Xf200

YW Chan · August 21st, 2014, 11:49 PM

Hi all there!

I'm from Hong Kong and thanks a lot for all these great sharing and discussiins. Very helpful indeed.

I bought the xf200 some days ago, and I have used xf100 for quite a long time.

I like xf200, the ways it is adapted to the gun-and-run shooting. Very fine performance. But, I've just found a big problem with it. I like to use slow zooming a lot, however, the zoom ring in xf200 has been poorly designed that when I zoom it out from the extreme and would like to slowly make it a bit faster, the picture gets a sudden jump. The slow zoom is not smooth at all.

Right now I need to use the button zoom, which is OK but I like my more humane zooming.

I'm curious if other users would have the same problem.

I contacted the Canon customer service in HK, which is very efficient and helpful, they did acknowledge the problem and said they would reflect it to Canon Japan.

I look forward to if they will try out some firmware to rectify the problem.

Cheers,
Wai

Scott Hiddelston · August 22nd, 2014, 11:44 AM

Hi Wai,
I also own the xf100 and I also feel the zoom using the lens ring is fantastic. However I tried an xf300, and it had the exact same problem you are experiencing. The xf300 has a mechanical ring as opposed to the xf100 servo. If your 200 has mechanical, maybe this is a common problem?

Richard D. George · August 22nd, 2014, 12:01 PM

David Johns:

Thanks for your XF200 videos on YouTube. The one addressing low-light situations suggests that the XF200 is much better in low light than the XA20. If they basically have the same lens and the same sensor, to what do you atrribute the improvement? In-camera processing?

On a related note, the Canon "promo" videos for the XF205, also on YouTube, with the oriental costumed performers, also have good low light footage (presumably shot with manual iris and very careful treatment of gain).

YW Chan · August 22nd, 2014, 11:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scott Hiddelston

Hi Wai,
I also own the xf100 and I also feel the zoom using the lens ring is fantastic. However I tried an xf300, and it had the exact same problem you are experiencing. The xf300 has a mechanical ring as opposed to the xf100 servo. If your 200 has mechanical, maybe this is a common problem?

Thanks, Scott.

I think what you are pointing out is right. I thought Canon would only improve from xf100 but not the other way round. The zoom movement in xf100 is much better.

In that case, do you know anything can be dealt with that? do you know whether the mechanical zoom ring in other brands have the same problem? or is it a canon-specific problem in xf200 and xf300?

Wai

David Johns · August 23rd, 2014, 05:10 AM

Hi,

I'm a bit puzzled by this. I don't usually touch the zoom ring at all, preferring either the rocker (for setting up shots) or a remote LANC controller for gentle filmed zooms.

However, I tried using the ring after your comment and had no problem either zooming in or out slowly or fast, and no jump in the speed if I pushed the ring faster or slower - the zoom just sped up as I moved the ring exactly as I'd expect.

Can you post a video demonstrating the issue?

Regards
Dave

David Johns · August 23rd, 2014, 05:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard D. George

David Johns: Thanks for your XF200 videos on YouTube. The one addressing low-light situations suggests that the XF200 is much better in low light than the XA20. If they basically have the same lens and the same sensor, to what do you atrribute the improvement? In-camera processing?

I must confess I'm baffled by it. I was so puzzled that I ran the tests several times in different environments and each time the XF comes up with a brighter image. Settings were identical on each eg 50p / 35Mbps / f1.8 / fully wide / 0dB gain / 1/50th shutter (or whatever).

The only thing I noticed while playing with all the settings is that the black balance of the XF200 seems rather high, so I wondered if everything in the image is just raised a bit giving the appearance of a brighter image - but when you adjust for this in an editor, lowering the overall level on both clips so that the darkest areas hit "0" on the waveform monitor, the XF still has a much brighter image.

I wondered also if I'd managed to cripple the XA20 accidentally somehow but I can't think how (and if anyone can suggest a way to get the same level of low light out of it as the XF, I'll be delighted to have my idiocy revealed!)

So I have no answer; it's beyond my understanding of camera technology! I'm just a simple point-and-shoot news guy.

Regards
Dave

Richard D. George · August 23rd, 2014, 09:24 AM

David:

Thanks you very much, and thanks for your videos on You Tube.

Chuck Westfall, in an interview, did say that the low light capability was very close to that of the XF 300 / 305, despite having one chip rather than three. Must be magic....

Richard D. George · August 24th, 2014, 08:16 PM

My new XF200 was immediately loaned to someone for in upcoming wedding shoot. However, I met with her for other reasons. We tried the zoom from the "long end" back to "wide" and did not see any issues (other than the reinforcement that shooting handheld on the long end is a really bad idea).

On a tripod, I always use a LANC controller and fine tune the zoom to slow and smooth, and the total zoom transition is typically modest.

So..... I guess I would never be in a position to make a hand-held zoom from the very long end of the zoom range, speeding up the zoom speed.

Sorry.

August 21st, 2014, 11:49 PM	#31
YW Chan Tourist Join Date: Aug 2014 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 2	Re: Xf200 Hi all there! I'm from Hong Kong and thanks a lot for all these great sharing and discussiins. Very helpful indeed. I bought the xf200 some days ago, and I have used xf100 for quite a long time. I like xf200, the ways it is adapted to the gun-and-run shooting. Very fine performance. But, I've just found a big problem with it. I like to use slow zooming a lot, however, the zoom ring in xf200 has been poorly designed that when I zoom it out from the extreme and would like to slowly make it a bit faster, the picture gets a sudden jump. The slow zoom is not smooth at all. Right now I need to use the button zoom, which is OK but I like my more humane zooming. I'm curious if other users would have the same problem. I contacted the Canon customer service in HK, which is very efficient and helpful, they did acknowledge the problem and said they would reflect it to Canon Japan. I look forward to if they will try out some firmware to rectify the problem. Cheers, Wai

August 22nd, 2014, 11:44 AM	#32
Scott Hiddelston Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: Oak Harbor WA Posts: 66	Re: Xf200 Hi Wai, I also own the xf100 and I also feel the zoom using the lens ring is fantastic. However I tried an xf300, and it had the exact same problem you are experiencing. The xf300 has a mechanical ring as opposed to the xf100 servo. If your 200 has mechanical, maybe this is a common problem?

August 22nd, 2014, 12:01 PM	#33
Richard D. George Major Player Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Denver, CO Posts: 351	Re: Xf200 David Johns: Thanks for your XF200 videos on YouTube. The one addressing low-light situations suggests that the XF200 is much better in low light than the XA20. If they basically have the same lens and the same sensor, to what do you atrribute the improvement? In-camera processing? On a related note, the Canon "promo" videos for the XF205, also on YouTube, with the oriental costumed performers, also have good low light footage (presumably shot with manual iris and very careful treatment of gain).

August 23rd, 2014, 05:10 AM	#35
David Johns Regular Crew Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Maidstone, Kent, UK Posts: 190	Re: Xf200 Hi, I'm a bit puzzled by this. I don't usually touch the zoom ring at all, preferring either the rocker (for setting up shots) or a remote LANC controller for gentle filmed zooms. However, I tried using the ring after your comment and had no problem either zooming in or out slowly or fast, and no jump in the speed if I pushed the ring faster or slower - the zoom just sped up as I moved the ring exactly as I'd expect. Can you post a video demonstrating the issue? Regards Dave __________________ www.tubeshooter.co.uk www.youtube.com/ukairscape and www.youtube.com/tubeshootermag

August 23rd, 2014, 09:24 AM	#37
Richard D. George Major Player Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Denver, CO Posts: 351	Re: Xf200 David: Thanks you very much, and thanks for your videos on You Tube. Chuck Westfall, in an interview, did say that the low light capability was very close to that of the XF 300 / 305, despite having one chip rather than three. Must be magic.... Last edited by Richard D. George; August 23rd, 2014 at 09:28 AM. Reason: Additions

August 24th, 2014, 08:16 PM	#38
Richard D. George Major Player Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Denver, CO Posts: 351	Re: Xf200 My new XF200 was immediately loaned to someone for in upcoming wedding shoot. However, I met with her for other reasons. We tried the zoom from the "long end" back to "wide" and did not see any issues (other than the reinforcement that shooting handheld on the long end is a really bad idea). On a tripod, I always use a LANC controller and fine tune the zoom to slow and smooth, and the total zoom transition is typically modest. So..... I guess I would never be in a position to make a hand-held zoom from the very long end of the zoom range, speeding up the zoom speed. Sorry.