305 sometime this year. I was pressing him for info, and that's all he would give me.

[Tim Polster]

I would not be surprised to see an XF400 this fall. But also not surprised if we did not.

If you want an idea of the XF400 just look at the PX270 or the upcoming Sony. The cameras from the big three are going to be very close in features as these will be their last major 1080p 1/3" cameras. All the cameras will be/are what 1/3" users have always wanted.

Next step is 4k and I don't think 1/3" is the darling chipset size for this resolution.

[Kyle Root]

If you watch Ebay closely you can get very nice deals on the XF300's. My main shooting buddy in Nashville got 2 of them for right $3,000 each (One was $2,800 and the other $3,200 give or take).

Both in great condition.

I have the XA20 and it's pretty nice too. Early on I debated getting an XF300, but decided against it because I was moving towards something that would allow shallow DOF shots, and didn't need another 1/3" camera etc. since I'm already shooting with the Sony NX5 and XA20 combo.

The XF200 looks like a nice compromise between the XF100/XA20 lines and the XF300. Had the XF200 been out when I got the XA20, I likely would have gotten the XF200 instead. The main driving factor for picking up the XA20 was the 20x optical zoom, which I placed high importance on as an event shooter, often having to shoot from the back very far away in a lot of situations. No other easy cheap way to get ~600mm of zoom.

Anyways, I had a Canon GL1 for over 10 years and loved that camera! Had the XL1S for about 8 years at the same time. If you get one, and take care of them, they will last a long time! I'd imagine if you got an XF300 it would be good for at least the next 5 years. By that time, the move to 4K will be further along and who knows what will be on the video forefront by that time.