The XF300 appears to be an amazing camera, and that 4" LCD is like a gift from heaven as it replaces the poor LCD from the Sony HDV models (Z5, Z7).

The only thing Canon seem to have forgotten is a PUSH AUTO IRIS on the handgrip :(

Mark,

There is a push auto iris button on the LH side of the camera - exactly where it is easy to reach.

Bottom right of the picture (attached)

All the controls are beautifully laid out IMO. More pics (already posted) XF305 (http://www.nickwb.com/xf305)

Nick.

Hi Nick yes I know, but doing the kind of ob doc work I do and having a Push-Auto-Iris on the hangrip makes life much easier.

Hopefully Canon will bring out firmware so you can assign the Push-Auto-Iris to assign button 6 which is on the handgrip for Magnification.

Mark, why do you say "poor LCD on Z5, Z7"? The XF series has superior LCD (resolution, size) but not astronomically in comparison. Maybe you were confusing with Canon A1's LCD or older models of the other brands...

Hi Cristian, from the videos and photos of the XF300 the LCD it appears to be very bright (as well as high rez etc)

I personally find the Z5 & Z7's LCD's useless outdoors when doing run and gun etc. I know others have too.

doing the kind of ob doc work I do and having a Push-Auto-Iris on the hangrip makes life much easier.

Hopefully Canon will bring out firmware so you can assign the Push-Auto-Iris to assign button 6 which is on the handgrip for Magnification.

An interesting thought Mark - we all use these cameras in such different ways.

Nick.

Barry Green tested the new Panasonic HPX370 which has 1/3" chips and found that it compared very well vs the EX1/3, even in sensitivity it was within 1/4 of stop.
Steve
If I recall correctly, that test was designed to measure the relative sensitivities at 0dB gain. From that an effective ISO figure can be worked out - at 0dB. So far, so good.

That's not the same thing as "the sensitivity of the camera". For the latter you need to specify noise levels at the measurement value, and it seems that the HPX300/370 has higher noise than an EX at the same gain setting. Put another way, you can get away with using more gain on an EX than on a 300/370 for comparable quality, and that means it will have an advantage of more than 1/4 stop in low light in real usage.

He did do tests at +12db and noted that the EX was slightly lower noise.

Quote from his article "in 1080p mode the HPX370 wins the low-light battle. However, when you start pushing the gain, the Sony appears to have a cleaner gain circuit than the HPX370 does. I found the noise difference to be substantial and in the HPX370's favor at -3dB, but when both were set on +12dB it appeared that the Sony was slightly lower noise than the HPX370. Of course, I should have been trying the HPX370 on 9dB to match the Sony at 12dB; that might have equalized them out".

I get the impression that any differences will be fairly minor and so not a big deciding factor (ie much less so than form factor or codec for instance).

Steve

Hi Cristian, from the videos and photos of the XF300 the LCD it appears to be very bright (as well as high rez etc)

I personally find the Z5 & Z7's LCD's useless outdoors when doing run and gun etc. I know others have too.

Yes, you are right on the outdoors usability of Sony LCD's. But you don' know how good is the Canon's LCD in practice, it's only an assumption that is better in bright conditions. We will have to wait and see.

Quote from his article ......... "Of course, I should have been trying the HPX370 on 9dB to match the Sony at 12dB; that might have equalized them out".
Well, it might have "equalized them out" in terms of noise in the picture, but any gain reduction would have meant then needing more illumination on the scene for the 370 to maintain exposure parity! Whichever way you look at it, it puts the HPX370 at a disadvantage compared to the EX.

There are reports that a difference between the 300 and the 370 is that the 370 gets the noise level down by some form of electronic noise reduction. Unfortunately it comes at a price, and it seems to be an overall softening of the picture and a slight "plasticky" look. You don't get anything for nothing, and when all else is equal there is no substitute for larger chips.
I get the impression that any differences will be fairly minor and so not a big deciding factor (ie much less so than form factor or codec for instance).

In respect of chip size, then if all else is equal, a 1/2" will have a 1 stop advantage over a 1/3" camera. Whether that manifests itself as low light advantage, noise level, less need for artificial noise reduction, or a combination of the three will depend but I think it's wrong to call it "minor".

In respects of form factor then maybe the Sony PMW320 is a better comparison to Panasonics HPX370 - and that is true for such as cost, weight, size etc as well. I don't pretend to like the form factor of the EX1, but it does seem that in picture quality terms the HPX370 is beaten overall by the EX1 - despite the latter being much smaller, lighter and cheaper. I put that down fair and square to the 1/3" v 1/2" issue.

"it does seem that in picture quality terms the HPX370 is beaten overall by the EX1" Does it? What's that impression based on? Not saying you're wrong, just haven't seen any evidence that clearly shows that.

"if all else is equal, a 1/2" will have a 1 stop advantage over a 1/3" camera" That's definitely a relevant point - all else is rarely equal, and as Barry Green's tests showed, there's actually very little in it. Not saying that I trust Barry Green more than anyone else, but I do get the feeling he's a fair commentator, and above all his is the only comparison I've seen!

"There are reports that a difference between the 300 and the 370 is that the 370 gets the noise level down by some form of electronic noise reduction" The only suggestion I've seen of that has been by me!!! I mentioned that in response to Andy Shipside's comparison but got no response. It certainly did seem to me,as you say, that the image was less noisy but a fair bit softer - just as you'd get if you put a still through Noise Ninja.

I really feel that a lot of people discount 1/3" needlessly. Even the depth of field argument is often not that big a deal. For example for most documentary stuff any shot you'd do at f4 on an EX1 will look the same on a 1/3" chip camera if you set it f2.8. It's only for drama focus pulls/shallow dof that it might be a bit of an issue IMO.

I think IF you've got a lens that you are happy with from f1.8 you've got a useable range of f1.8-f5.6 before you'll get any noticeable diffraction effects, so as long as you've got enough NDs to allow those wide apertures in your lighting situation then there's not a problem.

Just my opinions though, I fully respect anyone's opinions and disagreements!

Steve

"if all else is equal, a 1/2" will have a 1 stop advantage over a 1/3" camera" That's definitely a relevant point - all else is rarely equal, and as Barry Green's tests showed, there's actually very little in it.
By "all else equal" I was really thinking of such factors as CCD or CMOS? Total no of pixels on chip? Do the chips have microlenses? It's very difficult for manufacturers to defy the laws of physics as they apply to silicon - it's a bit like aircraft design, manufacturers put the numbers into computers and tend to get the same results, which is why all airliners tend to look much more similar now than they used to.

In this case, both the EX and the 300/370 are CMOS and 1920x1080. I believe the EX chips use microlenses, the 300/370 doesn't, so combined with the chip size difference the EX would be expected to have more than one stop intrinsic difference.

Now maybe Panasonic have access to alien technology which would explain why Barrys results don't match expectations. An alternative might be down to lineup - quite a few factors could affect the noise level, and it's possible to degrade certain performance factors to favour noise. Another alternative is if active noise reduction is used, which is down to the same thing - degrading other aspects of image quality in favour of reducing noise. So in this case "all else is not equal" benefits the HPX370 in one regard, diminishes it in another.
I really feel that a lot of people discount 1/3" needlessly.
It used to be a case of going for 1/3" because you couldn't afford cameras with bigger chips. A general acceptance that 1/2" was better, 2/3" better still, but hey! I can't afford them and 1/3" is good enough for me. Alternatively size/weight was a crucial factor so 1/3" it had to be.

The EX changed all that by giving 1/2" chips in a camera at a price/size/weight that previously had been that for 1/3". It's ceases to be a case of quality versus price - it's one of why settle for less if you can get better for the same price?

That all seems reasonable David, you may well be right. But until you've done tests it's just supposition as to which is better. Barry's done that and I have no reason to doubt him.
Steve

This is all relatively moot, because the fact is, all things are not equal. Sensor size (in terms of 1/3 vs 1/2) is a tiny tiny part of the whole pie. Here's the difference between 1/2" (pink) & 1/3" (yellow) sensors:
http://i882.photobucket.com/albums/ac25/cowpunk52/Screenshot2010-06-12at115220AM.png
At that level, lens quality, codec, processing power & implementation and a host of other factors play a much more crucial role in determining overall IQ - and that's why Panny's HPX300's & 370's have been so successful at securing a majority market share in broadcast television vs any of the Sony XDCAM line (ex1, ex3 & even pmw350).

If bigger is always better, Sony should be winning the game. But they're not, and there's a reason for that.

Yes, you are right on the outdoors usability of Sony LCD's. But you don' know how good is the Canon's LCD in practice, it's only an assumption that is better in bright conditions. We will have to wait and see.

I was able to use the Canon XF305 outside in bright light. The LCD performed very very well, although I always prefer to use a hoodman or the like. However, it is, without question, the best LCD on any camera that I've had the pleasure of using. It really is a step up.

Here's the difference between 1/2" (pink) & 1/3" (yellow) sensors:
The fact is that in terms of area a 1/2" sensor is twice as big as a 1/3" sensor. For chips of each size, each 1920x1080, that means each individual photosite will be more than twice as big in the 1/2" chip case. (It'll be more than twice because it's reasonable to assume the inter-site border will be the same in each case, hence takes up less percentage wise in the 1/2" case.) That means twice the light gathering power/photosite, and therefore an inherent advantage of at least a stop if the chips are otherwise the same.

No matter how good or bad a manufacturer may make a camera with 1/3" chips, the same manufacturer making the same camera with 1/2" chips will inevitably be better - a lot better. You only have to compare Sonys EX with Sonys NX5. (They keep the photosite area the same, but the NX5 has about 1 megapixels/chip compared to double that for the EX.)

Hardly surprisingly, manufacturers who only sell 1/3" designs tend to disagree with that - at least in public. It's marketing, not science.

Oh you make me happy Brian on the confirmation of the LCD. Im going to 100% buy this beasty XF300.
The EX1 is just too awkward to use hand held days on end.

I will mainly shoot in 35mbs and for special occasions i.e very low light ive got the option to go 50mbs!!

Im still praying Canon will bring out some firmware to allow Push-Auto-Iris on the handgrip hehee :)

The DOF argument goes in favor of the EX-1. But the LCD w/ waveform monitor and vectorscope is going to make composing a good, well lit shot quite a bit easier on the Canon.

I wonder why Canon didn't go with 1/2" chips for their 300 / 305 models as it would of pleased more people for sure. I used an Canon L1 in Hi8 way back in 1991 that had a single 1/2" sensor that was better in low light than the XL1 or the XLH1 that I used since for wildlife filming.

As handy as this camera will be to pack around, the lack of lens power won't cut it for most wildlife shooting I do. I'm hoping for their interchangeable model soon ( anyone have an idea when? ), maybe they will surprise us with 1/2" chips. In the meantime I'll keep using my XLH1 that has never missed a beat.

Leon Lorenz
Canadian Wildlife Productions: Grizzly Bears, Bighorm Sheep in Alberta & BC Rockies DVD Videos (http://www.wildlifevideos.ca)

Well, maybe because 1/3" chip sensor allows long range zoom for an affordable price. As a wildlife cinematographer too, I prefer a 1/3"chip with a 18x zoom than a 1/3" chip with a 14x zoom.
Of course, an interchangeable lens would have been even better, but I bet that, if Canon make one, it won't have a 1/2"chip, because Canon wouldn't want to redesign the zoom.
I also keep my XLH1 with a NanoFlash and it rocks!

Agreed Ronan, and it's not just lens price it's also the size. A 100-300 f4 Sigma is a lot more compact than a 200-600 lens that would be the equivalent on a 2./3" sensor. Bigger lens, so bigger tripod too - before you know it you'll be in hospital with a broken back!
And with that in mind I'd suggest that the wildlife community should be crossing their fingers that Canon don't put 1/2" chips in an interchangeable lens model.
Steve

No matter how good or bad a manufacturer may make a camera with 1/3" chips, the same manufacturer making the same camera with 1/2" chips will inevitably be better - a lot better. You only have to compare Sonys EX with Sonys NX5. (They keep the photosite area the same, but the NX5 has about 1 megapixels/chip compared to double that for the EX.)


I think you're absolutely right about this. However, the same argument doesn't work when comparing cameras from separate manufacturers because of how many variables are involved in ultimate performance. That's why any argument stating that an EX1 is better than a XF300 because the EX1 simply because it has a marginally larger chip size just doesn't hold water. Truly, both cameras have pros and cons over each other - testing has shown that the EX1 has about a 1 stop light advantage over over the XF series, naturally due to it's larger sensor and photosites. A one stop light advantage does not necessarily make the EX1 a superior camera, unless all you care about is low-light ability (some may argue a shallower DOF feature of the EX series as well, but in my experience, there is no easily perceptible difference in DOF between 1/3" & 1/2"). Early images suggest better dynamic range & more resolution in the XF line (and certainly more color information via 4:2:2 out of the box). There's a lot of factors to consider here.

A lot of people/productions have very different needs when it comes to a video camera. In this day and age where nearly all cameras are way past "good enough", bigger is better regardless of all else is a failed argument.

Going back to the original poster's question about the sales guy pushing the Sony over the Canon b/c of the sensor size - well, from my experience working in sales, there's one simple reason for this: that sales guy can sell a Sony right now, today. He can't sell the Canon. Any decent salesman will always push a product he can sell immediately over one he can't sell for the next month or two. Which is just one of the reasons why I think it's very dangerous to take buying advice from a salesman (but that's getting into a whole other can of worms)!

That's why any argument stating that an EX1 is better than a XF300 because the EX1 simply because it has a marginally larger chip size just doesn't hold water.
Firstly, I wouldn't call the difference "marginal" - 1/2" chips are twice the area of 1/3", and the practical difference is more owing to the likelihood of the inter-photosite boundaries being a lower percentage of the total in the bigger chip case.

In principle you're absolutely correct, you can't say that any camera is necessarily better than another purely because of chip size. BUT, for two cameras with the same underlying technologies (no of pixels, CMOS/CCD, 3 chip/1 chip etc) the manufacturers of the larger chip version are starting off with a huge advantage in design terms, and whilst desirable, I don't think the 50Mbs codec will be anything like enough in itself to make up the difference. Whether Canon can pull anything else out of the bag remains to be seen - it's not impossible, but I'll believe it when I see it.

Whatever happens in practice, however good the XF300 turns out to be, there's no getting away from the fact that it would have been far better with 1/2" chips. If I'd heard that, it would be my clear expectation that we'd have a likely "EX1 killer", as it is we'll have to wait and see......

I have to agree with David. All things being equal the camera with 1/2" sensors should perform better in low light than a 1/3'' camera. Also wouldn't the larger sensor camera have a larger subject size at the same lens power? This shoud be a big plus for seeing and keeping fast moving small wildlife ( like flying birds ) in your viewfinder easier. I believe if Canon made a 1/2"sensor camera or larger they would have a huge market, I for one would buy it in a heartbeat. I looked at Sony's EX3 about a year ago and it looked very cheaply made compared to the Canon XLH1 which I now use.

Leon Lorenz
Canadian Wildlife Productions: Grizzly Bears, Bighorm Sheep in Alberta & BC Rockies DVD Videos (http://www.wildlifevideos.ca)

Also wouldn't the larger sensor camera have a larger subject size at the same lens power? This shoud be a big plus for seeing and keeping fast moving small wildlife ( like flying birds ) in your viewfinder easier.[/url]

No, other way around. A smaller sensor will give you a larger subject in the frame @ same 'lens power.'

Whether Canon can pull anything else out of the bag remains to be seen - it's not impossible, but I'll believe it when I see it.

In regards to Canon pulling some other magic out of the bag, I will say this: When I was playing with the XF305 at Cinegear, I zoomed all the way in (18x), pointed at some high contrast vertical lines, and whip panned away at various speeds. I couldn't see any rolling cmos skew in the LCD. I'm sure there's some there, but compared to what I'm accustomed to seeing in the HPX300 & and the EX1/3 - massive difference. i don't know what they're doing, and i haven't heard a whisper of 'global shutter,' but I'm just saying there seemed to be far less rolling shutter than any other professional cmos camera I've ever used.

Also, I'm not convinced it's an EX1 killer - in fact, I don't think it is. But I would put it on par, as the EX1 certainly isn't an XF killer. And I can certainly see why some would choose it over the EX1.

another compare video and some more:

YouTube - CANON XF300 ?SONY XDCAM PVW EX-1 test.wmv (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0lBjO9V79I)

http://www.youtube.com/user/2009keiko#p/u

not mine, etc

I have borrowed an XF300 for a special project and got the chance to make a very quick comparison with the EX1 at normal gain settings. My colleague's exposure seems to be a fraction lower than mine, so I have lifted the EX gamma by 15% for the split screen shot. Aperture was f5.6 on both cameras, data rate at maximum and colour at defaults. From memory the Sony gain was minimum and XF300 was at -3dB.

The XF300 was very noticeably sharper at 1080 and there is none of the colour smearing that is obvious on the EX1 in the leaves and the grass behind the car.

Canon XF300 v Sony EX1 on Vimeo

I am very happy to upload the MXF file from the Canon for anyone interested, but my colleague requested that the EX clip is not put online.

Better than adding bulky downloads of static clips - here are the two full screen grabs at max quality jpeg for comparison:

The EX1 is the darker clip, the XF300 lighter - both are untouched grabs from the original camera files.

Nick.

Wow, that's pretty impressive.
I wonder how much is due to Detail settings? At f5.6 you'd expect both lenses to be pretty decent so that shouldn't make a massive difference I wouldn't have thought.
I'm quite surprised at how much better it does look.
Steve

Steve,

The camera was used on default settings (no CP set), so detail was at the default of zero (range -8 to 8). Time has been short, so I have not been able to investigate all the CP settings, but I understand that as a departure from previous cameras, some of the settings represent 'standards' removing some of the need to create custom looks.

Nick.

The road shows a lot more detail with the Canon. Would be interesting to see the same scene at wide open or tele or both and the EX with a Nano & 50mbps.

I would also be interested to see a DOF comparison between the two just to know for sure what difference there may be.

I don't know if it is my monitor, but to me the EX1 colors look more realistic. the slide darker color of the car looks better to me.

When I was a newbie I used to love these kinds of tests, but now that I have an EX1 and see how one can make any shot appear with all the settings, these tests are basically useless. I don't say that to be critical of the test-maker, I'm sure in 'most' cases they mean well, while in others it's biased based on settings.

An example of an absurdly biased test is the first one that Tans Mark linked to (nothing against Tans, he was just linking to it, not his tests). It showed Canon as a lovely, bright daylight image of some bushes compared to a dull, darker scene of the EX1. C'mon, one would have to have no idea whatsoever about cameras to actually be influenced by such a basic thing as shooting leaves in any easy focal range and easy lighting and having such a huge difference. I could make my kids toy camera look better than the EX1 was shown on that clip.

The one showing the car and the 'less sharp' EX1 is not accurate either. I can make my EX1 razor sharp throughout the entire image at that distance, or make the background look a little muddled depending on my settings.

I'm not biased either, I absolutely love Canon and am a Canon supporter and I have tens of thousands of dollars invested in Canon still photography bodies and lenses. I also have the Canon 5D Mark II, awesome camera for both stills and vids.

For those who think the 1/3" vs. 1/2" chips aren't really that big of a factor, well for many of us it really is huge. I would have seriously considered this new Canon video camera if they put 1/2" sensors in it. Anything 1/3" is not on the table with me, I've been spoiled by 1/2" with my EX1 and I'm not going back, especially in that price range. I hope Canon puts the MK II sensor in a full video camera body, unencumbered, and I'm all over it (or at least will be a contender with Scarlet for me). Going from 1/3" to 1/2" is pretty huge, and going from 1/2" to 2/3" is pretty huge. And full frame is pretty huge. These things do matter to many of us and I'm a little surprised that Canon, in this price range, with their amazing chip making capabilities, with a brand spanking new camera, went with 1/3" chips when the market and all the buzz is trending otherwise.

Just my thoughts... people smarter than me may feel differently.

Buck, I agree with you.

I have been watching this camera as I like to keep up on the market and I wonder about its market position. Is Canon trying to get new camera owners or existing camera owners to switch?

I would think there are a lot of people who already own a video camera in this segment (somebody who would pay $8,000 for a video camera). I am in this category and there is not not enough reason to make a switch.

To be honest, if this series had two things I would consider selling everything and switching in order to have matched cameras. - 1/2" chips and a JVC style mini-shoulder mount model (fixed lens is fine). Having a larger shoulder option along with a smaller version gives options. For some reason which we can only speculate they did not or will not go there.

For those who say 1/3" is fine and there is no difference, well I can only point to history and the pecking order that has always been there. There is a reason why the big money uses the bigger sensors. It is just too convenient for the manufacturers to say its all different now. I can't agree. If it looks great at 1/3", then it will look better at 1/2". Why not "go there", take over the space and remove all doubt?

With the rise of the vDSLRs and 4/3s video cameras like the upcoming Panasonic model, these 1/3" chip cameras will look limited in comparison going forward, by price and performance.

But I am just one situation though...

Anyway, looks like a wonderful camera, just not quite enough for the price to get my interest.

Buck and Tim, you're right on. You have summed it up perfectly.

Thanks.

...

For those who think the 1/3" vs. 1/2" chips aren't really that big of a factor, well for many of us it really is huge. I would have seriously considered this new Canon video camera if they put 1/2" sensors in it. Anything 1/3" is not on the table with me, I've been spoiled by 1/2" with my EX1 and I'm not going back, especially in that price range. I hope Canon puts the MK II sensor in a full video camera body, unencumbered, and I'm all over it (or at least will be a contender with Scarlet for me). Going from 1/3" to 1/2" is pretty huge, and going from 1/2" to 2/3" is pretty huge. And full frame is pretty huge. These things do matter to many of us and I'm a little surprised that Canon, in this price range, with their amazing chip making capabilities, with a brand spanking new camera, went with 1/3" chips when the market and all the buzz is trending otherwise.

Just my thoughts... people smarter than me may feel differently.

Buck, I also think that 1/2 is a much bigger advantage over 1/3 than people are admitting. And if this camera were 1/2, I'd buy it tomorrow.

So Sony has the advantage when it comes to sensor size. BUT the Canon has the advantage when it comes to codec. 4:2:2 with a higher data rate is significant.

The only way I can explain the results of the test above (other than the EX being poorly set) is that the detail in the image overwhelmed the XDCAM-EX 35mbps codec. I'd like to see a real head-to-head between the two cameras using production models and more extensive testing.

But if the comparison shown above really does show both cameras at their best (a rather big "If"), then the Canon has significantly higher resolution in real world compositions (as opposed to zone plate charts that don't stress the codec nearly as much).

So it may come down to what's more important to you: higher resolution or shallower DoF?

In regards to Canon pulling some other magic out of the bag, I will say this: When I was playing with the XF305 at Cinegear, I zoomed all the way in (18x), pointed at some high contrast vertical lines, and whip panned away at various speeds. I couldn't see any rolling cmos skew in the LCD.
That's an interesting observation, but I don't think it proves anything conclusively. It's conceivable that the LCD was being scanned in such a way as to balance out the rolling shutter effect. To prove the matter. you'd really need to connect the camera and another camera for comparison to the same external monitor and do the same test to each.
To be honest, if this series had two things I would consider selling everything and switching in order to have matched cameras. - 1/2" chips and a JVC style mini-shoulder mount model (fixed lens is fine).
Exactly my thoughts as well. I commend Canon for the choice of codec, and also the use of Compact Flash. Maybe there are technical issues surrounding the use of 1/2" chips which would just make it a bridge too far, but I don't see any real excuse for the form factor. We're talking about an expensive camera here by 1/3" standards, there's just no excuse for it having the form and ergonomics of a consumr camera. JVC have shown it can be done, Canon should have done something similar.

I think the lack of 1/2" chips can only be down to one of two things: this is already a (surpisingly to a lot of people) expensive camera, using 1/2" chips may just have pushed the price too high for it have a market, not only would the chip and other hardware have cost more the excellent lens would have been more expensive too to cover 1/2". The second possibility is not wanting to rock the boat, as a 1/2" camera with 50 mb/s codec really have caused huge waves with Canon's semi-partners (ie they make a lot of lenses for their cameras) Sony and Panasonic.
I still don't quite see such a big issue with 1/3" vs 1/2", it is after all only 1 stop difference. So just shoot f2 instead of 2.8 or f4 instead of 5.6. At the other end you've got diffraction limits - f4 vs f5.6 theoretically, though in real world terms probably f5.6 vs f8. So the Canon will have a useable aperture range of f1.6 to f5.6, surely that's workable?
As long as the sensitivity and noise are not too far off the 1/2" camera's as in this case then surely it can't be that big a problem. Having said that I don't use either of them so I admit I'm not talking from specific experience here.
Steve

there's just no excuse for it having the form and ergonomics of a consumr camera.I don't think there's anything "consumer" about it -- it's not significantly different from the Canon XH, the Panasonic HVX, or the Sony EX1, and those certainly are not consumer camcorders.

My opinion is that their decision to go with 1/3" was based on the strategy of their overall product roadmap. The XF is most likely just the handheld version of a forthcoming shoulder-mount, probably the "XL F" and in order to be called an XL and maintain compatibility with existing XL HD lenses, it must have an XL mount and therefore it must be 1/3" -- in all honesty, who couldn't see that coming?

I still don't quite see such a big issue with 1/3" vs 1/2", it is after all only 1 stop difference. So just shoot f2 instead of 2.8 or f4 instead of 5.6.
I'm more used to 2/3" cameras, but even there often find myself juggling with ND and lighting to make sure I'm very close to wide open. So I don't see any move to 1/2" chips as welcome - and 1/3" even less so. I'm sure it's possible to make do with 1/3" and accept interview backgrounds that are distractingly sharp - but if there exists an alternative, why not go for it?

A move to 2/3" may be prohibitively expensive for many, but such as the EX is actually a lot cheaper than the X305.
I don't think there's anything "consumer" about it -- it's not significantly different from the Canon XH, the Panasonic HVX, or the Sony EX1, and those certainly are not consumer camcorders.
What I said was that it had "the form and ergonomics of a consumer camera" and in relation to handheld use I stand by that statement, even if in other respects it's far from "consumer". I've had plenty of good things overall to say about the EX - but handheld ergonomics is certainly not one of them - and I know I'm far from alone in thinking that. The same applies to the Panasonic HVX, which doesn't even have the true manual lens of the EX. Unfortunately a lot of people have grown up knowing nothing other than this type of styling - that doesn't mean it can't be improved on.

Tim Polster brought up the JVC styling as how a camera in this class CAN exhibit pro form factor and good handheld ergonomics. I agree with him - in this respect, it is a mile ahead of the XF305 and the three you name, I'd also add the EX3 as a half way house.

I'm used to 2/3" cameras too, and I never seem to have this ND juggling problem. The NDs go in steps of 2 stops on Varicam and the like, so you have 2, 4 and 6 stops of ND. The 2x extender is 2 stops too, so that fits in nicely.
Say you're at f2 and the light changes a bit, stop down to f2.8, no big deal. If it changes more and you don't want to use f4 then stick 1 ND in and go back to f2. I personally find it such a non-problem, and very intuitive to work with.
Steve

I'm used to 2/3" cameras too, and I never seem to have this ND juggling problem. .........
Say you're at f2 and the light changes a bit, stop down to f2.8, no big deal. If it changes more.......
It depends on what you are filming. If GVs etc out of doors then depth of field issues aren't likely to bother you much anyway. But an example of what I'm thinking about may be such as an interview situation indoors. The geography of the room may define lens angles, (and may mean relatively wide angles) and it's normally desirable to soften the background relative to the subject. Hence, it's often a good idea to juggle ND/gain to work extremely close to wide open - even then, and even with 2/3" chips, the background may still be sharper than desired.

1/2" chips will only make the issue worse. 1/3" will make it worse still. Cost etc may exclude the use of a 2/3" camera, but if there's no cost advantage to a 1/3" camera over 1/2", then in this respect the 1/3" camera is at a clear disadvantage.

All things being equal yes. But, what if you could have a 1/3" instead of a 1/2" but the lens would be much better as they can make a better performing lens to cover the smaller chip for less money than the same performance lens would cost to cover 1/2"? That seems like it may be the case with the Canon, and that the 1/2" to 1/3" difference may be smaller than the difference made by a better quality lens.
Just a thought.
Steve

It's a good thought, Steve, and the quoted figures for max aperture (if you believe them) are f1.9 for the EX, and f1.6 for the Canon. That half stop does mean that if both cameras are used wide open, the difference half negates the 1/2"-1/3" advantage in respect of both depth of field and low light performance.

But it is now becoming a camera v camera discussion. Does a good lens (and a heavier price tag) at all make up for an inherent 1/3" v 1/2" disadvantage? And it doesn't get away from the fact that if the new Canon had 1/2" chips, but still a f1.6 lens, it would be much better still. Instead of being an EX1 challenger, a definate EX1 beater.

And it doesn't get away from the fact that if the new Canon had 1/2" chips, but still a f1.6 lens, it would be much better still. Instead of being an EX1 challenger, a definate EX1 beater.

Alan Roberts who did those tests had exactly the same thought. Comparing the EX1 and the XF305 he said that "If Canon go on to make a 1"/2 version it'll be a real killer."

It's a good thought, Steve, and the quoted figures for max aperture (if you believe them) are f1.9 for the EX, and f1.6 for the Canon. That half stop does mean that if both cameras are used wide open, the difference half negates the 1/2"-1/3" advantage in respect of both depth of field and low light performance.

...

BTW, the Canon lens ramps from 1.6 to 2.8. I believe the EX-1's is 1.9 for the entire range. So if you are zoomed out all the way to get as blurry a background as possible, the EX-1 actually gives you effectively a 2 stop advantage in terms of creating shallow DoF. That is definitely significant.

Is the lens ramping not partly due to the fact that the Canon is 18x vs 14x for the Sony? When does the Canon start to ramp, maybe around 14x?
Also, at telephoto range like that the dof would be pretty small even at f2.8. At max zoom and f2.8 and the subject at 20 the depth of field would only be just over 1 foot.
Steve

Hi

A wild guess from me is that the diameter of the optics doesn't matter so much. Think of it this way: Point your camcorder to an object which fills the screen, for example a wall of a house. The light that falls in to the camcorder from that wall is not dependant of the lens diameter. It does not become more light from the wall if the diameter is larger, the amount of light is only dependant of the source.

I guess that a larger diameter on a lens gives less optical problems within the zoom range, for example chromatic and spheric aberation, and also gives the manufacturer larger room for compensating for such problems and also build a more rugged system with higher quality. A larger diameter might reduce for light loss within the lens system though, so perhaps it does matter in some cases.

As I don't have a degree in optics this is only wild guesses as I said. :-)

Regards,

/Bo

Sorry to disagree, but the size of the lens is one of the biggest factors in light-gathering power.

Go to a big observatory. Notice the HUGE telescopes. Size matters when it comes to light-gathering power.

Steve