So I'm thinking the Canon XF100 is the way to go

Discussion in 'Digital Video' started by fishcough, Feb 28, 2011.

  1. fishcough macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2011
    #1
    I'm after a pro level camera that can easily be overlooked by semi-curious folks as a "consumer" camera. While I haven't actually seen the new canon in person yet, everything I'm reading says it has what I need (small, good codec for broadcast, I like that it is tapeless). But, any other "incognito" cameras I should be looking at first? Budget is around 3 grand.

    Thanks!
     
  2. samwise macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2005
    Location:
    North Salt Lake, Utah
    #2
    Just to confirm, this to you is an "incognito" "consumer" camera?

    [​IMG]
     
  3. Mr-Stabby macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2004
    #3
    I think by far the best prosumer camera which could pass as a consumer camcorder is the JVC HM100

    [​IMG]

    Shoots to SD Card in Quicktime format, so perfect for Macs.

    The top handle with the mic unit on also comes off, so it can look even more like a home camcorder.
     
  4. fishcough thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2011
    #5
    Well, it is a start:
    [​IMG]

    Stabby, yes, I've been looking at the JVC too. It gets pretty low marks for low light.

    Should have said, I'm coming from an XH A1, and we're try to stay around that level of quality. I've read (and seen) that Canon has been able to do a lot with the single 1/3 in the XA100.
     
  5. fishcough thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2011
    #6
  6. puckhead193 macrumors G3

    puckhead193

    Joined:
    May 25, 2004
    Location:
    NY
    #7
    check with your station. I know my station, I used my nx5u and they wanted it an HDV timeline... but then again they use on the side a graphic (ie like ESPN sports center list of news, if that makes sense.
    I wonder if the HDMI you can get 4.2.2. and hook up an external recorder to record 50 mbps. I thing the XF100 is a better camera overall.
    I've seen raw footage of the JVC (I don't know what specs it was shot at) but I wasn't all that impressed. I liked my Sony better :p
    If you could I would see if you can get your hands on it and see how well you like it.
    Keep us posted what you decide!
     
  7. david50100 macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2002
    #8
    Canon XA10

    The XF-100 is terrible in low light. Oddly enough the XA10 is much better camera. I sell these cameras and got a change to A/B both and the new CMOS Pro sensor smokes the CCD in the XF-100.. $2099. The depth of field is the same.
     
  8. dfx, Mar 31, 2011
    Last edited: Mar 31, 2011

    dfx macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2010
    Location:
    London
    #9
    Strangely enough, the XF100/105 and XA10 are essentially the same camera.... They share the lens, CMOS sensor and digital processing. The XA10 records AVCHD to SD cards, while the XF records 50Mbps to CF cards.

    We've got an XF305 and XF105 (just arrived and it really is very small by comparison with the compact camcorders usually used for broadcast work). The infra-red night vision is very useful for wildlife.

    There are also (or soon will be) a few smaller cameras that record AVCHD 50/60fps at 28Mbps - not always easy to edit in non-linear editing packages (such as FCP), but we get amazingly good results from our tiny 3-sensor Panasonic TM700 (there is a newer 900-series model, but it is essentially the same). Sony is using 28Mbps for its new NXCAM model the weatherproof HXR-NX70 (see http://urbanfoxtv.blogspot.com/2011/03/sonys-weather-proof-hxr-nx70.html), which has a removable handle/audio pod just like the XA10 - it won't be available until June (but there is also a consumer model, the CX700, it is based on).

    For more on the XF models have a look at our XF Notebook blog (http://canonxf.blogspot.com/).

    [NOTE: Of course, david50100 may have been comparing the XA10 with the HM100, which does, of course, use three CCDs....]
     
  9. Lateiner macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2011
    #10
    Hi!
    My first post in this forum... exciting :D
    First a bit about me: I'm a guy from germany who loves digital video and editing on FCE.
    Now about the topic: I think the lowlight on the HM100 is really ugly, I had to work with material from this cam and I can confirm: It'll give you high-end pictures when it's in a nice good light - but otherwise (it was a concert) it's really ugly, I had to delete all of the captures and used the backup cam, a Sony CX505, which gave me, well, not brilliant, but good video.
    And the TOD-files coming out of the JVC are a pain in the ***, a few years ago when I had to do the job I had to try out many converters before I got one that gave me superior video quality...
    Look at this here: http://vimeo.com/16963810 - does it look bad? I don't think so... I'm about buying this cam, too...

    So, what do you think?

    Lateiner
     
  10. alph45 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2010
    #11
    just to throw this in the mix, DSLR's don't look like pro video, they look like, well, still camera's. Also have the advantage of great lowlight shooting, particularly with a fast lens. The disadvantages may outweigh though. not that useful for run-and-gun unless it's just b-roll.
     
  11. pigbat macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2005
    #12
    Agreed. This is the next hot camera and it pulled me away from SLR shooting. Not as great as an SLR in very low light situations but more functional and easier to use. My only wish would have been a three ring lens but it's not really that big of a deal breaker.
     
  12. Jbgloss macrumors member

    Jbgloss

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2011
    Location:
    Fort Lauderdale, Florida
    #13
    I am in the same boat

    I am looking for something similar to the XF100. Being new to moving to these types of cameras it really has everything I need but sensor size.

    I have been keeping an eye out for a new camera and Sony has some great ones in the 3-5K range. I am going to make a decision in a few weeks and that seems about the time that the XF100 is going to be released....

    Going to be an interesting next few weeks for me as I am doing massive research on my next camera.
     
  13. pigbat macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2005
    #14

    The xf100 is available in some markets already. A couple local camera shops here have them in stock. Supplies are limited due to the latest events in Japan.
     
  14. TheStrudel macrumors 65816

    TheStrudel

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2008
    #15
    I just ordered an XF 100. Supply was limited before the disasters in Japan, as it's proven popular and supply was low to begin with.

    I don't think the camera does perform badly in low light, from what I've seen - not worse than an XH-A1 does.

    I also still think that AVCHD just isn't good enough for a variety of reasons, though native support will make the situation easier. I don't know where anybody is coming from about the XA10 being better. It's not and Canon wouldn't tell you otherwise. It is cheaper, though.

    That JVC doesn't shoot .TOD files; it shoots files ready for Final Cut - native Quicktime.

    Everything I've read says that the XF 100 is basically the best value in a single chip camera priced at $3,000. A lot of people who are not editors, or not very experienced will not pay a lot of attention to codecs, but they matter - 50 mbps recording at 4:2:2 in this price range has only been seen before with the HVX200 after many price drops. And there you have to deal with some other quirks and disadvantages.

    And while 3 chips are usually better than one, that's no longer a hard rule, as much work has been done with single sensor cameras since the early days.

    RED certainly doesn't see any issues with it, and neither do their users.
     
  15. zblaxberg Guest

    zblaxberg

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2007
    #16
    I shoot with three of these cameras at work and the color is awful! I always have to color grade it because the color is so flat and looks disgusting! This camera shouldn't be considered prosumer. I really wish my company would buy a better camera.
     

Share This Page