Hi
I currently own a canon xha1 and am ready to upgrade and go tapeless and at the price point of these cameras will also be shirtless ;) I was talking to some guys at the camera store. They recommended
going with the sony instead based on 1/2 inch vs 1/3 inch sensor size. They told me its like comparing apples and oranges the 1/3 sensor will never be able to match the 1/2 inch sensor.
Just wanted to get your opinions on this. However a turn off for the Sony is their memory cards cost a lot more?
The sales guy also said in the pro video world Sony still has a big lead on Canon?
This store carries both cameras and was very surprised at the cost of the canon.
Any recommendations would be appreciated thanks!!!
I also asked about tapeless cameras in the 3000 range and they talked about a $4000 sony but
uses much greater compression and needs converting to be imported into FCP

I think the store's got it pretty much right on both counts.
BUT, there is a lot more to the image than just the chip size, so it's not quite so straightforward as that. I suspect it wouldn't be apples and oranges, I bet it'd be real close - don't forget the canon has the edge in codec (50 mb/s vs 35 mb/s).
There are operational issues with 1/3" chips, namely that the ideal aperture range is quite small - go below about f5.6 and you get softening due to diffraction, open up too wide and you might have difficulty with too much light even with the NDs on.
I get the feeling they'd both produce images in the same ballpark, enough so that it'd be worth checking both out and seeing which one feels better and works best for you.
Steve

Hi Richard, you need to make your decision based on the *entire* camera, not just one aspect of it.

I wouldn't buy one car over another just because it had a bigger engine. So many other factors have equal if not greater importance.

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

is the memory more expensive with Sony?

Yes, SxS cards are pricey, the Canon is Compact Flash isn't it? If so there'll be a price difference of around 10x! But in the overall scheme of things I don't think media costs make that much difference, as they do, in effect, last forever!
Steve

I think it is important to look at the bigger picture: Sony have market dominance in this price bracket and Canon (and others) want a piece of the action.

I have not managed to do the EX / XF comparison that I wanted to do, but I would be very surprised if Canon have not done their own detailed testing to ensure that the new camera equals and probably surpasses the current Sony products.

The XF 305/300 are clearly aimed at the ENG / independent TV production market and the results that I have seen from this camera to date suggest very good low light performance. As Chris says, sensor size is not everything and Canon have huge expertise in image processing and noise suppression.

The camera offers 50Mbs 4:2:2 without add-ons onto low cost CF cards. For anyone looking for a new camera, it would seem to make sense to see how the street price pans out a month or so after it goes on sale?

Nick.

I'm not sure if Canon are trying to get a piece of Sony's action. Others have commented that they have a big interest with Sony in that they supply the majority of the lenses for their cameras.

I think they've always been on the fringe of the broadcast market and been happy to be there as they get a whole load of niche buyers that are better served by the Canon offering than the others (right from EX1 Hi 8, through the XL-1 and XL-H1).

Also interesting to ask the question why did Canon not put 1/2" chips in the camera? If they did they'd be a big jump ahead of Panny or Sony, and would have a full EBU spec HD camera (ie 1/2" or bigger chips and 50 mb/s or more codec). Not wanting to tread on certain peoples' toes maybe?

Steve

That makes a lot of sense Steve. Bigger chips would hardly be a problem for Canon, but as you say that really would tread on toes. Whatever the logic, this camera performs well and is a big leap from the previous generation.
I'm keen to see how retail prices pan out, particularly in the UK.
Nick.

is the memory more expensive with Sony?

If you go with SxS cards its very expensive however there are SD card adapters that work great with the EX1 and with the latest firmware and Class 10 SD cards you can take advantage of S&Q on cheap SDHC. Expensive memory is not a good enough reason not to buy the EX1R anymore with the SD work around.

is the sd adapter card not supposed to be used sparingly? i thought i read somehwere it was not to be used all of the time, but more of a last choice for media scenario. could be wrong though.

i am also waiting nick, i am just over half way for my camera fund be it XF or EX1, but as the retail world is, if you want it first and right now, your gonna have to pay. my saving will take me a month or two past the release, so im interested to see how the pricing will go. who knows, maybe they will be on backorder? would be surprising to me still if that happened.

dan

Also remember you could look at a nano flash unit which yes is expensive however you can record high bit rates and has a large amount of storage.

Daniel I'm not totally sure I could be wrong but my friend has an EX1 and he uses SD cards without any problems. Personally I shoot with the Canon XHA1 and I tend to like Canon's cameras I just feel they screwed us over with a 1/3 sensor & price. Even codec is not all that - if anyone can recall the HVX200A shoots at 4:2:2 & 100MB/s and the EX1 still took the market with better looking images.

yeah very true nicholas. i even cant help but wonder why panasonic hasnt updated the 200 model(170 was maybe an update? dont know panasonic well). we use them for school and it is such a bad feel. buttons, menu, even the flip out lcd is old news. i was an xha1 owner aswell, canon just builds great looking, strong cameras that function well. my only hope with the 1/3 chips is that because of the burst of video sales going to a cheaper dslr camera, the new chip should match or closely match the quality to get users buying video again. but then again, i will be using a 35mm adapter, so 1/2 chips would allow me better light loss.

I think after reading this discussion I am
leaning towards the Sony
The memory cost was one issue that seems not to be a factor anymore
if you caan use SD cards.
The 1/3 issue according to the folks at B and H is a big deal
they told me its not just light sensitivity but the overall image quality
is better on the 1/2 inch. The way they put it is to think of the chip as the engine in the
car. The car can do a lot with a small engine but the other car( sony) with a bigger engine can even do more.
Now if Canon had introduced this camera at $4000 it would be worth it. From the technolicical standpoint
it would seem it would cost less to make a camera without tape transport drives. IMO this camera should have been a bit more expensive than the xha1 not double the price

The folks at B&H are definitely over-simplifying things. The overall image quality of a 1/2" is not neccessarily better than a 1/3", it might be but not neccessarily.

The car analogy works here too: put a huge 6 litre V8 in a Cadilac and it'll get smoked by a 2 litre Subaru Impreza. This is because there is more to it than just engine size.

Steve

B&H were right. 1/2" was better, but times change. I have shot an awful lot of material on this camera and it is very, very good.

I'm a stills photographer, used to 20 & 40Mpixel images - this is the first time that I have been happy with video stills, except from Red One.

Nick.

The difference is not anywhere near as much as B & H says.....the lower light is a little bit better and the depth of field is a little bit better.......can I repeat...a little bit better (I'm pinching two fingers together). As I posted on another thread, Don't you think a 1/3" chip from 2010 might be better than a 1/2" from 2007??? And Canon glass is definitly better than Zeiss labeled Sony glass.....not to mention, the much bigger 50mb/422 color codec the Canon has.
I suspect that B&H has a lot of EXs in stock and would like to sell them now insted of have you wait a month or two to buy the Canon.

Jim Martin
FilmTools.com

I think Canon could have had a real EX-1 rival if they had put 1/2" chips in this new camera at the same price.

It does seem polictical as this would have really separated the camera from the herd. There are a lot of 1/3" chip cameras and only the EX series in the 1/2" range. Kind of a shame.

It still looks like a great camera, but 1/2" would have perked everybody up for shure.

Tough choice to decide between the two!

I rented an EX1 recently and found myself missing my old XHA1. I like the Canon glass, and prefer the ergonomics. I also hated the image stabilization on the Sony compared to the Canon.

However if the cheapest fixed lens XF option is going to cost 6 grand in the UK ($9000), i'm not sure if i can justify it. There are loads of excellent condition second hand EX1's around for half that, and of course they have a larger sensor and - most of the time - can record to cheaper memory cards.

Another important benefit of the EX1 over the Canon is not having to wait for all the bugs to be worked out since the EX1 has been around for a few years.

With the EX1, there are thousands of accessories already available, new and used.

An advantage of the EX cameras, that few ever mention, is Flash Band removal using Sony's ClibBrowser software. I have an EX1 and the software works nearly perfect.

I think Canon could have had a real EX-1 rival if they had put 1/2" chips in this new camera at the same price.

It does seem polictical as this would have really separated the camera from the herd. There are a lot of 1/3" chip cameras and only the EX series in the 1/2" range. Kind of a shame.


I think it's more even than that though Tim, I think if they had put 1/2" sensors in it would actually then be challenging Sony and Panasonic's big bucks cameras as it'd be fully compliant with EBU HD specs - I'm sure they'd start to lose plenty of sales of PDW700, Varicam, HDW790 etc., for those who don't need interchangeable lenses. Why haven't Sony put the 50mb/s 422 codec into the PMW350? No-one is going to tell me that it would have been difficult, but as well as the £12,000 including lens PMW350 they also want to sell the £26,000 without lens or viewfinder PDW800.
Steve

Another important benefit of the EX1 over the Canon is not having to wait for all the bugs to be worked out since the EX1 has been around for a few years.


I get the feeling it's important to remember that we're talking about Canon here, not a small indy company that are field beta testing a bit of kit. I don't imagine for 1 second that there'll be any problems with the new camera.
Steve

Don't you think a 1/3" chip from 2010 might be better than a 1/2" from 2007???

The EX-1R was released around October of last year with new EXMOR chips. Maybe they aren't better than the Canon's chips, but they aren't three - four year old chips...

I think it is important to look at the bigger picture: Sony have market dominance in this price bracket and Canon (and others) want a piece of the action.

I have not managed to do the EX / XF comparison that I wanted to do, but I would be very surprised if Canon have not done their own detailed testing to ensure that the new camera equals and probably surpasses the current Sony products.

The XF 305/300 are clearly aimed at the ENG / independent TV production market and the results that I have seen from this camera to date suggest very good low light performance. As Chris says, sensor size is not everything and Canon have huge expertise in image processing and noise suppression.

The camera offers 50Mbs 4:2:2 without add-ons onto low cost CF cards. For anyone looking for a new camera, it would seem to make sense to see how the street price pans out a month or so after it goes on sale?
Nick.

Nick did you shoot any clips indoors with natural room lighting or any low light clips. When I compared the cams at NAB it seemed like there was a 1/2 stop differences between the cams If so could you post some of the clips. I only got to play with the cams for 2 hours most of the time was spent going though the menus and settings. I do Celeb. Interviews at clubs and also film concerts sometimes the cam light is not allowed. I was thinking about purchasing the XF 305 but the Low light would have to be equal to are better than the EX series for the type of work that I do.

The EX-1R was released around October of last year with new EXMOR chips. Maybe they aren't better than the Canon's chips, but they aren't three - four year old chips...

True...but there are more of the older models out there than the new ones....aside from that, the Canon glass and the bigger codec still IMHO trump the EX........not to mention more camera adjusts, lens IM, etc

Again, they are all good cameras and depending on what you are doing, one might be better that the others.

Jim Martin

Right. If you need some hint of shallow DoF and the best possible low light performance, the EX1 will win. If not, I think the codec alone will make the XF yield a superior image.

The codec by itself will not make the XF produce a better image. Over in the nanoFlash forum, an EX1 owner provided stills of 35Mb from the EX1 and 50Mb 422 from the nanoflash. Only under high magnification can you see a difference.

The EX1r sensor is identical to the EX1 & EX3.

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

Barry Green is paid by Panasonic to do these kinds of "tests." I'm not saying anything against any camera, just saying that you might want to be aware of that when reading his articles.

The EX1r sensor is identical to the EX1 & EX3.

I believe the EX1R has a better IR filter. While they do have the same sensor, there is just a little bit of a change in front of that sensor. The result should be a cleaner image in high light situations.

I´m sure you can get great pictures with this camera. I certainly could with my old XL-H1.
Another factor to think about is your work environment.
I changed my H1 for an EX-3 for 3 reasons, 2 of which won´t apply for the new camera (manual lens and viewfinder)
But the 3rd does. I work a lot with big ENG cameras that companies rent for production, and the Sony 700 XDCAM HD is the most used.
I´m often able to rent my EX-3 out as a B-cam for these productions as it intercuts very well with it´s big brother.
If you are not working in broadcast at all, the Canon might be the tool for you.
Personally I don´t think you will see a big difference in the 2 cameras. I might be proven wrong though

Barry Green is paid by Panasonic to do these kinds of "tests." I'm not saying anything against any camera, just saying that you might want to be aware of that when reading his articles.

I dare you to say that to him! He'll bite your head off. He has stated many times that he does not get paid by anyone to do anything. In a recent thread on another forum he states "for the record I've never been paid by anyone, ever, to do a writeup of their product or to otherwise comment or say something about their product, or endorse their product. Magazine publishers do pay for articles or reviews, but manufacturers certainly don't. And the magazines I've written for have never, ever exerted any manner of editorial influence or control over a single word I've written".

I've only got his word for it, but you might want to be careful before making accusations like that.
Steve

And Canon glass is definitly better than Zeiss labeled Sony glass.....not to mention, the much bigger 50mb/422 color codec the Canon has.


It's Fuji glass, not Zeiss, and I actually found the EX1 lens preferable over my Canon XH-A1 because it had less CA, especially at the wide end.

I dare you to say that to him! He'll bite your head off. He has stated many times that he does not get paid by anyone to do anything.

Compensation comes in many forms... On at least one of his books, Panasonic marketing employees are co-authors.

Which one? I cannot find it, but then maybe I am missing something.
All his books that I have seen relating to Panasonic cams say "writen by Barry Green".

I have never heard of anyone seriously questioning Mr. Green's testing procedures, and in fact in my experience he has been a reliable source of good information on cameras and technology.

The EX-1R was released around October of last year with new EXMOR chips. Maybe they aren't better than the Canon's chips, but they aren't three - four year old chips...

But these are not EXMOR-R chips. From everything I've seen and read, the EX-1 and EX-1R image wise are just about identical, except for IR contamination when a lot of ND is being used.

...

I have never heard of anyone seriously questioning Mr. Green's testing procedures, and in fact in my experience he has been a reliable source of good information on cameras and technology.

I greatly respect Barry greatly.

That said, his XH-A1 vs HVX review was slammed pretty hard for being pro Panasonic. Specifically, he compared both cameras w/ their stock settings and said the Panny had nicer color. It turned into a rather philosophical debate over how to test cameras. But being that the Canon is soo tweakable, it seemed to do the camera a disservice.

Anyway, I'm glad we're past that and DO NOT wish to revive that debate.

Ditto Peter......Lets get off Barry and move back on topic.

Jim Martin
Filmtools.com

Compensation comes in many forms... On at least one of his books, Panasonic marketing employees are co-authors.

That doesn't mean he gets paid by them which was the offending remark.
Steve

Do you guys think that considering the filter diameter of the Xf300 is 82mm that this affectively would give it a much better low-light performance comparing to similar camera like the Z7 or Z5 that have a filter diameter of 72mm?

If this does make a difference then this could make the Xf300 equal to the EX1 77mm filter diameter.

Thoughts?

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

I was hoping that a larger diameter would allow more light to hit the sensors so in low lit envorinments you are allowing more light into the censor hence less need to add gain etc.

Just a hope :)

The larger front element is often an indication of greater lens speed. Much so in in telelphotos, because there is a minimum diameter needed to give a certain maximum aperture. The formula is focal length / front optic diameter = maximum aperture. So if a 600mm lens is to have an f4 aperture that means the front optic needs to be 150mm across at the minimum.

According to the specs the Canon lens is f1.6 and the EX1 is f1.9, so barely anything in it. It could be that the Canon is constant f1.6 through the range though, and the EX1 drops to f2.8 or so at the long end? Don't know.

Steve

F-stops are for focal ratio, t-stops are for transmission. While unlikely, a certain f2 lens could allow more light than an f1.8. Sensor size is usually the most important factor in light sensitivity, so it's very likely that despite the slower f-stop, the EX1 is ultimately more sensitive. This is an issue that can only be resolved empirically.

It could be that the Canon is constant f1.6 through the range though...It's not a constant-aperture lens, no. It stops down to f/2.8 at full telephoto. However that is the fastest they've ever done at the long end of the lens. The equivalent 35mm still photography field-of-view at full telephoto is almost 530mm. Canon doesn't even make an EF 500mm f/2.8. Pretty impressive, in my opinion!

Canon doesn't even make an EF 500mm f/2.8. Pretty impressive, in my opinion!

Well, it is far easier to make a low f stop lens for a smaller sensor as the f stop is defined as the focal length divided by the iris diameter. For a given angle of view, a smaller sensor will require a lower focal length lens, meaning a lower f stop.

People often confuse f stop for a physical measurement, which it isn't. It isn't actually the f stop which dictates DOF either, it is the physical iris diameter. f 2.8 on a wide lens will give deep DOF whereas on a telephoto will give shallow DOF; that is because the iris diameter on the telephoto lens will be greater.

The ultimate example of iris controlling DOF is a pinhole camera, where no lens is even required, yet everything is in focus.

Not disagreeing with your post Chris, just clarifying in case people interpret it wrongly.

82mm filter is really large! A good one will set you back over $100.00. I actually had to google this to see if they made an 82mm, and they do.

Otherwise I was going to install a Pella window in front of the lens, if and when I procure camera.

Jonathan

On the lens, My contacts at Canon told me that the engineers had designed the 18x lens to mimic the typical 18x lens used by many of the 2/3" shooters of news and sports. In other words, the shooters know exactly what their tele and wide views are. If you were to remove their 2/3" from their shoulder and replace it with a 300/305, it is the exact same field of view....the wide all the way through to the tele that they are used to. Smart thinking.....

Jim Martin
Filmtools.com

I played with the 300/305 for a bit at Cine Gear. Ergonomics are similar to the XL/XH models. The rep indicated that the lens (with a healthy 29.5mm wide angle...35mm equivilant) had much less CA than the
XH-A1. This lens has HARD STOPS for ZOOM and FOCUS in the manual mode...a huge plus!
The plethora of menu adjustments should provide a large number of great in camera "looks" that can be stored on an SD card. I have always liked Canon's implementation of OIS and this camera does not disappoint in that regard.
Couple of things that didn't really thrill me:
I found it difficult to see/center the entire viewfinder image, even with the rubber eye cup folded back. When the diopter adjustment was set so that the center was sharp, the left edge was soft. This is probably just an issue with the VF on this particular camera sample, as I've never seen it on a Canon before.
No firewire port. Do services like UStream need the reliability of firewire, or will USB 2.0 suffice (given the shared bandwidth of USB ports) on a laptop? Streaming would likely be done using the 25mbs 1440x1080 mode, anyway.
All in all, a really nice camera; and that 50mb 4:2:2 codec is going to make compositing a lot easier in greenscreen work, extensive CC/grading, etc. Sure hope it will work with Vegas Pro.

Ken

Ken the files do work with Sony Vegas 9. I had no problems editing the files.