Canon unveils the XHG1 and XHA1

Bob Zimmerman · July 26th, 2006, 08:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Hurd

Oh yeah, I hate to take any air out of Bob's tires, but these babies will definitely sell for full retail.

how often does that happen with any camera?

Chris Hurd · July 26th, 2006, 08:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt Vanecek

Does anyone know if Canon has upgraded the tape transport in the current/forthcoming crop? I'm still smarting over the high-dollar, poor customer service, of getting the transport replaced on my GL2... Should I continue to budget $250-$500/year for transport replacement?

Rest assured that since it's an HDV camcorder, then it ain't at all the same tape transport as the GL2. Most likely it's the same one from the XL H1, and I haven't heard of any problems with that one.

Chris Hurd · July 26th, 2006, 09:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob Zimmerman

(full retail) how often does that happen with any camera?

About every time, Bob? The XL H1 is still selling for full MSRP, at $8995... the XL2 sold at full MSRP for several months... just about everything does in this business. Of course I'm talking about legitimate dealers! Not the gray-market fly by night box houses.

Bob Zimmerman · July 26th, 2006, 09:08 PM

I also thought their was a street price,,,,I guess I'm more used to Nikon than Canon.

Bob Zimmerman · July 26th, 2006, 09:09 PM

So has anyone ever went to film usining 24f?

Heath McKnight · July 26th, 2006, 09:23 PM

No need to translate the Japanese pages when we have info here!

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=72315

and

http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/co...&modelid=14057

and

http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/co...&modelid=14061

hwm

Wayne Morellini · July 26th, 2006, 09:39 PM

I should have posted this yesterday.

I waited a long.. time to see what Canons offering would be before buying a HD camera. I think these cameras are double the price of what they should be, and years overdue, and yes, I think all the prosumer cameras, except some of the cheaper Sony, are too much as well.

--------------------------------

I remember when I first saw the exceptional looking XL1 and GL1, beautiful but so costly. Even today these old cameras are a "beautiful selling point, with the exception of the JVC HD100 series, they stand out from the crowd. heres to the old Canons, they might have got behind the ball over the years before HD, but that didn't really matter as the were ahead of the ball in the first place.

The story went, at that NAB2004 site for one example, that a number of 720p cameras from other manufacturers were planned after the HD10. Then Sony stepped in and they converted their plans to 1080p and the cameras were delayed. I much rather would have had 720p sooner with 50/60p options then have had to wait years for these versions. If Canon were to release a full version 720p50/60 version of these cameras at half the price today (and 36Mb/s+ (or 25mbps H264) even 10bit) I would be very tempted.

I think the industry has missed a very good chance in HDV to stratify their product lines, with 720p at the bottom, and 1080 and 1440 I & P at the top. Now is the time of the rise of H264 (why didn't they use th older Mpeg4 for HDV).

Good luck to you Canon.

Bob Zimmerman · July 26th, 2006, 10:31 PM

i won't be paying $7,000.

Tony Tibbetts · July 26th, 2006, 11:44 PM

I will pay $4000 for the XH-A1. I even plan on reserving one the first chance I can.

Kevin Shaw · July 27th, 2006, 04:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wayne Morellini

I think these cameras are double the price of what they should be, and years overdue, and yes, I think all the prosumer cameras, except some of the cheaper Sony, are too much as well.

Agreed that the Canons are at least a year late to market, but the pricing is plausible compared to the competition (especially the base model). $3999 for a camera which will record over 700 TV lines of discernible resolution on inexpensive tapes with a 20X zoom lens and XLR inputs? How is that not a fair deal compared to what we've been paying for 'prosumer' cameras up until now? Sure, it'll be better when the street price is closer to $3000 like the FX1 is now, but that's not bad for the MSRP.

Quote:

why didn't they use th older Mpeg4 for HDV.

How about because real-time MPEG4 encoders weren't ready, and it will be years before it's realistic to edit MPEG4 footage directly in real time? A better question would be why all HDV cameras don't offer an option for a 35 Mbps bit rate, which appears to make a noticeable difference compared to 25 Mbps?

Dave Ferdinand · July 27th, 2006, 05:27 AM

I think the tape transport issues on the GL2 are probably critical on the decision of Canon not coming up with a 'GL3' and also the fact they are going 'Sony style' and make 2 very similar cameras with different price ranges.

Regarding the price, it seems very good taking into account the competition. Why would Canon be selling the HA1 for $3k if the FX1 has been around for quite a while? People would just think Canon didn't have any faith in these cameras, or was desperate to take Sony head-on for some reason.

Thomas Smet · July 27th, 2006, 07:20 AM

I don't think these prices are bad at all. These are prosumer cameras meant to make money with and not just cheap consumer models. These new cameras could very well have the same image quality of the H1 which has been known to hold it's own with the SONY 350 as well as the F900.

Remember the FX1 is a consumer camera. The Z1 which is the pro version does actually cost more than XH-A1. If you want to spend $3,000.00 and feel you can get by with a FX1 then maybe you should go buy one of those. I for one want the amazing chips and features that Canon has. When compared to the Z1 isn't this camera much more of a value? True 24F recording, high quality detailed chips, image control, the option of having SDI. For many there is no question that the Canon is the way to go just for the 24F alone.

To this date the XH-A1 is the cheapest prosumer HDV camera with the Z1 and the JVC HD-100 next in line around $5,000.00. Yes if you want SDI it will cost more but then again is there an option for SDI on the other cameras I just mentioned. The JVC HD-250 will have SDI but it will again cost closer to $10,000 or more. At $7,000.00 this is the cheapest camera ever made in the history of man to have SDI. If SDI isn't a big deal to you then get the XH-A1 for $4,000.00. If $4,000.00 is too much for a camera then perhaps you are in the wrong business. I have never even bought DV cameras for less than $4,000.00.

Chris Hurd · July 27th, 2006, 07:43 AM

Agreed. I don't see how $4000 can be construed as "too expensive" considering all that the camera does. It should pay for itself in no time. If it hasn't paid for itself within 90 days of buying it, then something's wrong with your business model.

There's only two things that a $4000 camcorder can be. It's either a business tool, or it's a luxury item. If it's a business tool, then it's paying for itself. If it's a luxury item, then its affordability is a highly subjective and personal matter. Either way, how can you complain about the price?

Mike Tesh · July 27th, 2006, 07:47 AM

I'm wondering about those extra jacks on the G1. From the pictures it appears the only differnce between the two cameras are the jacks themelves. Notice how there isn't some big box on the side of the camera that would house some sort of logic board. So it makes me wonder if the A1 has the same abilities just not the jacks to access them. Maybe something a physical hack would solve? As sacrilegious as that may sound right now.

Overall these cameras look excellent. Great job Canon.

Also does anyone know if these camera can rotate the image 180 degrees in-camera for use with those fancy DIY DOF adapters? I've heard the XL2 can do that. Never inquired about the XL-H1 though as it's out of my price range.

Jeff Sayre · July 27th, 2006, 07:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob Zimmerman

So has anyone ever went to film usining 24f?

It's not clear by these listings in IMDB, but the Canon XL-H1 can shoot in 24f and these 5 movies used (at least in part) the H1.

http://www.imdb.com/SearchTechnical?CAM:Canon%20XL-H1

I think until there is full, native support for 24f in the major NLEs, then it will be awhile before it is a common format to shoot in when intending to go to film. Of course, with Canon's announcement yesterday, I'm betting that native support is just around the corner.

July 26th, 2006, 09:23 PM	#141
Heath McKnight MPS Digital Studios Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Palm Beach County, Florida Posts: 8,531	No need to translate the Japanese pages when we have info here! http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=72315 and http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/co...&modelid=14057 and http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/co...&modelid=14061 hwm __________________ My Final Cut Pro X blog

July 26th, 2006, 09:39 PM	#142
Wayne Morellini Inner Circle Join Date: May 2003 Location: Australia Posts: 2,762	I should have posted this yesterday. I waited a long.. time to see what Canons offering would be before buying a HD camera. I think these cameras are double the price of what they should be, and years overdue, and yes, I think all the prosumer cameras, except some of the cheaper Sony, are too much as well. -------------------------------- I remember when I first saw the exceptional looking XL1 and GL1, beautiful but so costly. Even today these old cameras are a "beautiful selling point, with the exception of the JVC HD100 series, they stand out from the crowd. heres to the old Canons, they might have got behind the ball over the years before HD, but that didn't really matter as the were ahead of the ball in the first place. The story went, at that NAB2004 site for one example, that a number of 720p cameras from other manufacturers were planned after the HD10. Then Sony stepped in and they converted their plans to 1080p and the cameras were delayed. I much rather would have had 720p sooner with 50/60p options then have had to wait years for these versions. If Canon were to release a full version 720p50/60 version of these cameras at half the price today (and 36Mb/s+ (or 25mbps H264) even 10bit) I would be very tempted. I think the industry has missed a very good chance in HDV to stratify their product lines, with 720p at the bottom, and 1080 and 1440 I & P at the top. Now is the time of the rise of H264 (why didn't they use th older Mpeg4 for HDV). Good luck to you Canon. Last edited by Wayne Morellini; July 26th, 2006 at 10:40 PM.

July 27th, 2006, 05:27 AM	#146
Dave Ferdinand Major Player Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Vancouver, BC Posts: 359	I think the tape transport issues on the GL2 are probably critical on the decision of Canon not coming up with a 'GL3' and also the fact they are going 'Sony style' and make 2 very similar cameras with different price ranges. Regarding the price, it seems very good taking into account the competition. Why would Canon be selling the HA1 for $3k if the FX1 has been around for quite a while? People would just think Canon didn't have any faith in these cameras, or was desperate to take Sony head-on for some reason. __________________ Do or do not, there is no try.

July 27th, 2006, 07:43 AM	#148
Chris Hurd Obstreperous Rex Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: San Marcos, TX Posts: 27,366 Images: 513	Agreed. I don't see how $4000 can be construed as "too expensive" considering all that the camera does. It should pay for itself in no time. If it hasn't paid for itself within 90 days of buying it, then something's wrong with your business model. There's only two things that a $4000 camcorder can be. It's either a business tool, or it's a luxury item. If it's a business tool, then it's paying for itself. If it's a luxury item, then its affordability is a highly subjective and personal matter. Either way, how can you complain about the price? __________________ CH Search DV Info Net \| 20 years of DVi \| ...Tuesday is Soylent Green Day!

July 27th, 2006, 07:47 AM	#149
Mike Tesh Major Player Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Detroit MI Posts: 253	I'm wondering about those extra jacks on the G1. From the pictures it appears the only differnce between the two cameras are the jacks themelves. Notice how there isn't some big box on the side of the camera that would house some sort of logic board. So it makes me wonder if the A1 has the same abilities just not the jacks to access them. Maybe something a physical hack would solve? As sacrilegious as that may sound right now. Overall these cameras look excellent. Great job Canon. Also does anyone know if these camera can rotate the image 180 degrees in-camera for use with those fancy DIY DOF adapters? I've heard the XL2 can do that. Never inquired about the XL-H1 though as it's out of my price range. __________________ ScapeFilms.com \| My Photography \| IMDB Profile

July 26th, 2006, 09:08 PM	#139
Bob Zimmerman Major Player Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Illinois Posts: 888	I also thought their was a street price,,,,I guess I'm more used to Nikon than Canon.

July 26th, 2006, 09:09 PM	#140
Bob Zimmerman Major Player Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Illinois Posts: 888	So has anyone ever went to film usining 24f?

July 26th, 2006, 10:31 PM	#143
Bob Zimmerman Major Player Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Illinois Posts: 888	i won't be paying $7,000.

July 26th, 2006, 11:44 PM	#144
Tony Tibbetts Major Player Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 385	I will pay $4000 for the XH-A1. I even plan on reserving one the first chance I can.

July 27th, 2006, 07:20 AM	#147
Thomas Smet Trustee Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Milwaukee, WI Posts: 1,719	I don't think these prices are bad at all. These are prosumer cameras meant to make money with and not just cheap consumer models. These new cameras could very well have the same image quality of the H1 which has been known to hold it's own with the SONY 350 as well as the F900. Remember the FX1 is a consumer camera. The Z1 which is the pro version does actually cost more than XH-A1. If you want to spend $3,000.00 and feel you can get by with a FX1 then maybe you should go buy one of those. I for one want the amazing chips and features that Canon has. When compared to the Z1 isn't this camera much more of a value? True 24F recording, high quality detailed chips, image control, the option of having SDI. For many there is no question that the Canon is the way to go just for the 24F alone. To this date the XH-A1 is the cheapest prosumer HDV camera with the Z1 and the JVC HD-100 next in line around $5,000.00. Yes if you want SDI it will cost more but then again is there an option for SDI on the other cameras I just mentioned. The JVC HD-250 will have SDI but it will again cost closer to $10,000 or more. At $7,000.00 this is the cheapest camera ever made in the history of man to have SDI. If SDI isn't a big deal to you then get the XH-A1 for $4,000.00. If $4,000.00 is too much for a camera then perhaps you are in the wrong business. I have never even bought DV cameras for less than $4,000.00.