Got a press release from Canon USA this morning announcing what seem to be the replacements for the XH-G1 cameras. Two new camcorders, named the XF305 and XF300, will be shown at the NAB convention.
Canon camcorders use the DIGIC DV image processor, while still cameras use the DIGIC image processor. They are completely different from each other and meant for separate applications; one is for still images, the other is for digital video.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 04/07 at 12:50 PM
Wow! Hyperbole much! This sounds like a breathless press release from some marketeer.
To me, those cameras sound like no big deal.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 04/07 at 03:17 PM
Snooze…
More impossible to handhold, overpriced camcorders that almost certainly record long-gop that we don’t need and won’t use.
In my opinion, there still is no 1/3” or 1/2” camcorder to top the HVX-200, let alone the HPX-170. Only Panasonic seems to understand that long-gop at 50mbps still has problems with trees, water, grass, pans… If that’s 50mbps I-frame only, I might be slightly interested.
And yeah, 1/3” vs. full frame will make a huge difference visually. Apples and oranges, anyone?
Posted by Charles Angus on 04/08 at 01:59 PM
wow - you guys are pretty shortsighted, there, hevets & Charles Angus. For people that use their camcorders to make a living, these are two very large contenders in the video market. Canon has finally introduced something that competes with and may very well surpass Sony’s EX1, and you think it doesn’t matter?
You may be happy with the HVX200, Charles, but I haven’t had a producer for probably the last year request anything but an EX1 or EX3 for HD productions. And if a sub-$7k (for the xf300 at least) camera can deliver Sony resolution with Panny color space, it would be a big winner in a lot of producer’s eyes.
There’s heavy demand for this type of camera at this price point, and I’ve no doubt that the XF300 & XF305 will deliver some serious goods.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 04/08 at 10:52 PM
My problem is that it’s basically a clone of existing cameras. We have the EX1 (which I don’t like, but I acknowledge it’s popularity) and the HPX-170 (which I can tolerate, if only just). Both have awful ergonomics and user interface design.
I’m sure this will be a popular camera, as all these little cameras are.
But it will also be a camera that is awful to handhold, have poorly laid out controls, and generally be a pain to use day in and day out. These are things that matter almost as much as colour fidelity, good compression, and resolution, and COST NOTHING TO IMPLEMENT. And yet, nobody will do it. (And I don’t buy that better to handhold stuff for a moment. There’s a quick check on the good to handhold front: does it sit on your should or on your arms?)
I don’t think it’s being shortsighted to ask camera manufacturers to remedy known defects in their products - I think it’s shortsighted for camera manufacturers to try and cram more of the same old crap down our throats.
That’s why this is a snooze.
PS. Sorry for ranting and getting excited (in a negative way) - it’s just a camera, after all. Try and take this all with a grain of salt, because, really, I just want to get this out so I can move on and forget about this camera. And hey, maybe someone from Canon will read this, and it will give them food for thought.
Posted by Charles Angus on 04/08 at 11:23 PM
HVX200? Really? Having used both cameras a bit, I must say that the image quality of the EX1 (latitude, sensitivity, noise structure, resolving power, etc) feels to me to be way ahead of the HVX, but I chalk that up to being the result of the multiple generations of scaling that take place when dealing with HVX footage (960 to 1920 to 1280 for 1080p or 960 to 1280 to 960 for 720p in terms of horizontal scaling). I know temporal compression opens up moving images to more artifacts, but it also increases the efficiency of the encoding per frame for a constant bitrate. I have seen not seen any practical situations where XDCAM breaks more easily than DVCPROHD. I know there must be some that exist, like closeups of turbulent water or or closeups of analog TV snow. Then again XDCAM is a based on more recent code, so it may in the worse case still be better than DVCPRO. Or it may not. Either way EX1 is clearly a more popular camera these days and I hear very few complaints about the images compared to competing cameras. As for ergonomics, EX1 is definitely bigger and heavier than an HVX but I find it pretty comfortable braced against my shoulder with the high cap battery or on a shoulder rig, and the manual lens and the aperture ring and the LCD sure are superior those on the HVX. The menu of the hvx is simpler, but then it has about 1/4 as many options to organize.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 04/09 at 11:22 AM
I don’t disagree with any of your points RE: the EX1. While all the tests I’ve seen indicate that I should like the images from the EX more, I find I still prefer the HVX. Softer? Yup. But there is just something pleasing about the image to me. I realize I’m in the minority on that one, and am willing to concede.
With regards to temporal compression, the problem I have is not artifacting within the frame, but artifacting between frames. Any particular frame of XDCAM will be fine, but it’s when you play back a motion sequence that the issues become apparent. The image can become more and less soft as the content in the frame changes (eg. you pan). I just don’t feel comfortable trusting a camera that will do that.
For handholding, the HVX is just as bad as any of these other little camcorders. Perhaps the HVX was a bad comparison to draw - the point I was trying to make by doing so was that we had cameras at a similar price/performance/ergonomics point years ago, and still do.
The HPX-3xx cameras would be a better point of comparison. Panasonic has proved that it’s possible to make a camera in the $$$$ range that has a proper ENG-style shoulder mount form factor and great recording options. I can imagine an HPX-3xx-like camera with a built-in lens instead of a removable lens but with the same form factor and recording options being produced and sold for a bit less than an HPX-300, which would put it in direct competition with cameras like these.
What we need to be seeing is innovation and advancement. These new Canon cameras bring neither to the table. Just same old, same old.
Posted by Charles Angus on 04/09 at 11:55 AM
I agree, camcorders are pretty stagnant these days. These new 1/3” cameras will likely just end up being OK, basically an EX1 with smaller chips but a bit more recorded color resolution in an XHA1 body. I, and I imagine quite a few others, would have a very tough time buying a 1/3” format camera these days at that kind of price with 35mm video DSLRs and 1/2” cameras having been available for less money and with RED’s new, cheaper cameras (relatively) close on the horizon.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 04/09 at 12:11 PM
Just remember, guys, not everybody WANTS shoulder-mount ENG cameras. There’s obviously a market for smaller, handheld camcorders that can deliver a great image - otherwise manufacturers wouldn’t be making them and productions wouldn’t be buying them. Street price on the Canon’s will likely come in under EX1R prices, and Panasonic has already shown that it’s 1/3” C-MOS chips can easily compete with Sony’s 1/2” - so I expect these to do the same. The whole 35mm DSLR argument doesn’t even hold water here, that’s an entirely new and different class of video camera that only addresses a niche customer and puts out sub-par video. Unless you need super-shallow depth of field at the cheapest price, there really is no reason to use a DSLR in a professional environment.
1/3” cameras have become a broadcast standard with almost all major networks now, so don’t expect them to go away anytime soon. They’re compact, portable, prolific, low-power consuming & generate high-quality HD images.
And, really, RED? You think anybody professional is actually holding their breathe for RED? The RED’s new cameras aren’t even close to existing yet, so they can’t be considered or even taken seriously.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 04/09 at 02:19 PM
I own an Ex1, and Canon 5D, and I rent Red cameras when the job calls for it.
Even if I owned none of the above, I don’t think these cameras would enter into my purchasing shortlist.
My biggest problem with these cameras is the price-point and the fact they don’t offer anything dramatically new. They just seem to be very tame cameras despite the sensational headline.
The problem that Canon is facing is that they seem to have accidentally let the genie out of the bottle with the 5D, and there is no going back, despite the hopes of their video department for continually feature creep.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 04/09 at 02:35 PM
50/mbps 4:2:2 on compact flash cards, 18x zoom lens in front of full raster 1920x1080 chips isn’t new? Wow, where have I been!
Sorry, hevets, there isn’t a single camera on the market that can do what these cameras can at the price point. If you’re not at least interested in what these cameras offer over the current competition, you’re probably don’t work in the professional video market.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 04/09 at 02:54 PM
Dude, that’s just insulting. I’d put my reel up against your anytime.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 04/09 at 03:00 PM
Canon knows what people have been crying out for, they get emails and petitions all the time. What they really needed to do was this this camera body, and rehouse a 5d sensor. Use the new codec, use the new hardware, give us the framerates, give us the 4:2:2 full raster 1080p on CF cards, give use the low light, give us the interchangeable lenses (and a fixed lens model). They could price it at a 10k price point and it would still kill any camera in this form factor.
Posted by Thomas Wong on 04/09 at 03:04 PM
The HPX-370 is at a similar price point. I think you could put together a package similar to what you would get in the box with one of these Canon’s for about $10,000. And that camera trumps this one on every single feature.
And while I would also like to see more S35 digital video cameras on the market, there is definitely still room for 1/3” and 2/3” cameras for work where shallow DOF is a pain, or ENG form factors are just right, or you just want to save weight.
Posted by Charles Angus on 04/09 at 03:13 PM
“Only Panasonic seems to understand that long-gop at 50mbps still has problems with trees, water, grass, pans… If that’s 50mbps I-frame only, I might be slightly interested.”—interframe is always more effective than intraframe given same bitrate. EBU/BBC stated that a proper broadcast/archival codec should deliver either 100 Mbit/s intra or 50 Mbit/s interframe. Read it again: 50 Mbit/s interframe is as good as 100 Mbit/s intra. 50 Mbit/s intra will suck.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 04/09 at 03:13 PM
ha ha ha ha ha! Don’t get sore, hevets - This isn’t the wild west, we’re not here to have a showdown! But cheers to your chutzpah, I’m certain you have an excellent reel.
But are you a videographer, a producer or a cinematographer? Depending on which, you’ll clearly be looking for very different and specific options when it comes to what camera you choose to use in your production. If you’re an independent DoP that primarily makes independent narrative material, I can see why you wouldn’t necessarily be interested in the XF series of cameras - because Canon isn’t making a camera for you.
However, if you’re like me, and you run a production house that shoots everything from broadcast television & documentary to corporate training to narrative to events, then having a well-rounded camera that can stand up to the broadest situations you throw at it (and enough of them to get the coverage needed) is really important, and so is being able to shoot, edit & deliver with a broadcast standard codec every step of the way.
Until these are release, there is no way I can get a native 4:2:2 codec with full raster 1920x1080 for under $8,000. And I would really like to, and the networks & clients I work for would really like me to, because at that price point I can buy several and get a significant upgrade to the image quality for many of the productions.
And let’s face it, I’m Canon’s primary target customer - a VIDEO professional. Video is what I do. Chances are, if you’re not interested in what the camera offers, you probably aren’t Canon’s target customer. Because in the video world, we’ve always paid a huge premium for codec quality & proprietary solid-state storage, so having these options at this price point is unprecedented. You do realize that, right? And you do realize how that might be important for people who want to be able to deliver the highest quality for best price, right?
Just because something isn’t a perfect fit for your niche doesn’t mean it isn’t right for another market. And these cameras (on paper, at least) fill a void in a very large market. There’s a lot more to digital video than indie films. Anyway, that’s it for me for this discussion.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 04/09 at 03:23 PM
Sorry - one last thing. I just want to respond to you, Charles, about the HPX370 (which is also an excellent camera). However, it’s list price is $11,700.00 (with the additional need to purchase P2 media) while the XF300 lists at $6799.00. Really, there in different price classes and I think a feature comparison is not really fair.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 04/09 at 03:31 PM
I didn’t realize the HPX-370 was 11,700. I had seen the 300 on Abel’s website for about 8,500 (although that listing has since been removed) when I made my post, and assumed the 370 would be about the same. Keep in mind that manufacturer’s MSRP is just that - suggested.
My beef is that this Canon camera could be made at the same price point, with the same lens, and also record to CF - BUT be in an ENG-light form factor and record in a good I-frame-only codec (perhaps ProRes or DNxHD) for about the same price. Keep in mind that the 370 is more similar in features to the 350 (which is at about $8k).
For my money, I-frame beats long-gop every time for one simple reason. I-frame is predicable - it will compress every situation with exactly the same quality. Long-gop will do better sometimes, and worse sometimes. In my opinion, predictable=good.
I, personally, fail to see how needing a camera for MORE uses makes your requirements less stringent. Wouldn’t you also like to see a camera at this price point, but slight more ergonomic in ways that needn’t increase the price significantly?
We are coming now into the age of quality video cameras, and it is up to us, the consumers, to stop accepting compromised and mediocre products.
Demand the best!
Posted by Charles Angus on 04/09 at 08:41 PM
Folks - don’t forget that with the HD-SDI output off these cameras, you can add a $2500 Convergent-Design NanoFlash compact flash card recorder and extend the LongGOP data rates up to 180mbps or go to I-Frame and data rates up in the 280mbps range.
So then your only negatives are the 1/3rd chip DOF and 10 bit vs 8bit for those that feel that important. And then the quality of the lens which was not discussed.
Have to admit that as a recent new owner of a 7D with some nice new fast glass lens choices, the early footage is pretty amazing. But at this point still like working with the XLH1 and our XHG1 ... but looking at rigging up the 7D to make it work more like a video cam ... follow-focus and audio solutions.
Posted by lightprism on 04/10 at 09:46 AM
And the big negative of a lousy form-factor made worse by bolted-on recorders…
Posted by Charles Angus on 04/10 at 10:26 AM
Also, if you add on a NanoFlash, this camera jumps into the same price range as the HPX-370 (not to keep harping on that, but…) - a camera that is strictly better, except for price.
Posted by Charles Angus on 04/10 at 11:05 AM
Ok, guess I lied! I’m back in! ha ha ha
Anyway, Charles, you bring up some good points and I wanted to address them:
I can’t really comment on the ergonomics of this camera as I’ve never held one. However, for my purposes, I need/prefer a handheld camera rather than a traditional ENG shoulder-mount style. I shoot a lot of travel docs, so often I’m sending 3 operators on a plane each with a camera & accessories as carry-on baggage. More portable is better for my company. I would much prefer shoulder-mount quality in a handheld camera than a larger camera for a smaller price. All that being said, the Sony EX series are the only handheld cameras that I really have problems with ergonomically (and any psuedo-shoulder mount like the XLH1).
About compression: I really don’t care too much about the differences of I-frame compression vs long GOP. Honestly, I think when you get up to 50mbps there really isn’t enough difference in compression quality to be noticed. As Burn-E noted above, EBU/BBC stated that a proper broadcast/archival codec should deliver either 100 Mbit/s intra or 50 Mbit/s interframe (which the XF300 does). I’ll take either codec on any given day.
One really big thing pro for me is the CF cards that the camera records to. Not only is there a $5k difference in MSRP between the HPX370 & XF300, but for the latter I don’t have to purchase expensive P2 media. That adds a significant cost saving favor to the Canons. Plus, I can get more CF cards nearly anywhere if I get into a pinch.
I’ll readily admit that the 370 has features missing in Canon’s XF series, but those features aren’t worth the extra money for me, given what the Canons do give me already. Going by MSRP, I can get 2 XF300’s for about the price of 1 HPX370 after it’s kitted with enough storage media to make it really useful - and I’ll get a comparable codec & image quality in a tighter form factor. Yes, the 370 street price may be lower, but the same is true the XF300 as well.
I don’t view these cameras as being mediocre offerings. They really are significant feature upgrades that have not been offered before in this price range - you can’t argue with that fact. They may not give you everything you want (what camera does?) and they aren’t for everyone, but it’s willfully ignorant to say that they are for no one (not saying that’s what you said, but it’s the impression I’ve gotten from a few posts here).
These cameras address a lot of issues that many people have had with this class of camera. It’s an exciting offering, and I’m sure it will spur more competition from other manufacturers. Which is good for all of us.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 04/10 at 08:41 PM
Really its a good news. I am very interested for this post. This side will be help all of us. Thanks.
pitbull
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 08/16 at 05:17 AM
