Comparing the Canon XF300 and XF100

XF100

I'm still getting over the announcement of the XF100 today....okay, it's not like the world completely changed, but in this day of rumors and leaks, it's a little shocking to see something like this appear without any prior hint.

So what are the XF100 and XF105, and how do they compare with the XF300 and XF305? There's some information still missing (i.e. price) but comparing the available specs, you can see that the XF100/XF105 models are quite a bit smaller in size and probably lighter, with a shorter zoom (10x instead of 18x.) The cameras appear to use similar CMOS chips (at least the resolution is identical) with an approximate total number of pixels on the chip of .37 megapixels (2044 x 1160 pixels.) Obviously only 1920 x 1080 are actually used.

The other significant difference is that the XF100 & XF105 have a single sensor, while the XF300 & XF305 have three. Sensitivity seems a little lower too, though this could be due to the slightly slower lenses (f/1.8 vs f/1.6) on the XF100/105.

Frame rates, compression (4:2:2!) media support, image stabilization and focusing systems seem to be the same, but the resolution on the LCD and especially the viewfinder on the XF100 is lower than the XF300.

The chart below compares the features of the XF100 and XF300. Note that the XF105 (like the XF305) adds Genlock and an HD/SDI terminal

XF300

Sensor:
XF100 seems to have a SINGLE 1/3" CMOS chip, whereas the XF300 has three. Resolution is the same.

Lens:
XF100: Canon 10x HD Zoom Lens, 4.25-42.5mm (35mm equivalent 30.4-304mm), f/1.8-2.8
XF300: Canon 18x HD L Series Zoom, 4.1-73.8mm (35mm equivalent 29.3 - 527.4mm), f/1.6-2.8

Viewfinder:
XF100: 0.24-inch color widescreen, approx. 260,000 dots, approx. 100% field of view
XF300: 0.52-inch color widescreen, approx. 1,555,000 dots, approx. 100% field of view

LCD:
XF100: 3.5-inch color widescreen LCD, approx. 920,000 dots, approx. 100% field of view
XF300: 4.0-inch color widescreen LCD, approx. 1,230,000 dots, approx. 100% field of view

Minimum Illumination:
XF100: Full AUTO mode: 4.5 lux (Shutter speed 1/60, Gain +24dB); Manual mode: 1.6 lux (shutter speed 1/4, Gain +33dB)
XF300: Full AUTO mode: 4.5 lux (Shutter speed 1/60, Gain +21dB); Manual mode: 08 lux (Shutter speed 1/4, Gain +33dB), (when 60i is selected)

Dimensions:
XF100: Approx. 4.8 x 5.8 x 9.8 in. (121 x 148 x 250mm) (not including lens hood, mic holder unit, grip strap)
XF300: Approx. 6.0 x 9.3 x 15.0 in. (153 x 236 x 382mm) (not including lens hood, eyecup, grip belt)

Frame Rate:
Both offer: 60i, 60p, 30p, 24p (50i and 25p optional upgrade available through Canon Factory Service Center). Though the XF300 lists 50p (as part of optional upgrade) while the XF100 does not. This could just be an error in the spec sheet.

Audio:
Both support 16bit audio, and have twin XLR jacks

Recording Media:
Both have dual Compact Flash slots

Image Stabilization and Focusing System appear to be identical.

Comments

Anonymous said…
What about the pricing difference?
Sep 7, 2010, 9:18:00 AM
Michael Murie said…
Prices haven't been officially announced, so we don't know. I've seen prices of both $3,000 and $4,000 mentioned, meaning that the XF100 could be either $2,700 or $3,700 cheaper than the XF300, but even that's not certain!
Sep 7, 2010, 11:38:00 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Sony GV-D200 review

Image
Sony GV-D200 I've been using a Sony GV-D200 deck to transfer old Video8 and Hi8 tapes. Some of these tapes are over twenty years old, and no longer having a Hi8 camcorder that worked I was concerned that if I didn't do something about transferring them to a more modern format soon, I might never be able to. While Sony no longer make camcorders that use these tapes - that I know of - Sony does still sell the GV-D200 deck (or Video Walkman, as it's sometimes labelled.) They also offer the GV-D800, which is almost identical but adds a small LCD screen for about $120 more. I didn't think I'd need a screen since I was using this to capture to the computer, but you will need an external monitor when you first set it up. Physically, the device is small. At 5 7/8" wide, 5 3/8" deep and 2" high, it's the smallest video deck I've encountered. I used to have a Video8 deck that I thought was small; and it was twice as deep and twice as high. The t...
Read more

Response: Which iPhone to Get?

Image
In response to my iPhone musings, I got the following reader email which actually sums up a lot of my second and third thoughts too: You might have a point about the fancier camera, but otherwise I would buy the smaller model. Its screen is about the same size as that of my Nexus 4, and I don't feel at all like it limits me with a too-small screen. But I do sometimes stretch to get my thumb the reach to the other corner of the screen. It is plenty big for a phone. A phone is a pocket thing. (Well, in my case it lives an ancient REI soft sunglasses case that I have on my belt.) Ubiquitous, handy, convenient, almost always with me. Small is crucial for all of that. Certainly a large screen is cool, but you need a place to put it: don't break a fundamental feature of a pocket phone by getting too big. That is what your small tablet is for. I have my phone with me almost always. I have my Nexus 7 tablet with me nearly as much. The bigger screen is great, yet it fits in some...
Read more

Should you buy the Sony NEX-FS100 Kit Lens?

Image
The Sony NEX-FS100 is available in two configurations: B & H : NEX-FS100U Camcorder only $4,999 B & H : NEX-FS100U (with 18-200mm lens) $5,599 But what does that extra $600 get you? It get's you this: Sony 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 Zoom Lens for NEX Camera This lens is also available separately for $799.99, so at $200 off you'd think everyone would be jumping on it. But not so fast... In his article about switching from the Canon 5D Mark II to the Sony NEX-FS100 , Paul Antico  at Need Creative says of the kit lens: 7) Its 18-200 F3.6-6.3 kit lens absolutely sucks and should be avoided (thankfully, you can order it without one) [ 1 ] But is it that bad? At B & H 's site, 43 reviews give it an average of 4.6 out of 5 stars. That's not a bad rating, though many of these people are using it for stills, and the most common complaint noted is how large and heavy it is. Of course this feeling of size would be exacerbated when you put it on a tiny camera ...
Read more