@charvelgtrs while the full frame sensor is still an upgrade because the price is now so close to the xf305 instead of the 300 it makes sense to bring this up: the lack of genlock and time-code in/out for multiple camera syncing as I write this I notice that we're arguing about two different cameras that are designed for two different kings of shooters...
@georgiefirst Price point indicates otherwise. XF300 is about $6,000 new, the AF100 is $4,800 new without a lens, With a kit lens, it's about $6,000. I don't think there's anything apple-y or orange-y about it. Both cams are marketed to the independent professional and the documentary filmmaker and are in the same price point.
@charvelgtrs whoops, wrong place to check for mic inputs (they were wrong) anyway, there's still the problem that you're boosting the price (a lot) by getting a really nice lens with a good iris and external recorders are expensive thus boosting the price again making it come extremely close to the price of the xf305 which has the high bit rate, 4.2.2. and a good iris in it's stock lens all built-in. (next comment)
Most Hollywood movies aren't even produced in true "4K". More pixels means smaller pixels, which means more rolling shutter issues, lower dynamic range, more processing power & bandwidth. It's just a marketing gimmick to make the masses buy new TVs.
@@charvelgtrs This is true, and Rank Cintel estimates some films are more like 6K but nobody's developed the optics to test it. That doesn't change the fact that a UHD 60P version of the XF300 is a really bad idea. It's native ISO is about 50-60. A UHD version would be around 15 ISO and 1/4 the dynamic range. Not to mention, the optics already can't quite resolve the full HD res. You really need a larger sensor, at least M4/3" for *good* UHD but the optics would be really expensive for a 3-chip camera.
@charvelgtrs while it does on certain things the fs-100 is only 35 mbps while this is 50 and the iris is amazing on this while the iris kinda sucks on the fs-100. this one has 8 blades the sony only has 6 while this opens to a 1.6 and the sony only opens to a 3.5, the sony also lacks genlock, time-code, and HD-SDI (while those are only on the 305 it's still lacking on the fs-100 vs the higher end xf family)
@SamJames Everything you are saying you are incorrect. The AF100 uses a AVCHD 25mbps codec natively, but can use HD-SDI out to an external recorder at AVC-Intra which is 100mbps. The reviews about the zoom capabilities are moot, because the AF100 has interchangeable lenses and can use far more lenses than the XF300. Lastly, the AF100 is certified by the BBC for HD-broadcast, and the XF300 is not. End of story.
@MrScarghost141 I am 13 as well but that is no excuse! 16:9 is an aspect ration. 16 is width, while 9 is the height. All 1920x1080 video is 16:9. On the other hand 480x360 video would be a 4:3 aspect ratio. 16:9 is the one that most resembles a human's field of view.
fucking hell what camera do i use to make my short film on the canon 305 or the sony EX3 - both cameras are both awesome 4:2:2 sampling rate for the canon that is incredible - i am gonna go have a lie down .
@alexpho This camera is approved by the BBC and the Af100 anf Fs100 aren't. The XF300 gives you more than 900 lines of detail and the Af100 and Fs100 give you below 800 lines, so what's the point? Unless you need a nice expensive lens and shallow DOF the Xf300 is worth the money and it's the 305 with SDI that is $8000, the normal one is $6800 as he said. It also records in 4:2:2 colour which is great for grading and chroma key. So what are you whining about?
@georgiefirst Are you serious? You could get a Panasonic AF100 which has a 4/3-in sensor for $2,000 less than the Canon XF300. There's no point in shooting 1/3-in sensor cameras anymore, they're out of date. Seriously, HD-broadcast standardized 2/3-in sensor cameras more than 15 years ago.
That was by far the best camera spec interview I've ever seen, well done to both partys involved
Having a Video Camera using Compact Flash is a huge advantage.
@charvelgtrs the fs-100 also lacks XLR audio inputs
@lakeportHobbies Final Cut Pro X does not support XF format mpeg2 (the format this camera records,)
they were talking about final cut pro 7.
I prefer the shoulder mount form factor of XL-2 and XH-1, as well as interchangeable lenses.
@charvelgtrs while the full frame sensor is still an upgrade because the price is now so close to the xf305 instead of the 300 it makes sense to bring this up:
the lack of genlock and time-code in/out for multiple camera syncing
as I write this I notice that we're arguing about two different cameras that are designed for two different kings of shooters...
@chevetteter Just capture out of the HDMI with a BMD intensity card or wait a few months.
@georgiefirst Price point indicates otherwise. XF300 is about $6,000 new, the AF100 is $4,800 new without a lens, With a kit lens, it's about $6,000. I don't think there's anything apple-y or orange-y about it. Both cams are marketed to the independent professional and the documentary filmmaker and are in the same price point.
@Jebbie92
Awww :(
Do you by chance know if it would work with the Panasonic hvx 200? sorry for all the questions but I'm just concerned! haha
@charvelgtrs whoops, wrong place to check for mic inputs (they were wrong)
anyway, there's still the problem that you're boosting the price (a lot) by getting a really nice lens with a good iris and external recorders are expensive thus boosting the price again making it come extremely close to the price of the xf305 which has the high bit rate, 4.2.2. and a good iris in it's stock lens all built-in.
(next comment)
NEED TO KNOW!!
WHAT ABOUT FINAL CUT PRO X ? PLUG INS PLEASE
Why did the voice in the beginning sound so weird?
@Jebbie92 noooooooooo i just got final cut pro 10, it doesnt work with that?
Is this compatible with Final Cut Pro?
When is Canon going to release a 4K 60p version of this camera? I've been waiting 7 years Tim :((
Most Hollywood movies aren't even produced in true "4K". More pixels means smaller pixels, which means more rolling shutter issues, lower dynamic range, more processing power & bandwidth. It's just a marketing gimmick to make the masses buy new TVs.
@@wado1942 35mm film has up to around 4K of resolution when scanned.
@@charvelgtrs This is true, and Rank Cintel estimates some films are more like 6K but nobody's developed the optics to test it. That doesn't change the fact that a UHD 60P version of the XF300 is a really bad idea. It's native ISO is about 50-60. A UHD version would be around 15 ISO and 1/4 the dynamic range. Not to mention, the optics already can't quite resolve the full HD res. You really need a larger sensor, at least M4/3" for *good* UHD but the optics would be really expensive for a 3-chip camera.
60 frames in 1080?
@charvelgtrs while it does on certain things the fs-100 is only 35 mbps while this is 50 and the iris is amazing on this while the iris kinda sucks on the fs-100.
this one has 8 blades the sony only has 6 while this opens to a 1.6 and the sony only opens to a 3.5,
the sony also lacks genlock, time-code, and HD-SDI (while those are only on the 305 it's still lacking on the fs-100 vs the higher end xf family)
very good camera
@SamJames Everything you are saying you are incorrect. The AF100 uses a AVCHD 25mbps codec natively, but can use HD-SDI out to an external recorder at AVC-Intra which is 100mbps. The reviews about the zoom capabilities are moot, because the AF100 has interchangeable lenses and can use far more lenses than the XF300. Lastly, the AF100 is certified by the BBC for HD-broadcast, and the XF300 is not. End of story.
it is probly a stupid question but can it shoot 16:9??
im 13...
@MrScarghost141 I am 13 as well but that is no excuse! 16:9 is an aspect ration. 16 is width, while 9 is the height. All 1920x1080 video is 16:9. On the other hand 480x360 video would be a 4:3 aspect ratio. 16:9 is the one that most resembles a human's field of view.
lol they told him to relax on this show at the end, the people on the left were smirking.
It does now, and superbly well ;-)
@charvelgtrs It would be cool if Canon releases the XLH2 with a full frame sensor and it is only $8000 dollars only
@geoffdoor Either one you will be happy with. Dont rely as much on what camera to use... make sure you get killer talent, lighting and concept!!!!
This is not a FULL FRAME camera for $ 8 Gs ?
fucking hell what camera do i use to make my short film on the canon 305 or the sony EX3 - both cameras are both awesome 4:2:2 sampling rate for the canon that is incredible - i am gonna go have a lie down .
I rented one of these recently and really was not impressed with the camera. The 1/3 inch chips just kill it for me.
@alexpho This camera is approved by the BBC and the Af100 anf Fs100 aren't. The XF300 gives you more than 900 lines of detail and the Af100 and Fs100 give you below 800 lines, so what's the point? Unless you need a nice expensive lens and shallow DOF the Xf300 is worth the money and it's the 305 with SDI that is $8000, the normal one is $6800 as he said. It also records in 4:2:2 colour which is great for grading and chroma key. So what are you whining about?
@georgiefirst Are you serious? You could get a Panasonic AF100 which has a 4/3-in sensor for $2,000 less than the Canon XF300. There's no point in shooting 1/3-in sensor cameras anymore, they're out of date. Seriously, HD-broadcast standardized 2/3-in sensor cameras more than 15 years ago.
@bmwills8993 yeah cool, but i just bought the hpx 170 :)
@charvelgtrs If it has HD-SDI, Genlock, Timecode and a special L lens made for this camcorder, then it might be 8000 dollars
@BrideAndGroomFilmsHD - no way would u see that for under 10k. not if you include a lens anyway.
@Jebbie92
well thank you anyway!
@davcoolbeans allright thank you...
@bmwills8993 i know :) its the best cam out there
Leave it to Canon to come out with a perfect video camera 3 years too late. 1/3 inch sensors are out of date.
i want it but i dont have money so ill use my 200 $ camera instead. works fine with me because im not a pro!!
makes it look more video...e
$6800 for 1/3" chip sensor camera. LMAO!
Does it shoot in MP4