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.

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

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.

poor LCD?
 

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.

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

Nick.

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

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.

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.
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.