Comparing C100 vs. XF305 at DVinfo.net

Go Back   DV Info Net > Canon EOS / MXF / AVCHD / HDV / DV Camera Systems > Canon Cinema EOS Camera Systems

Canon Cinema EOS Camera Systems
For all Canon Cinema EOS models: C700 / C300 Mk. II / C200 / C100 Mk II and EF / PL lenses.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old April 16th, 2013, 03:00 PM   #1
Major Player
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Port Townsend, WA
Posts: 445
Comparing C100 vs. XF305

Anyone have a significant amount of time on both? Seems like there is a lot of pros and cons on both sides. xf305 has a wonderful lens, great 4:2:2 etc. C100 has the DOF of DSLR's, the C-LOG etc.

What are people's thoughts who have used both? My gut feeling is that I continue to use the Mkiii for DOF and the XF305 for the A camera general r&g. The only thing I'm pondering is that with the full compliment of lenses on my 5D, I can easily interchange with the C100. Carry two bodies with whatever lenses I need.
Al Bergstein is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 16th, 2013, 03:10 PM   #2
Major Player
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 223
Re: Comparing C100 vs. XF305

Al I have an XF300 and have only handled a C100 at a trade show so I can't say anything that useful.

I am looking into getting a C100 + Ninja 2 or C300 so I have done a bit of research. I came up with very similar pros as you did for the C100. I would also add size to the list. The C100 is a lot more compact that the XF300 which is one reason I'm looking into it. I also own the XF100 which is a great B cam to the XF300 but has the same cons as the XF300.

Personally I would be getting a "C" series camera for DOF look and the low light ability. The thing that annoys me a bit is that I own a 1Dx body for my stills work and if only they had put peaking and zebra I reckon I could make do with that for shallow DOF and low light shooting. As it is I just can't nail focus fast enough with the 1Dx without the guides.

Sorry that probably isn't of any use to you Al but I thought I'd chip in.

Andy
Andy Solaini is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 16th, 2013, 05:33 PM   #3
Major Player
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Port Townsend, WA
Posts: 445
Re: Comparing C100 vs. XF305

Yes, the xf305 is not the best low light, but it is not bad. The 5D is absolutely superb with lowlight of course. Having the variety is great. Getting waveform, zebra, etc in the C100 like in the xf305 is also great, as I use zebras all the time. Not having them in the 5D is a pain, but luckily the 5D does a great job of what you see is what you get, IMHO. Other than some crushed blacks occassionally. I don't think I would *sell* the xf305, just add the C100 to the camera pool. I do take a lot of stills and the 5D is just fabulous for that. The downside is that I would need to buy a full compliment of SD cards. I'm not a wild fan of them. My experience with my 7D was that the SD cards failed far more than my CF cards have. Which is never.

My real questions come down to those folks with both: Do you find you never go back to your xf305? Or that there is good reason to. The 4:2:2 is just fabulous to work with IMHO, and the EVF is a joy to use, being able to twist it everywhich way. I can't see not using it again. It's quite fine for outdoors work and stage lit performances. I just have a hard time getting DOF even with distance from the lens, zooming in and opening it up all the way. I prefer working in close with wide angle, another reason I fall back on the 5D with 24mm.

(I'm too far away from a rental pool or I'd rent one).
Al Bergstein is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 16th, 2013, 09:22 PM   #4
Major Player
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Rancho Cucamonga, CA
Posts: 200
Re: Comparing C100 vs. XF305

Quote:
Originally Posted by Al Bergstein View Post
Yes, the xf305 is not the best low light, but it is not bad. The 5D is absolutely superb with lowlight of course. Having the variety is great. Getting waveform, zebra, etc in the C100 like in the xf305 is also great, as I use zebras all the time. Not having them in the 5D is a pain, but luckily the 5D does a great job of what you see is what you get, IMHO. Other than some crushed blacks occassionally. I don't think I would *sell* the xf305, just add the C100 to the camera pool. I do take a lot of stills and the 5D is just fabulous for that. The downside is that I would need to buy a full compliment of SD cards. I'm not a wild fan of them. My experience with my 7D was that the SD cards failed far more than my CF cards have. Which is never.

My real questions come down to those folks with both: Do you find you never go back to your xf305? Or that there is good reason to. The 4:2:2 is just fabulous to work with IMHO, and the EVF is a joy to use, being able to twist it everywhich way. I can't see not using it again. It's quite fine for outdoors work and stage lit performances. I just have a hard time getting DOF even with distance from the lens, zooming in and opening it up all the way. I prefer working in close with wide angle, another reason I fall back on the 5D with 24mm.

(I'm too far away from a rental pool or I'd rent one).
I can comment on SD cards. Get the SanDisk Extreme Pro cards. Have NEVER had one to fail. Purchase them through an authorized dealer (not on ebay). Only had my C100 for a few days. Most impressed with the low light performance. Can't comment on the XF cameras. Previously using Panasonic AF100 and HPX250's......
Troy Moss is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 17th, 2013, 01:54 AM   #5
Major Player
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Horsham / United Kingdom
Posts: 324
Re: Comparing C100 vs. XF305

I can only add my experience of owning both a XF305 and a C300, which in all intents, apart from the form factor, ergonomics and file system is very similar to a C100 in that it shares the same sensor and capability to use a wide range of lenses.

Since I got the C300 almost exactly a year ago I've used the XF305 twice. And both those occasions were to film conferences where I needed a locked off camera for the wide shot.

The reason I have used the XF305 so infrequently is that whilst it produces fabulous sharp images it just doesn't compare to the richness and depth of the the images from the C300. I'm not talking about depth of field specifically but more about the photographic quality that the image has, and that will be the same for the C100.

Having said that the C300 can be an awkward camera to use, dealing with changing lenses, and the bags to hold the lenses you will need to cover certain situations. The XF305 however is very self contained unit with a very good L series quality zoom lens and lots of sophisticated focus assist features such as a very fast full auto focus and a face detect focus.

If I were doing news work I would use use the XF305 just for the lack of hassle but the Cinema EOS cameras produce far more beautiful, sophisticated images in my opinion.
Mark Dobson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 17th, 2013, 10:14 AM   #6
Trustee
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Berkshire, UK
Posts: 1,562
Re: Comparing C100 vs. XF305

I'm going to put my editor hat on - after all, I'm an editor who shoots, not a shooter who edits. But I shoot with a C100 (and a PIX220 external recorder).

I edit material from C100/300, FS100/700, EX1/3 & F3, PDW3X0, PMW500, DSLR and the rest. Just started getting my first BMCC rushes.

XF305?

Okay, it generates very COMPETENT images. It generates images that an Engineer would love.

It seems to be a Sony Z1 designed by a broadcast engineer. Give it a better lens, give it a better codec, but it's still a REC709 camera with 1/3" chips.

Unexciting, "very video", competent, loads of latitude to CORRECT THE MISTAKES of the usually non-trained operator, but takes a lot of work to put a spark into the pictures.

I'm sure, in the right hands of an experienced DoP, it can create lovely stuff - just aware that most of that camp would prefer to take a C300 or P800 rather than this little black sausage.

Here it comes - the damnation by faint praise, and sorry for sounding like the old fogey that I've become, but I see the XF305 (I literally see at big events that I cover) in the hands of youngsters out of film school and technical college doing their journeyman time as jobbing videographer on reality TV and Agency Corporate video. They're all ensuring that they nail focus, get audio at the right level, obey rule-of-thirds composition and generally keep their job.

But the rushes are, sigh, fine. They'll do. The XF305 is a camera that won't embarass you.

It certainly won't excite you, it won't make images that you'll drool over. It's safe. It's a London Taxi, a Toyota Corolla - maybe they're unfair. How about the Volkswagen Touran?

It's bland. In conversation with owners (who are now C100 owners - so maybe this is a self-selecting group), it's not 'nice' to own. You don't feel like popping into a city centre or down the park to push its capabilities. It feels and looks like it's got 'trainer wheels' on it. It never ignites your passion for imagery.

C100? (above)-1. Complete inverse. Finding the Inverse of a Function - whatever.

You can really screw up with a C100, but with care and craft, it blows the XF305 out of the ball park. Get out of the Camry and into the Boxster/Lotus (whichever your preferences lie). Actually, the C100 isn't like a Hairdresser's Hotrod either. Far more rewarding to shoot with.

"And on that bombshell" - I think I'll close. Sorry to sound like an amateur version of Top Gear.
__________________
Director/Editor - MDMA Ltd: Write, Shoot, Edit, Publish - mattdavis.pro
EX1 x2, C100 --> FCPX & PPro6
Matt Davis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 17th, 2013, 06:12 PM   #7
Major Player
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Port Townsend, WA
Posts: 445
Re: Comparing C100 vs. XF305

Thanks to both of you. Yes, I do understand what you are saying Matt. The xf is a very competent camera and I find that I want to shoot with it when I just want to make sure I get 'standard' footage, in that I do those things that you talk about, not worrying about the run and gun footage or needing to be very self contained, with no extra lenses to tend to, on camera shotgun or wireless lav directly plugged in,etc. It's footage is beautiful and certainly has the latitude to cover mistakes, or perhaps the lack of fill light on a one man crew. However I agree that the 5D footage I get is more visually interesting, overall. I don't do theatrical work, but certainly like making my doc work look better. And for being on tripod and shooting stage shows, obviously, the xf305 has the lens reach and the quality to get a decent professional looking shot from a distance. I unfortunately spent a few years documenting concerts where I was asked not move in for close ups with the 5D so as not to upset paying customers, given stage limitations. The xf305 worked very well there, if only as a documentation tool.

I think that you have sort of captured my basic thoughts of needing something that really offers the ability to get distinctive looking footage, and having a wide range of Canon glass for the 5D and 7D that I've shot with over the last few years, makes an easy choice. I like the idea of the ergonomics of this camera(s) being very much like a dslr yet with the functionality of the xf305.

Troy: yes I do use Sandisk Ex and they never fail. I did have SD card failures, but they weren't Sandisk. So I'd likely go back to them on the 100.

Still curious about folks using the 100 with the xf305, and whether you are satisfied with the image compared to it. My gut feeling is, is that it should be, as Mark says on the 300, much better.
Al Bergstein is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 17th, 2013, 07:00 PM   #8
Major Player
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 513
Re: Comparing C100 vs. XF305

I owned and shot extensively with an XF300, and after purchasing a C300, kept the XF as backup camera fearing the C300 would be too difficult for certain jobs.

Actually, I think the C300 (in the hands of a competent operator) and C100 are much more forgiving than the XF, especially in C log, due to the vastly superior dynamic range. You really have to screw up with the C cameras to clip highlights, whereas nailing exposure with the XF cameras is critical, and often difficult when lighting cannot be controlled.

After a few months with the C300 I sold the XF - it just wasn't being used, even for run-and-gun work / events - the pictures from the C300 are much more pleasing in ALL shooting situations; it became hard to look at XF footage. I've subsequently picked up a C100 as b-camera, and it's even simpler to use - they're both simple cameras to capture great images with.

So for me, I would (with no hesitation) recommend the C100 over the XF. The only thing I really dislike about it is the EVF, which is next to useless.
Josh Dahlberg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 25th, 2013, 03:26 AM   #9
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 62
Re: Comparing C100 vs. XF305

I have an XF300 and have recently bought the C100 so I'll be selling the XF300. Also have the 5D MKII.

Reason I eventually decided to sell it was that it was just a a comfort blanket to me! Matt hit the nail on the head earlier when he said "Unexciting, "very video", competent". As a straight off vid camera it is excellent - everything you could want from a vid cam - but without the 'WOW' images you get from DSLR type lenses.

I found that with weddings I went out and shot, I was capturing the great stuff on the DSLR and the XF300 was doing the 'laboured' work (speeches/ceremony - sound critical stuff). When I'd cutaway to the DSLR then it would be 'WOW'! Eventually I started getting comments from clients of "....is there any chance you could stay on that footage you shot on this scene..?" which was inevitably the DSLR!

For corporate stuff filming interviews in fairly small offices with no great backgrounds then I'd really need to push the DOF to make the subject stand out - something I just couldn't so with the XF300.

So for the large part - the XF300 remained in the case - bit of a waste for such a great videocam.

So....I've taken the jump and recently gone for C100. I've still to really test myself, especially in the wedding side of it and I don't think that's going to be easy especially when it comes to the variable zoom side of things - but hey-ho,...the clients want more 'WOW'!!
Martin Trotter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 26th, 2013, 12:17 AM   #10
Major Player
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Port Townsend, WA
Posts: 445
Re: Comparing C100 vs. XF305

Ok, so I bought one. I'll let you know how it goes
Al Bergstein is offline   Reply
Reply

DV Info Net refers all where-to-buy and where-to-rent questions exclusively to these trusted full line dealers and rental houses...

Professional Video
(800) 833-4801
Portland, OR

B&H Photo Video
(866) 521-7381
New York, NY

Z.G.C.
(973) 335-4460
Mountain Lakes, NJ

Abel Cine Tech
(888) 700-4416
N.Y. NY & L.A. CA

Precision Camera
(800) 677-1023
Austin, TX

DV Info Net also encourages you to support local businesses and buy from an authorized dealer in your neighborhood.
  You are here: DV Info Net > Canon EOS / MXF / AVCHD / HDV / DV Camera Systems > Canon Cinema EOS Camera Systems

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 



Google
 

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:08 PM.


DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2017 The Digital Video Information Network