On the close-up pic of the lens, you can see "58" written on it. That might be the filter size.

edit - oops, that was already pointed out.

It does say it's an L series lens.

10x L-series HD Video Lens, f/1.8 max., 30.4mm wide angle (35mm equivalent).

I see this as a successor to the GL2 after all these years of waiting. They finally decided to release a small HD camcorder with pro features. Better late than never and it's a competitor to the HM100 and the HMC40. It seams like a nice camcorder but 3 and 4 grand would really be pushing it but then again the release price at places such as B&H can be much less.

Hmm, the Canon Europe site says it's an L-series lens, while the Canon USA site appears to lack that information. It could be a simple omission by the USA site, though I note that the red line that Canon puts on it's L lenses, and on the front of the XF 300 lens, is missing from the XF 100


http://www.usa.canon.com/app/images/...xf100_side.jpg

If you look at the above photo, you'll also see that the switch for switching between focus, zoom and iris has (ND) after iris.

This looks like a really solid work-horse of a camcorder. The mix of features and performance packs a pretty hefty punch in it's price range. My gut is telling me this is going to be one of those "classics". Thank you Canon.

nice entry by Canon

I think that the CANON XF200 will come later next year to coplete the line of the XF Series...

Very exciting news. This looks like a fantastic travel camera, and 2nd back up for the 300/305. I want one.

That's a mistake. I have confirmed directly via Canon USA that it is *not* an L-series lens.

Hope this helps,

Whats with the 10X zoom? Why are these prosumer cams reducing their zooms? Myself, I love my FX7 with its 20X zoom. Why can't Canon (and Panasonic, and now Sony) continue to offer 20X on their newer prosumer cams? To get what I want, I will have to buy an additional lens to add to the cam. Bummer.

Mike

I think the companies found that the bulk of the US$2,000-$4,000 customers had different priorities and didn't really need or want to shoulder the cost, complexity & weight of a 20x zoom. And for those people who do need +20x zoom, the companies will make money selling more telephoto adapters.

Agreed. I'm looking forward to the release of this camera to do some real world comparisons with my HMC.

Well, here we have it, folks. The replacement for the XH-A1, just with a shorter zoom length. Looks like Canon are responding to an emerging market - amateur videographers who are stuck (for the time being) with higher-end consumer-grade camcorders that don't have enough manual controls.

This will sell like hotcakes, and probably out-do the new Sony NEX-VG10.

If they can get the price down to $2500CDN, I'll beg, borrow, or steal to get one. This looks like a sweet little camera. At that price, it would be a very compelling alternative to a used XH-A1 or Sony V1U/Z1U.

Way to go, Canon.

It would make for an intersting b-cam. I like that codec.
But how will a single 1/3" CMOS perform? Is it superior to the competition's 1/4" 3 CMOS?

Apart from the 10X lens vs 18X lens the XF100 has pretty much the same features as the XF300 although the controls are more limited given the smaller size. Also unless I missed it this new Double Slot Recording – a feature that allows users to record the same footage to two separate CF cards simultaneously isn't available on the XF300 nor is the IR recording. It will be fascinating to see some video from this camera as on paper it should be near identical to the XF300 with the same CODEC & near identical sensor. I was planning on buying an XF300 but it looks like for the same money I could buy two of these & still have change.

The FX7 uses 1/4" sensors. The smaller the sensor, the easier it is to make outrageous zoom ranges. What suffers mostly is the wide end, hence you normally see 38-44mm (in 35FF equiv) as their widest. But they can go 20x so, your long end can be 500mm-800mm easy.

As the sensor gets bigger, increasing that zoom range is still possible but it will cost more taming the optical abberations that accompanies lenses that will be good for large sensors. You have to add more esoteric glass to control them, in the process driving costs up. Problem is, you also compromise your widest apertures, and introduce more complications.

That is why you can see a 43-580mm equiv in 1/5" or 1/6" easy. But once the sensor gets larger, you can't offer a wide zoom range and wide angle like 28mm or 30mm equiv at the widest, and sitll have a f1.8 aperture at that without driving the cost up. Now whether these companies are gouging us for such improvements, I cannot say. What is certain is, the larger sensors do require better lenses and do add to the cost.