Likes/Dislikes from EX owners that now have an XF

[Doug Jensen]

Originally Posted by Bo Sundvall

Hi
Doug, how does the 1.5x digital extender work?
- Is it on/off or is it linear up to 1,5x?
- Does it start at full tele or does it work over the whole zoom area?
- How good is it compared to a digital zoom, do you think that there are some processing in the background or is it only a digital zoom that can be done in post as well?
Regards,
/Bo

In my opinion, the 1.5x digital extender looks pretty good and is very much superior to what you can do in post. My F800 has a 2x digital extender which is almost as good as an optical extender, and I think the XF305 extender is just as good or better.

Although the digital teleconverter is just maginifying the center portion of the image by 50%, don't forget that it is doing it BEFORE any compression and most of the rest of the signal processing. If you're into photography, you might compare it to the difference between manipulating a RAW file and a JPEG that has already been process and compressed. That's not a perfect analogy, but it's similar.

Since the extender is just magnifying the image, it doesn't matter whether the lens is zoomed in, out, or anywhere inbetween. Also, unlike optical extenders, there is no loss of light at all.

I have the extender programmed into one of my assign buttons so I can switch it on and off instantly, even in the middle of a shot. I have some sample footage that I will try to upload to Vimeo if I can find the time.

[Bo Sundvall]

Hi Doug

Thanks for your very informative answer! As I understand the digital extender is useful and expands the tele part of the camera to about 790 mm which really is great. Nice to have during nature filming. This is another thing that speaks for the XF300 camcorder.


Regards,

/Bo

[Doug Jensen]

Here are few test shots using the 1.5x Digital Tele-converter function of the Canon XF305 (and XF300).

I'll have to admit that it doesn't look at good as I initially thought it looked. In fact, I'm not sure it is really any better than just scaling the footage 150% with Final Cut Pro. This is a good example of why I don't like to judge cameras too quickly or assume anything without taking the time to do some real testing of my own.

Ultimately, the extender is not a function I will be using again. Why? Because if it doesn't look better than just zooming the footage in post, than why not just shoot it full-frame and then I've also got the freedom to adjust the compostion as well. Of course, if you're doing a live shot for breaking news, that would be a different story.

Canon XF305 Digital Tele-converter on Vimeo

[Dom Stevenson]

Great test Doug. Must say i was very impressed with the tele-converter and wouldn't hesitate to use it, but i see your point regarding an FCP blow-up. Either way it's a winner. I love this new cam. If only i could justify buying one.

[John Gayman]

Originally Posted by Doug Jensen

Brian,
Also, since I use headphones most of the time I'm shooting, now I'm going to have a rubber cover dangling on the side of the camera all the time. I suppose I'll eventually just tear it off and throw it away. A headphone jack should NOT be covered under a large rubber cover that also cover other terminals.

In the manual it mentions that those rubber covers are designed to be removable. So you should be able to easily detach the one that covers the headphone jack.

[Doug Jensen]

Yes, you're right. They are removable and I already took mine off about a week ago. The nice thing is that you can put them back on if you want to. Still, I would have preferred no cover at all because the camera looks like a part of it is missing with the cover off. The cover is a lot bigger than it needs to be if it were to cover only the headphone jack, It's a big 20mm x 40mm rectangle and also covers the remote terminal.

[Lonnie Bell]

To Those that have an EX1(R) and XF300(305),

I'd be interested to see how uncompressed footage out of the HD-SDI (HDMI from 300) compares. I will eventually tether one of these babies (I have an EX1R) to an AJA Ki-PRO, so I'm curious which camera has less noise from it's front end.

Has anyone attempted this and care to share the results or be willing to test this?

Thanks in advance,
Lonnie

[Larry Hill]

To my untrained eye it's hard to tell the difference between the quality of the 100% versus the 150% shots. I know it would be a pain, but it might be easier to see if the camera were moved to keep the subject the same size. I guess a zoom would also be possible, but would introduce another variable. I guess you would have to use a pretty flat subject to avoid the "Vertigo" effect.

To my eye, the FCP enlargements look better than the in-camera enlargements.

In any event, it does look like a usable feature in special circumstances.

[Galen Rath]

To Larry Hatteberg:

Was the XF305 your only option for your news work, or could you have opted for the XF300?

[Larry Hatteberg]

Galen,

I could have opted for the XF300 --- But for the extra money the Genlock, SD-SDI Terminal, and timecode were items that I use in my work, so the extra money was worth it.

I purchase my own equipment and do production work on the side, so the above 'extras' were a positive addition.

[Doug Jensen]

Don't forget (all things being equal) the resale value of an XF305 will be higher than an XF300. So if you spend a little more on an XF305, you'll get most of that extra investment back when you go to sell it someday.

I usually find that the best decision is to purchase the "A" model of whatever equipment I'm buying. That way, if I do find that I need some of the options the "A" model offers that the "B" model doesn't, then I don't have to worry about selling and upgrading. Even if you think you don't need SDI, genlock, or TC in/out right now, can you say for sure what is around the corner?

Just my two cents.