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

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

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.

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.

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 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

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'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!