Do I need XF300 and XF100?
 

I have a Canon XF300 and have got an XF100 on order. I am now beginning to wonder if I really need the big XF300.
Can anyone tell me how much these camera differ in normal use (ie not extreme lighting etc etc)? I do shoot aviation a bit and wonder if the 10x zoom of the XF100 will be enough. Other than that I can't see that there is much of a difference between then for normal use.

I am finding the XF300 is also a bit too big to carry around much. I do at least 50% of my shooting outside of the UK and to take the XF300 and Vision Blue tripod on a plane would be not easy and expensive on the weight.

Re: Do I need XF300 and XF100?
 

Do you need to sell the XF300 right away? Since you already ordered the XF100, you might as well wait until it comes in and test both cameras in the field, especially since you specialize in a particular video field.
After that, you'll be the expert on whether the XF100 can fulfill that role, and we'll come to you for advice.

Re: Do I need XF300 and XF100?
 

Having used both and comparing same, the XF-300 is super crisp, less noisy, professional looking, better lens-18X, and appears better overall in picture quality than the XF-100 and even the XF-A10.

Re: Do I need XF300 and XF100?
 

That's what I plan on doing and I think is the sensible option. The only problem is I have some (unpaid) photographic work for a local wildlife charity that needs doing soon. I have a a pile of lenses but due to the XF100 order no spare cash for a replacement camera body after selling a 1DmkIV! Bad financial planning on my part I know....

Re: Do I need XF300 and XF100?
 

We have both an XF305 & an XF105. The XF305 does have a bit of a better image but the XF105 is very close. The XF105 feels like a baby version of the XF305 with similar switches, control & menus. While small it does still feel like a professional camcorder & while the XF305 isn't that big as these things go it feels enormous when switching between the two. There are pros & cons to each. If the XF305 feels a bit bulky (not heavy just bulky) then the XF105 is ultra-portable & discreet. The extra reach of the 18X lens is definitely an advantage if you need it (not everyone does). The larger camera is much more impressive if you need to impress your clients with the size of your equipment:-) The XF105 shoots infra-red if that is useful to you.

I love using both cameras but frankly if the XF105 had been released first I doubt that we would have bought the XF305 as we would probably just have bought another XF105. I am not going to sell the XF305 as it does have some advantages to us but beyond a little better picture quality & 18X zoom there is little that it can do that the XF105 cannot.

Re: Do I need XF300 and XF100?
 

It seems the consensus so far is that there is not a great difference in image quality, especially in good lighting (eg outdoors shooting aviation) so most likely that's not going to be a deciding factor. The 18X lens on the 300 of course has a much further reach, but Canon does have a 1.5 teleconverter, the TL-H58, for the XF100/105 that minimizes that difference. Haven't used it so can't vouch for it, but this is a Canon converter.

Also, on the floor at NAB this week, we tried a bare XF105 on a Vinten Vision Blue tripod and found that the camera is just too light for the head. Can't be balanced. Vinten is aware of the issue, but for now you'd have to add some weight to the basic camera to use it on the Blue.

Re: Do I need XF300 and XF100?
 

Well, I am going to "eat my words" below. I have decided, after using the XF-100, that I will order same and should get it sometime this week. I have a buyer lined-up for the XF-300.

Why? Well, in my particular case, I was always grabbing a smaller managable camera for my projects.
It only came down to size. I played with the XF-100 and like the form factor and since all of my shots are either outside or well-lit indoors, lowlight is not an issue.