I understand that Canon's XF100 is currently one of the very hottest items in the compact professional camcorder market, and I understand why. But to my eye, the XF100 is compromised by the inescapable limitations of its sensor, and that compromise overshadows the XF100's otherwise-outstanding features. What's good about the Canon XF100? Well, it's hard to know where to begin (more...)
— December 13, 2011
Andy Lewicky is the author and creator of SierraDescents
John January 1, 2012 at 3:14 pm
I own both the 5Dii and the XF100. Both are great cameras used for different purposes. I primarily use 5D for narratives and weddings, but always go to the XF100 for live events, green screen, compositing and steadicam work.
The XF100 was never intended to compete against DSLR's and shouldn't be used for the same purposes. Shallow DOF is great for certain situations, but if you get a client that cares little for DOF and only wants solid live event coverage, 1/3rd - 2/3rd chip cameras with deep DOF + autofocus is the way to go. Need steadicam coverage? Shallow DOF becomes your enemy.
Where this camera really shines and why (I think) it's flying off the shelves is because it's the cheapest full raster 4:2:2 by a large margin. Plus, it's shooting on CF cards (which most peole already own) vs. P2 or SxS or SSD, which further drives down total cost of ownership. The next cheapest full raster 4:2:2 is the HPX250 for $2200 more + P2 cards (HPX170 uses 960x540 chips).
I'll say this too, I spend a good amount of time color grading my projects in post (as does Hollywood). While I've never regretted selling my DOF adapters, after grading XF100 footage, I'm almost tempted to pick up a cheap Letus adapter again :)
D Mack February 23, 2012 at 6:59 pm
Agreed. With the custom profiles you can get stunning footage out of this. Which is why Philip Bloom raved about it calling it a perfect b cam. Sounds like the reviewer didn't take his time and do the research.