Re: Canon XF200/205
 

Wow. Canon has been reading the criticisms of the PMW-200 on DVInfo! That periscoping mic holder is easily removed/assembled (albeit with a screw driver) for packing and travel. And a shoe/LCD design that doesn't interfere with each other. Plus 3 rings as noted. Several well done ergonomic improvements for a camera in this class shows they listen.

There's a switch labeled Iris (ND) right where you'd expect an ND switch to be.

Re: Canon XF200/205
 

Isn't the ND electronic?

Re: Canon XF200/205
 

Even more funny that the rotating grip was on the JVC HD1 / HD10 camera. Probably the only cool thing about that camera, so I can see why people forgot about it.

Re: Canon XF200/205
 

Actually this is the same approach they did with the XF100/105 - those have the same processor as the G10/XA10 but with more features and a better codec. The 10x series already has dual CF slots, so the .mp4 recording to SD is all that's new in that area. I'm not sure if the XA10 and XF100 shared the same lens though.

I'm just glad I'm not in the market right now - with $2K 4K cameras and the C100 only $1500 more than this (if you already have Canon glass, which I do), I don't know what I would buy today.

Re: Canon XF200/205
 

You really need more. That gives less than 20% extra, and 25-30% is normally taken as the minimum - the Alexa has 50% more. It appears more likely the extra are being used for image stabilisation, the image being formed from 1920x1080.

And a reason for a single 1920x1080 sensor is that it's relatively easy to process. It has to be deBayered, but the result comes straight as a 1920x1080 raster. Oversample, and you have an image which then needs to be downscaled which is not easy to do well. If you're going to take that approach, it's only really worth it with a greater degree of oversampling, and tends only to be found on higher priced cameras.

Either way, that's only part of it. Single chip will always lose you over a stop of basic sensitivity compared to three chips of the same size. I'm not saying this will be bad, but am saying it can't be as good as an equivalent camera with 3 comparable chips. Roll on the XF400!

Re: Canon XF200/205
 

We had a XF100 and then we got an C100 and the difference in resolution was astonishing, like between SD and HD.

Re: Canon XF200/205
 

I'd like to know if it has picture profile adjustments like saturation, sharpening and contrast like my HF200's. It could then be a good match as an A camera.

Re: Canon XF200/205
 

An ENG camera and a cinema camera are two very different things, for two very different situations.

Re: Canon XF200/205
 

I don't find that a useful distinction. In real life, both cameras are capable of being used for some of the same things.

Regardless, the issue being discussed is the image quality and light sensitivity of a single small chip of the XF100 and XF200 versus 3-chippers and single large sensors. The C100 is a good example for explaining it.

Re: Canon XF200/205
 

The XF series has complete control over picture profiles, do not worry about that. Resolution and sensitivty are the issues. Think of the XF200/205 as an XA20/25 with all the bells and whistles you could want, however, the chip is still the same. The IQ will be better since parameters are optimized, adjustable and color depth is greater; but the underlying resolution and sensitivty cannot be similarly optimized.

It looks like the Xf200/205 lies inbetween the XF100/105 and the XF300/305. They added many of the XF300/305 features while staying with the single small chip design of the XF100/105. Within its resolution/sensitivity limitations it should give an amazing image, and work well in fast paced environments.

If the resolution and sensitivity are all you need then the XF is an great camera. Really very nice to shoot with.

You should also look at the Sony PMW series of similar cameras. If you like the "Sony look", and I do not, they are worthy competitors for the same situations. Except for resolution and sensitivity, I preferred our XF100 images (with Cowpunk52’s profile adjustments) to our FS100. Not everyone will.

Edit: I used the Xf100 for interviews, particularly of older people, where I needed to diffuse facial details. The color gradients were very flattering.

Re: Canon XF200/205
 

Does keeping the XF200/205 with a single small chip add weight to the possibility of an XF400/05 in the future I wonder. If they had wanted to consolidate the XF line they could have added 3 chip to the XF200 and left it at that.

I wonder if an XF400/05 with an interchangeable lens is something they might be looking at to rival the PMW 300. Maybe even 1/2 in chips. I'd be seriously interested if they did.

Re: Canon XF200/205
 

The shallow DOF in large sensor cameras would be a problem for run & gun ENG work. Likewise would the lack of a long servo zoom for most cinema cameras.

Re: Canon XF200/205
 

Not necessarily. Large sensor cameras only have shallower depth of field than smaller sensors ones if you compare at the same f stop.

So take a 2/3" sensor and s35 as an example, and if the 2/3" is at f2, you'll get identical depth of field on s35 at somewhere around f5.6.

Next thought may be "what about light levels!?" - but generally large sensor makes for a more intrinsically sensitive camera, so likely similar performances in that respect also between 2/3"/f2 and s35/f5.6. That's the theory anyway!

It's generally wrong to say "large sensor gives shallow depth of field" - much better to say "large sensor gives the POSSIBILITY of shallow depth of field." It's all down to the f stop.

Re: Canon XF200/205
 

According to Cnet:
"Like the XA models they're built around the slightly-larger-than-1/3-inch (1/2.84-inch) sensor, though they're effectively 1/3-inch: Canon uses the extra pixels on the sensor for electronic image stabilization, though their new 20X 26.8-576mm f1.8-2.8 lens also has optical stabilization."

with my calculations...
Knowing that total pixel count is 2910000, the difference between the actual and effective image area is 5.34% which translates into 155394 pixels.
If we subtract them from the total, that leave us with 2754606 pixels which are 681006 more than the nominal HD resolution of 2073600 pixels (1920X1080) or 32,84%.
In theory and according to your 25% rule is adequate for a true 1080 debayered image.

David, since you are far more knowledgeable than I am, correct me if I am wrong.

Re: Canon XF200/205
 

But, getting back to the posts that started this tangent...

Many of us shoot in a variety of settings that often fall somewhere between ENG and Cinematic. For my amateur mix of interviews and promos for local non-profit arts and school groups, my XF100 has been great, except that I wish it had more DOF flexibility. I also have a 60D but have just never made my peace with shooting video on it except in rare, specialized situations.

However, a C100 would also work for everything I do, especially now that it has the autofocus option. So, yes, if I were replacing my camera today, the XF200 AND the C100 would both be on my list for consideration (since I already have Canon glass). They may seem like highly different products, but either would fit my needs.