We got the opportunity to test out the brand new Canon XF305 camera. Now as most of you already know, I’m not a camera operator, I don’t claim to be a camera expert, but the reason why Canon asked me to test it out is because being an independent Post Production company, we have edited with footage from practically every camera on the market. So Canon really wanted me to look at the 305 from an image quality standpoint. For $8,000 I’m expecting an image to at the very least rival that of the Panasonic HVX-200.
During our initial meeting I was concerned because the reps told me the shooting format is 50 Mbps Long GOP, but I was assured that since it’s 4:2:2 color space, the image was outstanding. I will say I was VERY skeptical that MPEG-2 at 50 Mbps was going to look that good. We do a lot of work with the Panasonic 100Mbps P2 camera lineup and in particular, the HPX370 shooting the AVC-Intra codec.
So we took the camera out on a simple outdoor shoot to get some lead ins for a new pilot we’re producing. Here’s John setting up the camera before the shoot.
From this side of the camera it looks like what you would expect from a Canon camera, from the other side, it looks remarkably similar to the Panasonic HVX-200. Now as a camera, it has all the functions you would expect from a Pro / Prosumer camera in this range. Pro Audio connections, decent zoom controls, etc…. The LCD display on the front is pretty slick the way it tucks up out of the way when not in use. Controls were all well placed and functioned pretty well.
Well, except for the focus control. It has three settings which we didn’t realize. We thought it only had two and John was having a heck of a time focusing with the lens essentially in “consumer” mode so the focus ring was essentially free spinning. Very weird and we’re not sure why Canon would even offer that on what’s a “Pro” camera.
Sharon Collins standing near the river, Adrienne Latham holding the reflector and John at the camera. We used a mono-pod with the thing since it was so light and small, that actually worked pretty well. From a user standpoint, it’s pretty easy to use if you have experience using Pro cameras. But there was one very big “gotcha” that we could not quite figure out, nor could the Canon reps get us an answer by the time I’m typing this.
The first day we tested the camera it was set to a Tungsten setting on the internal menus. We didn’t realize this since the filters on the lens all looked normal, but there is an internal setting for outdoors, indoors, etc… and the camera was set for Tungsten lighting. What I would expect to happen in this situation is our color balance would be thrown off and it was. The resulting images were very golden.
But another very troubling issue also appeared. You can kind of see it in the image above, the image looks a bit fuzzy. There is compression noise all over the place. Here’s a detail of the above image.
This was weird quite honestly. We’ve shot with many cameras in the past and when you have the camera set up for the wrong type of lighting it throws the colors off but doesn’t automatically add a ton of compression. Especially when shooting outdoors where you have excellent lighting. If we were in a very low light situation we could totally understand all this noise, but we’re outside on a sunny day. All that mess in the blacks just would not go away no matter how much we adjusted the iris. When we switched the camera over to daylight lighting, the “mess” went away. The folks at Canon are trying to get an answer as to what caused this issue and if I get information, I will update this blog.
So once the camera was set up correctly, how did it look? Well it looked “ok.” It wasn’t bad, it wasn’t great, it was ok. The footage has what I call a “digital” look to it. It’s hard to quantify but it just doesn’t look as natural as an HD camera should. I think this is a result of the lower data rate of the codec. 4:2:2 color space is nice, but you’re squeezing that down into a 50Mbps that is half the data information as 100Mbps DVCPro HD/AVC-Intra codecs so something has to give.
So it’s an “ok” camera in my opinion from a quality standpoint. The real issue I have here is the price point. It’s $8,000 and has a fixed lens. Couple that with the 50Mbps quality, the camera costs about $3,000 more than the Panny HVX-200 yet records with half the data rate. For another $2,000 I can pick up the Panny HPX-370 which shoots AVC-Intra codec and has interchangeable lenses. So for $8,000 I expect to get a camera capable of producing a recorded image equal to the HVX-200 and pretty darn near the quality of the 370.
Note I said RECORDED quality. If you simply compare the digital image from each of the cameras via HD-SDI, you’ll find they all look similar and quite honestly the Canon 305 would make a nice, inexpensive studio camera. BUT, the proof of the pudding with any video camera is the recorded image. As we just tested the Panny 370 and we use footage from the HVX-200 all the time, I can tell you that the quality of the recorded image is inferior to both of those camera. It’s not horrible, but for $8000 I expect sharper resolution, less noise, and less artifacts in my image. For my money, I would rather spend the extra $2000 to get the higher resolution and interchangeable lenses of the Panny 370. Or save $3,000 to pick up the HVX-200.
I really REALLY like Canon’s lenses and I think this is an interesting move on their part to move into a “professional” camera product. In fact I plan to get some Canon lenses once we order our Panny 370. But I just think their choice of codec and particularly their pricing structure just misses the mark. Make an $8000 camera with interchangeable lenses and they might have something, and make it even better by switching to a 100 Mbps codec.
That’s my 2 cents looking at this camera from an image quality standpoint.
