XF300 or HVX200? at DVinfo.net

Mark Kenfield · October 13th, 2010, 09:35 PM

Hi guys,

I'm shooting a commercial for a builder next week (so it'll be mostly real-estate/interior fittings type shots). I'd normally just shoot it with the trusty old HVX200, but I've just been told there's an XF300 available to shoot with if I'd like.

I hadn't heard of the XF300 until today, so I've done a quick read up on the camera, but I'd be interested to hear people's thoughts on how it compares to a somewhat older workhorse like the HVX200?

What's the dynamic range like on the Canon?

Also, I'll probably be shooting with Letus 35mm adapter as well, so I'd be interested to hear how they might compare through an adapter.

Any thoughts would be much appreciated.

Cheers,

Mark

Glen Vandermolen · October 13th, 2010, 11:11 PM

The XF300 is way better than the HVX. The HVX is still a very good camera years after its release, but the Canon beats it in pretty much every category.
If you're given the chance to work with an XF300, go for it. I know I would. I hope to try one out one day. Just make sure the work flow in post production won't be a problem.

I have no idea on the Letus.

Josh Dahlberg · October 14th, 2010, 01:03 AM

I haven't used the HVX myself, but just yesterday I was intercutting interviews shot on the HVX by a videographer in Germany (sent to me as native files in P2 folder structure) with similarly shot interviews on my XF here in New Zealand. The HVX footage looks rather soft and muddy by comparison - a very clear resolution difference at any rate.

Peter Moretti · October 14th, 2010, 01:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Glen Vandermolen

...
Just make sure the work flow in post production won't be a problem.

I have no idea on the Letus.

Right, the Canon codec is new and may not be supported by the software you're using in post. So definitely check on that.

I haven't used a XF, but it seems like it bests the HVX every way except probably sound.

Jeff Anselmo · October 14th, 2010, 08:39 AM

Hi Mark,

Check out Steev's video. He shot this unboxing of his XF cam with an HVX200:

http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/canon-xf...bulations.html

I've never shot with an HVX200 before, but have shot with an HPX170 for a weekend. And now that I have an XF300, I can definitely say that the LCD/EVF on the XF is so much better and the focusing is easier. (Though the XF cam is heavier if that's a concern.)

Sorry, I've never used a 35mm adapter before (but considering it for the XF cam).

Best,

Mark Kenfield · October 14th, 2010, 09:06 AM

Thanks so much guys, that's all a huge help. I figured the march of time would probably render XF the better option.

I'll look into compatibility of the new Canon codec with Final Cut Studio 2.

Cheers,

Mark

Mike Marriage · October 14th, 2010, 09:21 AM

Mark, my understanding is that the codec is the same as the 50mbps XDCAM which is natively supported in FCS2.

Doug Jensen · October 14th, 2010, 09:58 AM

Yes, that is correct.
XF works very well with Final Cut.

Peter Moretti · October 14th, 2010, 10:19 AM

Do you edit the codec directly or do you have to transcode it to ProRes?

Doug Jensen · October 14th, 2010, 11:48 AM

You can do it either way you want, but I prefer to keep the clips in their native codec for reasons I explain in my training DVD.
With ProRes, the file sizes are a lot bigger and the import/transcode times are longer. In my own workflow, there's no benefit to ProRes.

Mark Kenfield · October 14th, 2010, 08:50 PM

Ah, terrific! I like compatibility :D

I always get a little concerned with newer HD cameras these days because the newer AVC/MPEG-4 codecs don't seem to like my FCP editing suite at all.

Doug Jensen · October 14th, 2010, 09:26 PM

The XF camcorders, just like XDCAM, record in MPEG-2, and FCP likes all the codecs just fine.

I've been working with XDCAM since 2006, and there still isn't a week go by that I don't marvel at how damn nice the whole workflow is. Those of you who are too young to have worked with U-Matic or Betacam just can't fully appreciate how the world has changed. I'm twice as productive now as I was 10 years ago and the cameras cost 1/4 - 1/2 what a Betacam cost. There's no tape costs, no maintenance, no mechanical breakdowns, no loss of footage due to a bad tape, no playback decks, no logging, no batch capturing, no timecode worries, no clogged heads, no more wasted time laying down bars & tone, no more interlaced, etc. It's really amazing technology. I love it.

Glen Vandermolen · October 16th, 2010, 10:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Jensen

The XF camcorders, just like XDCAM, record in MPEG-2, and FCP likes all the codecs just fine.

I've been working with XDCAM since 2006, and there still isn't a week go by that I don't marvel at how damn nice the whole workflow is. Those of you who are too young to have worked with U-Matic or Betacam just can't fully appreciate how the world has changed. I'm twice as productive now as I was 10 years ago and the cameras cost 1/4 - 1/2 what a Betacam cost. There's no tape costs, no maintenance, no mechanical breakdowns, no loss of footage due to a bad tape, no playback decks, no logging, no batch capturing, no timecode worries, no clogged heads, no more wasted time laying down bars & tone, no more interlaced, etc. It's really amazing technology. I love it.

Next you'll tell us them new-fangled computers are gonna replace the typewriter!

But I gotta agree with ya, Doug. Going tapeless, editing on NLEs, etc...these kids today have no idea what it used to be like. 3/4" tape, anyone?

Robert Turchick · October 24th, 2010, 08:26 AM

Hi! My names Rob and I've been tapeless for 3 years now. It was a struggle at first as my love of tape began in an audio studio before digital was available. I still love the feel of 2" Ampex and the sound it makes as my fingers squeak along its shiny dark brown surface. When I started in video 3/4 was the format everyone got me hooked on and the sound of a Umatic threading brings back all sorts of memories, good and bad. As my love of tape continued, I began realizing that tape was taking over my life and the physical storage was becoming a problem. After being accused of hoarding and then being confronted by friends and coworkers, I realized a change had to be made. Thanks to Digidesign, Panasonic and now Canon, I don't have any urges to go back and shall remain tapeless for the rest of my life. (cheering in the background as a happy tear rolls down my cheek)

Back to the OP,
I used the hvx on a doc several years ago and then the 170 for a few projects. The quality (back then) prompted me to buy the hmc150 which was also a great camera.
Moving on to the xf300, I gotta say it's truly a different level of quality. The whole reason I stayed away from P2 was cost knowing the type of things I get hired to shoot. I would have had to spend as much as I did on the camera to get enough cards to cover the events. And with run and gun, you can't stop to download.
I think the 200/170/150 still have a lot to offer but Canon has definitely upped the anty. The lens alone is a major selling point. Workflow into FCP is seamless. The clarity and color are just stunning.
And although I haven't personally shot with the EX1 and EX1r, I have edited a lot of footage from both and have to say I made the right choice as they were on the list of potential cameras.

Sorry for the long post! If you can, do a couple of shoots and you'll see why the XF is such a killer piece!

October 13th, 2010, 09:35 PM	#1
Mark Kenfield Major Player Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 470	XF300 or HVX200? Hi guys, I'm shooting a commercial for a builder next week (so it'll be mostly real-estate/interior fittings type shots). I'd normally just shoot it with the trusty old HVX200, but I've just been told there's an XF300 available to shoot with if I'd like. I hadn't heard of the XF300 until today, so I've done a quick read up on the camera, but I'd be interested to hear people's thoughts on how it compares to a somewhat older workhorse like the HVX200? What's the dynamic range like on the Canon? Also, I'll probably be shooting with Letus 35mm adapter as well, so I'd be interested to hear how they might compare through an adapter. Any thoughts would be much appreciated. Cheers, Mark

October 14th, 2010, 08:39 AM	#5
Jeff Anselmo Major Player Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: New Mexico Posts: 566	Hi Mark, Check out Steev's video. He shot this unboxing of his XF cam with an HVX200: http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/canon-xf...bulations.html I've never shot with an HVX200 before, but have shot with an HPX170 for a weekend. And now that I have an XF300, I can definitely say that the LCD/EVF on the XF is so much better and the focusing is easier. (Though the XF cam is heavier if that's a concern.) Sorry, I've never used a 35mm adapter before (but considering it for the XF cam). Best, __________________ --JA Last edited by Jeff Anselmo; October 14th, 2010 at 08:41 AM. Reason: misspelling

October 14th, 2010, 09:21 AM	#7
Mike Marriage Major Player Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: NE of London, England Posts: 788	Mark, my understanding is that the codec is the same as the 50mbps XDCAM which is natively supported in FCS2. __________________ www.mikemarriage.com

October 14th, 2010, 09:58 AM	#8
Doug Jensen Vortex Media Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 3,417	Yes, that is correct. XF works very well with Final Cut. __________________ Vortex Media http://www.vortexmedia.com/ Sony FS7, F55, and XDCAM training videos, field guides, and other production tools

October 14th, 2010, 10:19 AM	#9
Peter Moretti Trustee Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Sherman Oaks, CA Posts: 1,259	Do you edit the codec directly or do you have to transcode it to ProRes? __________________ Avid Media Composer 3.1.3. Boris Red and Continuum Complete. Vegas 8.0c. TMPGEnc Xpress Pro 4.0

October 13th, 2010, 11:11 PM	#2
Glen Vandermolen Space Hipster Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Jacksonville, FL Posts: 1,596	The XF300 is way better than the HVX. The HVX is still a very good camera years after its release, but the Canon beats it in pretty much every category. If you're given the chance to work with an XF300, go for it. I know I would. I hope to try one out one day. Just make sure the work flow in post production won't be a problem. I have no idea on the Letus.

October 14th, 2010, 01:03 AM	#3
Josh Dahlberg Major Player Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Wellington, New Zealand Posts: 513	I haven't used the HVX myself, but just yesterday I was intercutting interviews shot on the HVX by a videographer in Germany (sent to me as native files in P2 folder structure) with similarly shot interviews on my XF here in New Zealand. The HVX footage looks rather soft and muddy by comparison - a very clear resolution difference at any rate.

October 14th, 2010, 09:06 AM	#6
Mark Kenfield Major Player Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 470	Thanks so much guys, that's all a huge help. I figured the march of time would probably render XF the better option. I'll look into compatibility of the new Canon codec with Final Cut Studio 2. Cheers, Mark

October 14th, 2010, 11:48 AM	#10
Doug Jensen Vortex Media Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 3,417	You can do it either way you want, but I prefer to keep the clips in their native codec for reasons I explain in my training DVD. With ProRes, the file sizes are a lot bigger and the import/transcode times are longer. In my own workflow, there's no benefit to ProRes. __________________ Vortex Media http://www.vortexmedia.com/ Sony FS7, F55, and XDCAM training videos, field guides, and other production tools Last edited by Doug Jensen; October 14th, 2010 at 09:16 PM. Reason: To clarify my point.

October 14th, 2010, 08:50 PM	#11
Mark Kenfield Major Player Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 470	Ah, terrific! I like compatibility :D I always get a little concerned with newer HD cameras these days because the newer AVC/MPEG-4 codecs don't seem to like my FCP editing suite at all.

October 14th, 2010, 09:26 PM	#12
Doug Jensen Vortex Media Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 3,417	The XF camcorders, just like XDCAM, record in MPEG-2, and FCP likes all the codecs just fine. I've been working with XDCAM since 2006, and there still isn't a week go by that I don't marvel at how damn nice the whole workflow is. Those of you who are too young to have worked with U-Matic or Betacam just can't fully appreciate how the world has changed. I'm twice as productive now as I was 10 years ago and the cameras cost 1/4 - 1/2 what a Betacam cost. There's no tape costs, no maintenance, no mechanical breakdowns, no loss of footage due to a bad tape, no playback decks, no logging, no batch capturing, no timecode worries, no clogged heads, no more wasted time laying down bars & tone, no more interlaced, etc. It's really amazing technology. I love it. __________________ Vortex Media http://www.vortexmedia.com/ Sony FS7, F55, and XDCAM training videos, field guides, and other production tools

October 24th, 2010, 08:26 AM	#14
Robert Turchick Trustee Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Mesa, AZ Posts: 1,389	Hi! My names Rob and I've been tapeless for 3 years now. It was a struggle at first as my love of tape began in an audio studio before digital was available. I still love the feel of 2" Ampex and the sound it makes as my fingers squeak along its shiny dark brown surface. When I started in video 3/4 was the format everyone got me hooked on and the sound of a Umatic threading brings back all sorts of memories, good and bad. As my love of tape continued, I began realizing that tape was taking over my life and the physical storage was becoming a problem. After being accused of hoarding and then being confronted by friends and coworkers, I realized a change had to be made. Thanks to Digidesign, Panasonic and now Canon, I don't have any urges to go back and shall remain tapeless for the rest of my life. (cheering in the background as a happy tear rolls down my cheek) Back to the OP, I used the hvx on a doc several years ago and then the 170 for a few projects. The quality (back then) prompted me to buy the hmc150 which was also a great camera. Moving on to the xf300, I gotta say it's truly a different level of quality. The whole reason I stayed away from P2 was cost knowing the type of things I get hired to shoot. I would have had to spend as much as I did on the camera to get enough cards to cover the events. And with run and gun, you can't stop to download. I think the 200/170/150 still have a lot to offer but Canon has definitely upped the anty. The lens alone is a major selling point. Workflow into FCP is seamless. The clarity and color are just stunning. And although I haven't personally shot with the EX1 and EX1r, I have edited a lot of footage from both and have to say I made the right choice as they were on the list of potential cameras. Sorry for the long post! If you can, do a couple of shoots and you'll see why the XF is such a killer piece! __________________ The older I get, the better I was!