But let's see if anybody comes out with a new 1/2 - 2/3 CCD.

I think even Panasonic will no longer use them. It's not the same thing as saying everyone will ditch CCD and Varicam and FW900. Airline travel restrictions are growing tighter everyday, most recently Spirit announcing $45 fee for carry-on bags that go into the overhead, while still having to conform to 45 linear inches, 22 x 14 x 9 and 40 lbs, lithium battery restrictions etc. You're a news organization and want to ship oversize overweight baggage in the cargo hold? No problem for you!

Who is really pining for short battery life and high weight anyway?

Wow, talk about sticker shock...I was expecting about $1500 to $2000 less. I'm not going to go as far as to say its overpriced until I see the many head-to-head comparisons with the EX1r that are sure to come...but even if it's worth every penny, it's beyond my means at those prices.

Slinking back to the shallow end of the pool now...

On the XF series it's now 82mm. They have a new 0.8x wide-angle adapter to go with it, the WA-H82.

For high end productions though you're generally not talking about a single bag but rather 1/4 ton of gear so the weight of the actual camera is not that significant.
But you're right about weight and battery life.
Just more strength to the argument that the CMOS cameras are not quite good enough yet - even with all their advantages the high end folks are just not using them.
Steve

Couple thoughts.

This camera looked very large for a "small form factor" camera in the photos posted last month By Chris Hurd. In my opinion, now that 1/3" chips are getting the nod and costing closer to $10,000 than $5,000. This form factor needs to be looked at. It is tough to handhold the EX-1 due to design and sheer weight. This new Canon camera looks like it might be a handful as well. To me, this camera design is in no-man's land. Too big to handhold for any length of time but does not go on a shoulder. Don't know why the JVC style has not been more popular.

CCD vs CMOS.

My main thought here is that so often it is said that CMOS is so much more affordable. Well the only camera that has proved that to me is the EX-1. Sony actually put 1/2" chips in a traditional 1/3" form factor and sells it for $6,000. The HPX-300/370 and this new Canon camera are going the opposite direction from their CCD forefathers with the same chip size and higher price with skew to boot. If they could take away all of the compromises then I could justify the higher price.

I like the step up to the plate with the codec by Canon and there is little doubt this camera will produce very nice images. If they had gone for a better form factor I think it would be easier to choose. All things being equal, the EX-1 still seems like the best value to me though as you can add a Nano if you need the bitrate.

Where did you see SDHC? I only see CF.

What will be interesting is if the light gathering of the larger 82mm glass will be an equalizer to the EX1's larger chips?

There's an SDHC card slot located on the right side
of the camera body, on the hand grip (see my photos
back on page one of this thread, specifically in post #3).

Basically it's there as a way to move still images, custom
picture data, clip metadata and custom settings from
one XF series camcorder to another, or to a computer.

HD video is of course recorded to one of the two CF
(Compact Flash) card slots on the back of the cam.

And the market goes hmm...
 

This camera ends up being a large question mark for me. Will these new Canons be good? Undoubtedly. Is there some impressive new technology in both of them? Definitely. Are they going to be perceived by the market as a good value? That I question.

If you compare specs to the competition, the price does seem kind of high for what you are receiving. The list on the XF305 is $8,000.00. The list on the AG-HPX370 is $9,200.00. The list price on the EX3 is 9,800.00. Both the Canon and the Panasonic are 1/3" sensors and full raster, while the Sony is 1/2" full raster.

The AVCI 100MBPs codec will be better than 4:2:2 50MBPs, but the Canon's codec is superior to the creaky 4:2:0 35MBPs that the Sony EX3 has. Granted, CF cards will be cheaper than P2 cards or SxS cards. Fixed lens on the Canon versus a detachable lens on the Panasonic and Sony. Prosumer batteries on the Canon and Sony versus pro batteries on the Panasonic. Neither the Canon (so far) or the Sony offer a true studio configuration while Panasonic does off a real co-axial and CCU solution.

Handheld form factor on the Canon versus a hybrid "sort of" shoulder mount form factor on the Sony, while the Panasonic retains a broadcast shoulder mount form factor.

I don't see this camera being much a force in the market, I think Canon die-hards will obviously buy it but I am not so sure about non-Canon die hards. I guess Canon always have the option of dropping the price if it does not sell, as Panasonic did with the HPX300/301. Once the camera is available though, $8,000.00 list should street for closer to $6,800.00. It is an interesting niche they are trying to hit but other than a better codec than HDV or XDCAM EX, I don't see anything too exciting.

Keep on wishing as far as a DSLR sensor in an inexpensive video camera, I don't see that coming soon.

Thanks for posting about this Chris. It will be interesting to see just how good these new cams are.

Dan

Add me to the list of sticker shocked patrons.

One thing I did like was the intuitive layout of all the buttons on the camcorder. The only thing that I didn't see was a dedicated button for custom settings, unless that custom pict button on the left can be considered such but it looks more like a preset button to me. I'd love to have quick access to overcranking like the EX1r has.

I've been waiting for this camcorder as opposed to buying an EX1r but we shall see how this compares.

Quick question for the codec gurus, does this need to be converted in FCP or will this play nicely with prores LT? I'm not too familiar with the MXF file format.

Cheers

I think that's a pretty good summary Dan.
Think you'd get some debate (though not from me) about whether AVCI is better than 50mb/s MPEG.
I think you'd have to sum up this new Canon as "interesting" rather than "killer".
Steve

Randy, when Canon announced the codec in February they were even then talking about massive support for it from Apple, Avid etc. I'm sure it'll go in fine - with software updates from the NLE folks.
Steve

According to the press release, Apple, as well as AVID and all of the other big editing software companies has worked with Canon to implement this new Canon CF codec into their apps, including FCS. You should be able to edit it natively without having to transcode to ProRes.

Dan

To Dan's fine summary of camera options, I would add the recently announced JVC ProHD GY-HM700 for under $12k including lens.

That'd be my pick for the wildlife guys too Chris - thinking about getting one for a few small projects and personal stuff. 1/3" chips gives good lens reach, CCDs so no skew, 60P slow motion, small and light. It ticks a lot of boxes - but it's still only a 720 sensor. Hmmm, scary.

BTW - I was right about there being lots of posts once the Canon was announced!

Steve

No, it's a 720 sensor with pixel offset -- that's a big difference.

The number of pixels on the sensor is only one part of the camera's output resolution capability. There are a variety of pixel offset technologies, and all of them positively impact the camera's recorded resolution in a beneficial way. The pixel count on the chip doesn't tell the whole story.

No, but it does tell a massive part of it. I've been an HPX2700 owner and defended it to the hilt on this forum. BUT it's certainly true that whatever techniques you use you can't make detail that isn't there in the first place. 1920x1080 chips capture twice as much detail as 1280x720 ones, and that's a fact.
Steve

Same here. XH-A1 for me then.

Absolutely not. Professional high-end applications still need it for Matchmoving and etc. Flash banding is also the big issue.

In the Prosumer market, this is very true. But like I said, it's the pro market that won't phase it out until affordable global shutters hit the CMOS market (which I don't think will happen in the near future)

Couldn't agree more.

I call BS. RED, SI2K, and even the Arri D20/D21 are all CMOS and all have been projected on the silver screen. All have been involved in either Oscar winning, or Oscar nominated films.

To say that high end folks are not using it is just flat untrue.

Perrone is quoting digital cinema. That's not the only high-end market and I don't think that's what Steve was referring to.

I was really talking about the overall picture. Of course there are some CMOS users. I use one fairly frequently with the Phantom HD - but it's not an everday camera or suitable for every situation.
Steve

I am one of those diehard Canon fans and I still own my XL1 but I just don't see myself buying this camera. The price to me is a problem but only when you consider what you get for the price. 4:2:2 and 50 mbits is great but for me not that much more then AVCHD progressive scan. For me no matter what I convert to Prores so there is very little advantage to shooting mpeg2 over AVCHD. AVCHD at 24mbits is going to be about equal to 50 mbit mpeg2 except for the 4:2:2 color. Personally whenever I have a VFX shoot I always use live HDMI or HD-SDI capture anyway so the native 4:2:2 shooting isn't a deal breaker for me. Yes if the price was right I would like to always shoot 4:2:2 especially if I have to shoot interlaced. The reality of it however is that shooting native 4:2:2 isn't as important to me as it used to be. There have been a lot of VFX shoots done with 4:2:0 progressive cameras that have turned out very good so the argument that you can only key with 4:2:2 just isn't true anymore. Even 4:2:0 interlaced if filtered properly to shift the chroma fields back in order can give very good results.

I am kind of surprised Canon doesn't mention native Sony Vegas support. A few people at my work use it and I know it works very well with native 50 mbit mpeg2 and can even use it as a capture format.

With what you say Thomas, and comments from others too, it's hard to see many people choosing this camera over an EX1 with Nanoflash for sure.
Steve

I question it as well.

Why are you comparing it to the EX3? It should be compared to the EX1r which also has a fixed lens. And which is cheaper than the Canon. When Canon announces a removable lens version, then that should be compared to the EX3.


Canon's codec is likely EXACTLY the same as the codec in the EX1/EX3. Just using a different implementation. It will likely be susceptible to exactly the same failings. Yes, it probably uses the 50Mb/s 4:2:2 that Sony uses in the Optical Disk variants of it's cameras. Honestly, I've seen that variant, and I'd bet money that if you put 10 people in a room at normal viewing distances, you couldn't tell the 50Mbps variant from the 35. Been there, done that. Move that to a 100Mbps and you might have a case.

Also The EX1 and EX3 can shoot to SDHC which are cheaper than the CF cards the Canon will shoot. And unlike the CF cards in the Canon, they can be write write protected.

Yep. Awesome if you're looking for an ENG camera... only. If you want to take the camera OFF your shoulder then things get a bit more interesting with the news production style cameras.

If I was in the market for a camera in this price range right now, I'd buy an EX1 with a NanoFlash. A few more bucks, better sensor, better codec by miles.

That's definitely the contender Steve, if this can't match an EX1r as far as imagery goes, I don't see myself getting this camcorder. Low light and usability are the biggest things for me at this point. I can live with the 1/3rd chips if it somehow produces that much better imagery with the new codec.

You're right. It's not the ONLY high end market. But it is a viable and important one. And the statement that high end users aren't using CMOS, left unqualified, is patently false. Especially when paired with the comment that "CMOS isn't quite good enough." If it's good enough for the Academy to award it "Best Picture" I'd say that it's good enough.

To say that high end broadcast/ENG cameras aren't using CMOS would have certainly been a stronger argument.

Chris,

Red isn't just for digital cinema. We have a Sony F900 at work and we also have Red. We now use the Red for almost all video related projects. We are not the extreme high end either. We do corporate and broadcast work. In many ways Red has totally blown away the F900. My rule has always been if you are shooting something that looks bad with CMOS then chances are it is not being shot correctly. 99% of good production shooting will look perfectly fine with CMOS. A camera whip is bad regardless if it is skewed or not.

We have now seen amazing material not only from Red for cinema projects but the EX1 and DSLR's such as the 5d and 7d.

I still say the only problem rolling shutter has is that we are used to CCD. If we started out with CMOS and never had CCD then rolling shutter wouldn't be an issue for us. It is because of the perspective we all look at it that it seems bad to us. We see jello cam and say to ourselves there must be something wrong because CCD doesn't do that. Saying CMOS isn't good enough for the highend market is like saying water colors are not good enough for fine artists. If Canon had to use 1/3" then I am very glad they used CMOS instead of CCD.

Heck if you want full sensor get a Panasonic HMC40 with a Nanoflash. Yeah the low light sucks but that is one heck of a rig with decent lighting.

I just read a review of the new Panasonic 1/3" camera by Barry Green. He was testing the skew by shooting some semi trucks driving by.

The trucks were all diagonal in the frames. How can it be said that this is improperly shot?

If FOX sports was to shoot a nascar race with CMOS, would it hold up to the standards previously set by CCD?

I just don't agree that skew is from user error or that it is something we just need to get used to.

Whew! Glad I didn't jump the gun and unload my A1's. I was afraid this camera was going to devalue those but it looks like just the opposite could happen. In an earlier statement from Canon they described the Camera's new price as "amazing". (something like "amazing footage at an amazing price".) And to be honest, yes I am amazed, but not in a positive way. Like Thomas Smet in an earlier post, I find the quality fine for my workflow. I have been burning Blu-Ray since 2006 but truth be told I spend 10 times the amount of time downscaling footage than I do burning to Blu-Ray discs. I was hoping for better low-light capabilities and a tapeless workflow but not at twice the price.

Well I did mention Varicams and F900s.
Steve

Sorry Chris, post edited.

Easy does it, fellows... I insist.

I agree Tim. It's only user error when you're shooting things that you can control. Wildlife is a classic example, the peregrine just won't fly slow even when you tell it too! And it also won't come to within 10' so you can use a wide angle lens. Just for fun I tried some video on a Nikon D300 (I know it's at the poor end of the skew stakes) and it was laughable! I've saw issues immediately when I tried an EX3 that a production company I work for has.
Steve

I like Canon, but way over priced. Should be 1/2 inch chips. Get a Sony NX5. It's a great camera!

Other then us freaks on this forum are other people going to notice skewing trucks as much? I have seen lots of footage online of car races shot with CMOS and they usually look fine. Again it is all about our perspective of how we look at it. CMOS is always going to be different. It is us who have to come to terms with that. I would love to have a 2/3" CCD HD camera but if this new Canon at $8,000.00 is out of my budget then I really don't even need to think about CCD because it will never happen for me personally right now. I may be able to convince my work to buy a couple of these but not me.

CMOS has a lot to offer over CCD, better sensitivity, no smearing. Low power figures into lighter weight rigs, longer run time, more time in the field.

Skew happens when objects move across the frame. Shooting a bird in flight by panning with it will have no skew.

Seems to be a side-step or perhaps a baby-step forward. Other than the 4:2:2 codec, I'm not sure why I wouldn't pick up the EX-1/EX-3. I don't hate on the CMOS as much as others, and I think it gets better with every new camera....

That said, having gone the Canon DSLR route, it would take more than this camera has to go away from the depth of field and lens selection.

Purely personal, as I only shoot feature narratives and commercials, but I think any 1/3" chip camera is treading water at best. Too many other cheaper options (again for me) or - if I need the codec - higher end cams that don't cost that much more.

My first video camera was the XL-1 and I loved it, and I have a Canon T2 now, but I'm really not sure who this camera is aimed at at that price range. It seems that Panny already has a huge chunk of the TV market, and Sony has the rest... Strange.

john

That's not true I'm afraid, I've tried it. If there is any background you see it skew, especially, strangely enough on up and down movements, ie if a bird comes in to land, it looks horrible.
As I've said before, there are reasons why we don't use them on big BBC Natural History projects, even though they do have lots of advantages. Why wouldn't the producers choose them if they were good enough? Latest massive Discovery wildlife series (as big as Planet Earth) - what are they using? CCD Varicam HPX2700. Why not use EX3s and get more lens power and a camera we can actually carry?
Steve

I just don't see how you can call it a side-step or a baby step. It really is
a radical departure from the XH series; that is, it's honestly so much more
than just a "tapeless version" of the XH camcorders.

What this offers that a D-SLR doesn't have, is a proper video lens with AF
and an 18x zoom range that can be operated remotely from the tripod pan
handle. Not to mention the ability to record non-stop for hours if needed
(longer than 12 minutes per clip, anyway). I own three HD-equipped D-SLRs,
but they can't compete with real camcorders for most types of professional
videography applications.

It is a step forward Chris, even just the 50 mb/s codec vs hdv is pretty major. But its spec puts it firmly amongst the competition and I think some were expecting it to blow them away.
Agree entirely about the video camera v DSLR thing.
Steve