Owning Single Camera vs. Multiple Cameras
 

I am a videographer; probably smaller in terms of business than most of you. My work consists more of church sermons, weddings, music videos, concerts, interviews, and so on. That being said, I currently on an XLH1 a 5D Mark III and an HV30. Because my business is growing, I am wondering if I should consider purchasing 2 Canon XF300's to use with my existing cameras or even consider going with 2 Canon XF100's and one XF300. I guess what I'm thinking is that the 5D Mark III definitely isn't a run and gun camera so it's probably better to make sure I go with a camcorder vs. buying another DSLR. I should also mention that currently I am a one man show but obviously would assemble a team to operate the other cameras.

Re: Owning Single Camera vs. Multiple Cameras
 

As the worst businessman ever, i can still tell you the general advice for buying gear is to get it when you NEED it, rather than buying and hoping to get use out of it. How do you know when you need it? Well, are ckients requesting that cam for shoots? Aother idea is, if theres a local place where you can rent that cam from, find how much they charge per day for rental, and next time an appropriate job comes up, see if you can get the budget to rent and use that cam instead of what youve been using. If so, and it happens frequently, well now youre depriving yourself of the extra income from the cam rental fee if you owned the cam, and would now be justified in owning the gear.

I still dont have an hd cam of any kind for this reason...still not convinced id make it pay for itself, even within a year, even if i got a cheaper cam (used hpx170 for instance---not sold in the shallow dof bandwagon)

Re: Owning Single Camera vs. Multiple Cameras
 

Josh speaks the truth, but renting is not always practical. This is what you have to weigh in your decision to purchase. For me, the closest rental a place is about 30 minutes away. Not super far, but not around the corner either. Renting has always been a viable option and this age of cameras coming out every six months, can save you some money at times.

I used to be pretty sure about buying as a "long term rental" You buy it, use it for a year or two and sell it with the difference way beating if you had rented it along the way. But after trying to sell some gear over the past year or two I am not so confident anymore. Seems like no matter what condition your gear is in, 1/2 price is what people want to pay.

So I would say buy carefully because cameras are more of a commodity these days sort of like cars and they are losing value so to speak when you drive them off of the lot.

BTW, the XF300 is a great camera!

Re: Owning Single Camera vs. Multiple Cameras
 

Thanks Tim and Josh.

I agree that the cameras no hold their value. In my opinion, this is a result of both the cell phone market and the big camera manufacturers, Canon, Nikon etc. Nowadays, everyone thinks that they are a professional photographer or videographer. I'm sure you've had that wedding where the uncle brings his big camera with the big lens or is new 1080P HD camcorder and tries to sell your client on why he should use him and save money by not using you. The manufacturers aren't helping by flooding the market with numerous cameras they, from a consumer prospective, gets the job done. I look at all of these cameras and I think to myself, just stick with what works and for me, it's always been Canon. It doesn't mean that Canon is the best, it just means that it will get the job done. I read and watch a lot of the camera reviews and I just shake my head because really, how many of us watching or reading these reviews are capturing footage for major motion films or even an indie film for that matter.

As it relates to my original post, I used to have 4 XHA1s camcorders and could show up and set up. Now I feel somewhat limited with what I have. The XLH1, for me is still a great camera but, I am very interested in the XF300. The only disappointment for me thus far is that it doesn't use interchangeable lenses. To the best of my knowledge Canon still has not come out with a replacement for my camera and I am somewhat worried that as soon as I make my XF300 purchase, they'll announce the release of what it is that I'm really looking for.

Can the XF300, XLH1 and the 5D Mark III coexist? Would the footage be to dissimilar? This would obviously be a cheaper setup but I don't want to compromise to much. Right now, I have a $6000-$7000 budget and the for me means, two XF100's or an XF300.

Re: Owning Single Camera vs. Multiple Cameras
 

I would say yes, they can coexist. I use a MKIII as well and the colors are from Canon, so they can be brought together. Both the XF300 & the MKIII have the ability to set your own color input. The XF300 with its custom function settings and the MKIII with the custom profiles you can make in software and transfer to the camera.

I will be making my settings in a few weeks for these two cameras.

Re: Owning Single Camera vs. Multiple Cameras
 

hi there. I got a Canon XF300 last year and I use it for wedding and live events along with a Canon XHA1s and a Canon T3i. I had to lower the saturation on the T3i and also on the XHA1s (was using a preset).
On the XF300 I usually have a preset called TruVid2 that seems to be nice and natural with a bit of colour added...The differences between the XF300 and the XHA1s were bearable...but not to my complete satisfaction..I always transcode the XHA1s and the Canon T3i footage to Apple Pro res LT but I use the XF as native.
After thinking about it for a while, I got today a used XF100 (for a good price! thanks!) and I intend to load a few picture presets similar to the XF300 and use them both when they are needed. I will still use the XHA1s without a preset (so that I can grade the pic a bit in post) and some "beauty shots" with the Canon T3i...
but of course...I will need operators!
I intend to use the XF100 on a mini jib for an upcoming ballroom event (much easier than a DSLR I think) and the canon T3i on a Konova slider with the Canon XF300 on a Sachtler ACE tripod...
wow...I think this is a really good set up for my growing video company. I Just need a couple of reliable videographers...I will provide the tools and the training...

I'm sure I will get to use the two canon XF cameras a lot more in live events and I will use the T3i for some beauty shots so to speak..
I'm so happy with the set up and I got there after reading lots of opinions in this forum mostly.
thanks!
Erick

Re: Owning Single Camera vs. Multiple Cameras
 

This is good and bad information. Bad because ti sounds like you got a deal that I missed but good because you'll hopefully have some really good feedback on both the XF100 and the XF300. I know a lot of customers seems to always request HDSLR for their weddings but reading your posts helped to reconfirm that I am going at this the right way. Like you, my business is growing and this year should be no different which is why I have these questions and comments. I wondering if you can tell me if I can be just as effective with two XF100's or do you recommend one of each.

I should also note that I am surprised that you are able to use the XHA1s alongside the XF300. I would think that the image quality in low light would be vastly different in addition to the color tones. I'm not knocking that camera because as I said earlier, I once owned 4 of them.

Also of note, depending on what you're shooting, you can operate all three cameras without help. I have done this when shooting church services.

Re: Owning Single Camera vs. Multiple Cameras
 

Hi Guys. I own an xf105, 305 and a 5D Mkiii. I have used the xf cameras in quite a few live performances, and they match up pretty good, as A & B, but the 305 is a cleaner picture. Sometimes the 105 seems downright soft in focus compared to the 305. Neither has great low light capability for shooting in super dim conditions, compared to the newer 5D. Just yesterday I did a "sample reel" for a client, where we have shot all three cameras, and watched it prior to showing it to them on a 42" Sony HD TV. The 305 confirmed my suspicions and was head and shoulders a better picture than any of the others. Super sharp and super clean with great images (a bit more moire than I like). The 5D was a close second, It tends to be a bit more 'softer' in a good way, even with prime lenses. More "romantic" less "video".

You can see an example of this with the video at
The A camera is the 105 and the overhead camera shooting the piano player is the 305. 305 starts at 4:40 in, in case you don't like blues (G) This, by the way, is an SD version of the HD shoot.

Many of my other videos also can be viewed and compared
https://vimeo.com/mountainstone/videos

Singer Carla Main = 7D
Bridge over troubled water = 7D, 305, GH2
Cheryl Strayed interview = 305 (7D did not cut it in that low light, it was very mushy)
Tribal Carver - 5D with Prime (not color corrected yet, but I love the look to this shoot with the 5D under fluorescent. Very appealing. )
55 Music ...=105 in infrared mode (love it at times!)
Heart of the Heartland = 7D (Center), 305 (left) GH2 Right

I would make sure you are ok with the amount of light you have to work with. But if you have stage spots, etc. the 305 is by far the best camera for the job. I would use the 5D for close ups. I usually start the 305 or 105 running, then wander around the hall shooting close ups and other B camera work. I have a number of things I could not show (musicians don't always want live performances shown due to mistakes, etc) where it again confirms that two 305s is the ultimate "best" way to go for standard stage work. Beyond that, a 105 as B camera is a good idea. Not perfect, but the closest. 5D takes more work to match. Too much in many cases. Time is money on these shoots.

Hope it helps!

Re: Owning Single Camera vs. Multiple Cameras
 

For me, I'd rather own the gear than rent it, if at all possible.

There are a number of good points brought up in the posts above mine.

For sure, there has been MAJOR changes in the quality/price arena. I mean you can now shoot 1080p video with a cell phone. The consumer cams put out a good enough HD pic quality that your average customer isn't going to complain about. It just makes it that much more difficult to convince someone to hire you to film.

Personally, right now I have a Sony NX5U and I love it. My fav feature is the 128 GB FMU backup drive that goes with it. However, that is all I have. I use to be a Canon guy with a GL1 and XL1S, both of which I loved and owned for 11 years give or take. They were both wonderful cameras that made me a lot of money in wedding and event videos. I sold them in 2010 and got the Sony because at that time Canon didn't have a solution I wanted for solid state with redundant recording. (But now I understand they do thanks to a firmware upgrade on the XF series). Having said that, I was looking at getting maybe an XF100 to compliment my Sony, but when I noticed the price for a XF300 is now -only- $4999, that has become very tempting.

If you need a flagship cam, I'd get the XF300.

But if you need some B-roll cams, I'd pick up at least 1 XF100, maybe 2 if I could swing it.

I've always been of the buy and hold mentality. Obviously, with my 2 previous cameras lasting 11 years, and the only reason I got rid of them was to upgrade to HD, they were still both working great.

I'm hoping that I can make the Sony, and whatever else I get next, last at least 4-5 more years. We are just now starting to see 4K get more and more exposure. Granted, 4K TVs are very costly... but I know when I started looking at Plasma TVs in 2005-2006, they were about $20K, and this past weekend I saw a brand new 60" plasma at Best Buy for $800.

So, sort of based on that, I'm guessing that it'll be 2018-19 give or take, before 4K TV prices are low enough where the average joe will buy a 4K TV, and then around that same time, the 4K DVD players will be cheap enough as well.

Having said all that though, since upgrading to HD, I've only had 1 client in 24 months request a Blu-Ray Disc. Everyone is still wanting regular DVDs or digital delivery.

Boy that was a bunch of rambling. Sorry. I'm going to bed.

Re: Owning Single Camera vs. Multiple Cameras
 

Kyle,

The rambling was very helpful; thank you. I am not aware of the XF300 selling at a reputable camera store for $4999. If you can provide the name of a store, I along with a lot of other readers would appreciate it. Also, I wanted to share with you that like you, I have transitioned to HD and no client of mine has ever requested a Blue Ray disk. I just don't know if people care.

Al,

I took a quick look at the footage and really couldn't see a huge difference in cameras but I did enjoy the music.

Re: Owning Single Camera vs. Multiple Cameras
 

I just check B&H and they are in fact selling the XF300 for $4999. Seems like a really good price especially since the 305 is about $1500 more.
You have to put the camera in your basket to see the price but you can always remove it.

Re: Owning Single Camera vs. Multiple Cameras
 

Thanks Don. I actually looked on B& H but it showed the higher $6,000.00 plus price. I did; however, see it at Adorama. Decisions, decisions.....

Re: Owning Single Camera vs. Multiple Cameras
 

Hmmm interesting.

BandH has changed their website.

Yesterday, I was talking to a friend and he said he had found an XF300 for sale on Craigslist for about $5,000. That's what prompted me to start looking around yesterday. I think I posted around here somwhere, that BandH was selling it for $4,999 earlier today.

At that time, It was plain as day in the price column... with no need to add it to the cart to view the price.

Wonder why they changed it... it happened in the last couple hours, because when I got home from work at 5:00 PM Central, I checked and it was still plainly listed at $4999.

Re: Owning Single Camera vs. Multiple Cameras
 

Kyle,

This is a significant price drop for such a camera. It makes me wonder if the EOS Cinema line is forcing the price drop, specifically the C100. The other option is that maybe sometime mid year we'll be hearing about the next line of cameras. It seems a little soon to consider a replacement but with all of the technology that's coming out, Canon could be trying to get people like me to upgrade while others are considering the EOS Cinema line. I actually looked at the C100 but, I can't understand why I would want that camera over anything else. It just seems to be lacking. And then of course there are the others but they are probably more than I need. I'll admit, the XF100 is sounding really good right now. At that price, I might be able to swing the XF100 too. :-)

Re: Owning Single Camera vs. Multiple Cameras
 

Early AM and I just checked B&H again to make sure I wasn't seeing things and sure enough...put it in the basket and it showed $4995.00 so if that's the camera you're thinking of getting I'd jump on it before they change their minds and bring the price back up. :-)

Re: Owning Single Camera vs. Multiple Cameras
 

Indeed, you could almost buy an XF300 and XF100 for about the MSRP of the XF300 alone.

That was really a shocker to see if for $4995.

$1,500 off is pretty sweet.

Just a few weeks ago, Nikon did something similar with their FX 'pro' line of DSLRs with the D600, their entry FX pro model. They offered a $700 discount and included a decent lens. A lot of discussion on them coming out with something new for DX pro in early Q1 this year, so they were trying to move existing product and convert users to their full frame line.

With such a steep discount on a flagship camera, there is a chance that they are planning to release something new.

I just typed, "On the other hand, none of other XF models have had a price drop, so that is curious. They may also just be re-aligning their pricing model to reflect the new EOS cinema line." ... but then I went to BH and looked, and now the entire XF line is discounted, although the 100 series is only $200 off, $2,795. The XF305 is now $5995. I'm pretty sure this was not the case yesterday when this conversation started.

Interesting.

Re: Owning Single Camera vs. Multiple Cameras
 

I shoot weddings & use an XF105 for ceremonies & speeches as my unattended wide safety shot with the added bonus of XLRs for the wireless mics. The footage cuts together very well with 5D2 & 5D3 video. The XF300 has a higher resolution image & stands out for that reason. As a locked off unattended camera the XF100 is much smaller & more discreet.

Happily I sold my XF305 for a good price about 6 weeks ago before the price dropped. As I was hardly ever using it I had been debating all year whether I should sell it & in the end I didn't even put it up for sale but somebody just offered to buy it off me for 75% of what a new one costs today.

Re: Owning Single Camera vs. Multiple Cameras
 

That's interesting in that you might be the first person to comment that the XF300/305 footage doesn't match the 5D Mark III. I'm guessing that this would suggest that I should not get this camera to match up with the 5D Mark III. Just curious though, during weddings, is the XF100 sitting center isle? If so, I'm assuming that you're shooting with someone else, one with the Mark II and the other the Mark III and you guys are at set up left and right of the bride. This is similar to what I want to do. At the current price of the XF300, I was just thinking that it would be a good business move to get both the XF300 and the XF100. Is the XF100 a good run and gun camera or is it really just for as you put it a safety still camera and some interviews?

Re: Owning Single Camera vs. Multiple Cameras
 

i try to always use compatible (if not the same) cameras, for the simple reason i can get one charger, one type of battery, one type of add-on lenses, filters, memory card, same menu/settings, color balance ... etc... will make your life a lot easier.
so i would go for the additional camera to be the same as the cheapest you already own (provided you are happy with its performance).

Re: Owning Single Camera vs. Multiple Cameras
 

Giroud,

Your post makes a lot of sense. I was hoping that at the current price of the XF100 and the XF300 that the cameras would be fully compatible. Through this post, I have found that this is not the case. Currently, I am shooting with a Canon XLH1 along side a 5D Mark III. I could very easily pick an XLH1 on the cheap but, I wouldn't have the newer technology. I like the idea of recording to tape but since getting my 5D Mark III, I love the idea of recording to a compact flash or SD card. That being said, this is why I am now considering the XF300. Given your response, it might make more sense to simply get to XF100's considering two XF300's are out of my price range right now.

The other issue that has now surfaced is that cameras are now coming out with 4K. I wondering if the XF100 and/or 300 is set up such that firmware can be issued to allow the cameras to shoot in 4K. I obviously don't know much about how that works but, If I'm going to spend this much money, I would sure like to have the latest technology.

Re: Owning Single Camera vs. Multiple Cameras
 

On the rent versus buy thing, there's never been a camera I've owned that wasn't giving its best images just before I sold it. And I was practicing and improving with it the whole time I had it. So I'm envious that some people are so good they can go rent one, shoot expertly out of the box with little to no familiarity. I spend a lot of time learning what makes each cam its best.

Re: Owning Single Camera vs. Multiple Cameras
 

I figure the situation has to be SOMEWHAT stable now, right?

Like if you have a cam that does 1080p, all the frame rates, at a decent compression scheme (e.g. EX1, HPX170), that cam shouldn't be obsolete 'til everything goes 4K or something. Just like when the first DVX camcorder came out, it was good to go up 'til HD took over, regardless of the XL2 or DVX upgrade camcorders coming out later.

Obviously some folks want the shallow DOF look. So if you had then, a 5DM2 or something like an AF100, unless you're playing the "latest and greatest" game, those cams should do until, again, there's another huge jump in production quality requirements (i.e. 4K, 3D, etc.)

Am I way off base? I realize it depends on who your clients are (corporate video/smaller jobs vs commercials/movies/narrative TV) but for the smaller guys?

Re: Owning Single Camera vs. Multiple Cameras
 

I know this: In interview or live performance situations, having at least two matched cameras is a godsend to anyone who wants creative insert shots off the master shot and hates to hear the phrase: ". . . fix it in post".

I still miss the matching XL2 cameras that only fell to the wayside because of HD. I loved them, but seriously, the image produced by the XL300 is now. I don't think the cabal of manufactures is anywhere near through getting people to go 1080p on their viewing screens, and I for one won't go near 4k unless there's a budget that includes film transfer. Owning XF300 level cameras does make since in 2013. Especially if the next thing coming drops the price even farther. It always will.

Re: Owning Single Camera vs. Multiple Cameras
 

I totally agree with your post Tom. This has always been my approach. I have never been happy with renting so I do not do it. But, I also realize that renting might be a better business move at times. Depends upon the type of work you do.

But with this class of 1/3" cameras that are priced from $4500-$5000 there is not a lot stopping the purchase. If you can not justify a $5,000 camera purchase then video as a business is not acting like a business.

Josh is correct that these camera will not be obsolete for completing work for a loooong time. Maybe for resale, but not for working. Heck, a lot of what I do still gets delivered on DVD :(

Re: Owning Single Camera vs. Multiple Cameras
 

Well I think I am a reliable videographer and seeking for job as a cameraman, and I live in Toronto, so if you are still thinking of it, just let me know!!!