Canon XA10

I am watching this one closlely, there are some good reviews on You Tube and there are a few on the net just google the name and model. What I have seen from posts on the net so far this is a very capable camera, the XLR inputs are a real bonus. In my opinion this is the camera lots of enthusiasts have been waiting for.
Steve

Thanks for that Steve. Suddenly there is quite a lot on it. I'll still wait though to see what anyone herein has to say about it later. Maybe result from an early purchaser?

Hi Ron, we had a pre-production unit in for evaluation recently.
It's pretty much exactly what you would expect - a high end Canon consumer handycam with XLR inputs.

Pros:
- Decent lens
- 24Mbit AVCHD (rather than 17Mbit)
- XLR audio inputs with manual level control
- Very dinky and compact.
- Iris wheel.
- Face tracking AF (for extreme numpty users)
- big handle makes it very 'holdable' - you wouldn't expect to get many of them dropped!
Cons:
- Hideously fiddly menu system
- AVCHD recording (awkward to ingest for pro editing etc)
- headphone volume control burried in menus
- no way to record single XLR to two tracks at different levels.

Overall we reckoned it was a good choice for really basic 'video diary' or audition recording type stuff, but we'd want to lean people towards the big brother XF100 as much as possible, which has all the same features, a MUCH better recording format and is a lot more usable, albeit at £800 more expensive.

Dave

We have the HF-S200 - I was interested in the XA10 until I realised it was almost the same thing but with an XLR add-on. The bigger chip (hence wider angle) was attractive but the menu is a pain in the neck.

The images from the HF-S200 are nice - colour is a bit extreme sometimes. Used it on a studio shoot recently and was amazed at the results - stunning detail and beautiful skin tones. I wouldn't like to use it in a pressure environment.

Thanks Dave and Gavin. Pity about that menu system. I'll have a look at HF-S200.

Been looking at the varius specs with these lower priced HD cameras and just wondering . . . What's the considered difference between three 1//4 inch and one 1/3 inch sensors?

Hi Ron,

3 x 1/4" = Light from the lens lands on a prism which sends the image to one RED, one GREEN, one BLUE sensor with each sensor being 1/4". Often, one of the three sensors is offset to give a resolution benefit.

One 1/3" = Light from the lens lands on a single 1/3" sensor which does RED, GREEN, BLUE.

In general the 3 chip camera should give better colour & possibly higher resolution than a single chip camera with the same size sensor.

1/4" chips are smaller and therefore have smaller photo-sites than 1/3" chips (same number of photo-sites but in a smaller area). This affects a couple of things - smaller chips tend to be a bit noisier. Bigger chips give the camera operator more creative control of the depth of field.

It's easier to compare 3 x 1/3" with 3 x 1/4" chips because the 1/3" sensor array should win every time in terms of picture quality.

With image sensors bigger is usually better. But then along comes three chip -v- single chip and puts a dent in that argument. There's a bit more to it than that - lens design, all sorts of filters and other stuff in there but that's about it.

It's the content within that last paragraph of yours which I had particularly in mind, Gavin. The Canon AX10 has the third inch sensor and has much better low light response than the Panny 900 with its thre sensors and which is much less than half its price.

Accepting that the defined image resolution can be different, is it something that the eye will note? Or is it that the difference in definition becomes apparent with 'deeper' editing and copying?

Good question - I think you'd need to see the results and judge for yourself. It's comparing apples and oranges.....

Lifted from wikipedia...

"A typical Bayer filter single-chip image sensor absorbs at least two-thirds of the visible light with its filters, while in a three-CCD sensor the filters absorb only stray light and invisible light, and possibly a little more for color tuning, so that the three-chip sensor has better low light capabilities"

Try to find a decent review of both from the same reviewer - one who really knows what they are talking about - forget (nearly) all the YouTubeists - they have no clue.

The Canon is almost perfectly matched to HD - that in itself removes a layer of filtering/electronic mush. The Panasonic has a higher pixel count per chip but (I'm guessing) it uses some of the excess for the hybrid image stabilisation system.

It's probably going to be a close call BUT the old adage "You get what you pay for" may be true - but past history suggests some manufacturers (Sony and Panasonic) are willing to dress up domestic kit in disguise as pro kit and charge a lot more for it (often double).

This would be Panasonic's nearest rival http://www.holdan.co.uk/Panasonic/AVCHD+Camcorders/AG-HMC41

Well single large sensors may not be the end all for definition as both the Panny Af101 and sony F3 barely resolve to 800 lines, the same must apply to smaller sensors so I would think a triple chip 1/4" camera would be my preference over a single 1/3".

I have the canon HF11 similar to Gavin's HFS200 and find it very very good indeed for such a small chip camera.

I've just bought a pair of Panasonic SDT750s (currently 415 incl. VAT at PC World) - I'll find out soon how they compare with the single chip Canon HF-S200s we bought last year.

The only downer so far is no Lanc socket.

In scouring the Net for info on the XA10 I think the B&H website (USA) is comprehensive and extremely interesting. For instance, it sheds a great deal of light on that touch screen menu system as well as the sensor, indicating that after usage the handling will simplify, and for me looking much more promising.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/749467-REG/Canon_4922B002_XA10_HD_Professional_Camcorder.html

But they incorrectly list the XA10 as having PCM audio.

Forgive me for querying but . . .

Doesn't PCM represent analog signals in digital format, being the standard for the audio in computers and used in the audio CD format, too?

PCM or pulse code modulation is a digital audio codec and most digital devices use it to encode the audio from analogue into a digital signal.

Its quite old now and a lot of modern camera's use AAC/H264 as part of the mpeg codec to do the audio decoding.

Audio Recording Dolby Digital 2ch (AC-3 2ch), 48kHz sampling

Canon UK.

B&H turned up at one of the IOV shows (last year?) with no gear - just a big stand full of brochures. I can see the appeal - cheap looking stuff - but once VAT, duty, Parcel Farce/DHL surcharges and the Mac warranty have been added.....hmmm.

Calumet are actually in the UK and trying their hand at video (sort of) - yet they cannot compete on price with a glorified washing machine shop let alone the Tottenham Court Rd chancers.

Sorry for the mini OT rant - I'll get back under my stone.

Nowt wrong with AC-3 it's been used in the pro world for dolby digital and surround for nearly 15 years.

Yes it's compressed where PCM is not but compression codecs are far superior these days.

There was a time in broadcast when you couldn't use anything other than PCM 16 bit at 48k but things have changed now and even MP3 or mini disc can be acceptable for broadcast.

Yes, Gary, I should've written "Doesn't PCM represent analog signals in digital format, being A STANDARD (rather than THE STANDARD) for the audio in computers and used in the audio CD format, too?"

Ron the great thing about standards is that there is so many!:D

It has been interesting to see codecs develop over the years and we are lucky that there are some very good ones now and they are available to everyone at reasonable costs.

In't old days the only way to get PCM at all used to be a huge decoder with a betamax machine and there was no error correction and to master a CD you needed a huge box costing £20k and a hi band u-matic machine.

From a personal level I can't fault the four channel audio capabilities of my camera's and these days even the auto gain circuits are very useable with little of the nasties that used to be the norm.

How times have changed . . . I altered my ways from Cine with the Amiga 1200 and an external |CD player that I wired into it. Still, in the loft!

Back to the XA10 - I see the earliest quote for its arrival here is now some time in July. I think I'll still wait on it.

Is the XA10 the same as the G10 but with XLRs?

If so the current issue of Computer Shopper reviews ipthe G10 alongside the Panasonic 900. The Panasonic trounced the Canon.

No Gavin, it's a cheaper step on from the XF100. XLRs are in the detachable handle. On a personal level, I couldn't say how good or bad it is but it has had good reports from americans who have tested it.

Well, comments are still fairly good on it and here's a very good price . . .

http://slrhut.co.uk/search/?q=xa10

No address. Run a mile.

http://webwhois.nic.uk/cgi-bin/whois.cgi?query=Slrhut.co.uk&WHOIS+Submit.x=35&WHOIS+Submit.y=8

What about the Canon HF G 10? Much pricier than the TM900 but cheaper than the XA 10.

I don't need 50p on what would be a "B" camera to my XLH1/nanoFlash.

If it was to be my main and only camera than the Panny would be it.

Ron

Too true . . .

I've since tried to get this firm to confirm their London location and I've also twice emailed them for a fuller description of their activities. No answer !

I''ve been marking time on Park Cameras. The tell me it's still awaited . . . Meanwhile, p'raps we'll get further info from those lucky enough to have one? I'm particularly interested in the "only 24p" bit!

I note that Park Cameras now says it has a limited quantity. I'm away filming for a few days and will call into them when I get back, then who knows . . .

I met up with a user of the XA10 in Poole a couple of days ago and he confirmed that the European setting for it is 50i 25p - no other settings.

Oh - I see that this answer has now been added in Steve's posting . . . Oh well, twice is better than none I s'pose !

Hi Ron

Canon sent me one to test a few weeks ago with a view to possibly putting in a mass order. First impressions weren't great strictly on the size front. But initial tests on picture quality, sound and Final Cut usability were all positive. Still don't like the touch screen menu and options but that seems to be the way many smaller SS camera have gone. You get used to it very quickly too.

All good

You mention the size, T, and I have to admit that, although I had reckoned on its smallness I was still surprised when I actually viewed it close-up. Seemed so tiny, with the handle almost doubling the size!

Thing is, will Park Cameras let me handle it for a short while . . . oh and I've a Canon wide converter lens WD-58 0.7X58 so, does anyone with the XA10 know if it fits ?

Coming back to your earlier quote, Gavin - and for others to beware . . . from their website. They can't even get the spec right (American?):

"The Canon XA10 HD Professional Camcorder is a fully featured, ultra-compact pro video camera that shares nearly all the functionality of the XF100, but in an even smaller, run-and-gun form factor. Sporting a 64GB internal flash drive and two SDXC-compatible card slots, the XA10 can record literally for days without running out of memory. Able to capture AVCHD video at bitrates up to 24Mbps, the camcorder's native 1920 x 1080 CMOS sensor also lets you choose 60i, 24p, PF30, and PF24 frame rates for customizing the look of your footage."

Hi Ron

Yeah the handle it rugged!!!!

To be fair though I think it is the largest of the 3 small cams. The other 2 being Sony's and JVC's models. The CVP mag IRIS actually did a really good review on all three calling something like "the iron" "the hamster" and the ........ can't remember.

Coming back to this one . . . I still haven't purchased - been using daughter's SD900 SD cards which she's kindly been sending on for practising on both my MacPro and the 27inch i7 iMac.

I'm a little bothered at what seems the fragility of the 900 series so back again to the Canon and its extra control system. Would like it to have been without the use of the screen for any menus. However, that seems to the way many are now heading.

Anyone with a fair experience now of that Canon XA10 like to give a comprehensive and truly honest/critical rundown on it?

I've had mine for a couple of weeks now so I'll pitch in:

Good points:
1. Heavy enough to feel stable in the hand (especially with a microphone and a big battery). Feels solidly built.
2. Nicely damped manual focus ring. Manual focus can be quickly switched on by a button beside the LCD screen. Expanded focus switches on automatically when you turn the focus ring and stays on for 4 seconds after you stop focusing, or until you start recording.
3. Nice big LCD screen with good resolution.
4. Decent low light performance (at the expense of some resolution).
5. Good OIS.
6. Relatively wide 30.4mm (35mm equiv.) wide angle setting.
7. Zebras, peaking, waveform monitor and edge monitor.
8. Aperture priority, shutter priority and manual modes.
9. Lens has a filter ring and a bayonet lens hood.
10. Ballistic meters on the LCD screen when using an XLR microphone.
11. "DISP" button to clear all the clutter from the LCD screen.

Bad points:
1. ND filters are either automatic (they switch in progressively between f4 and f4.8) or off.
2. Expanded focus cannot be switched on or off manually.
3. The XLR level control dials are small and quite difficult to adjust.
4. The XLR switches rattle if you shake the camera. This has been commented about in other forums, but I don't find it a problem in practice as I try to hold the camera steady rather than shake it.
5. The touch screen requires a firm pressure to operate it, especially when scrolling. You do get used to it.
6. No 50p mode.

All things considered I would recommend it.

Thanks for that, Shwimmwagen. Good to get. Do you find that the pic is a little softer than some of its competitors?

Ron.

There's a review in HD magazine:-

http://www.definitionmagazine.com/journal/2011/9/22/frozen-capture.html

To sum up, if we have a cold winter it should be OK

Impressive to 'say' the least. That's the second low temperature one I've read. I'm trying to to really differentiate between the 900 and the Canon and on robustness (one of my concerns) whilst both have something against, the XA10 seems to have the edge - but then it ought to at nearly twice the price!

I haven't been able to make any direct comparisons. Have you read this review of the HF-G10 (which is an XA10 without the handle) which compares it with the TM700:

http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content/Canon-Vixia-HF-G10-Camcorder-Review.htm

Yes. From reports, I think the Panny 900 series has the edge anyway. I have a daughter who lends me SD card copies from hers for practice purposes and she tells me that a companion using the XA10 thinks its pics are very slightly 'less sharp,' hence my quest.

I have had an XA10 for about a month and have generally been delighted with it. The image stabilisation is great and the automatics seem amazing even with stage lighting. The picture looks really good.

What has been a strange thing is that the footage appears to be around 11 frames out of sync after an hour's recording. I still need to save up for an I7 computer to edit HD so I have been using Edius to convert the footage to SD first. Any thoughts?

My first though is how are you using Edius to downconvert your footage Stephen? If you're simply changing the project settings from HD to SD then yes, the downconversion is instantaneous, but the quality is pretty naff. Wouldn't you be better off converting your footage to Canopus HQ and editing it that way?

tom.

Well I am opening an HD project, putting the footage on the timeline and exporting it as Canopus lossless SD. I can do that OK. The AVCHD just wont play on the timeline in real time.
I have a colleague with a hotter machine so I will take it round to him and I will look at the original HD footage, the SD rendered footage and compare it with the audio recorded on my Marantz 620 (which I believe to be pretty spot on)

Thanks. The two things coming to mind from that comparison are the XA10s lesser sharpness and the inability to take HQ stills. The latter I'm not so bothered with anyway but I do think that original sharpness is a strong consideration.

Ron, my TM900 is permanently set to minus two in the picture adjust sharpness menu which is still very sharp, VERY sharp in fact and way too sharp on the default setting. Actually if one examines this carefully on a big screen you will see that the default setting of zero adds thin black or white outlines to everything, (artifical sharpening), it's possible to be taken in by this to believe this is actual detail but it's not, it's an illusion which this camera has little need of, minus two gets rid of most of this edge enhancement and the image is much nicer in my opinion, still very sharp but without those pesky edges.

Claire - can you only access this sharpness function using the remote control?

Hi Tom, nope, [RECORD SETUP] # [PICTURE ADJUST]

page 74 in the manual pdf.

I also find colour at -3 much more as I saw it and I have exposure set at -5 would you believe it.

I might have preferred a Canon XA10 to the TM900 if only it had a 50P option since the TM900 falls short on it's ability to cope with very bright areas in a scene (poorer dynamic range). However as regards sharpness the TM900 seems unbeatable probably in a large part simply due to recording 50P as opposed to the Canon's 50i.

James Cameron said some years ago ""A 2K image at 48 frames per second looks as sharp as a 4K image at 24 frames per second ... with one fundamental difference: the 4K/24 image will judder miserably during a panning shot, and the 2K/48 won't. Higher pixel counts only preserve motion artifacts like strobing with greater fidelity. They don't solve them at all."

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117983864?refCatId=2868

I'm thinking this one factor alone on the TM900 (50P) makes the difference, including against my EX1R which works great except when panning. I would think the same would apply if comparing the TM900 with the XA10.

Thank you Claire. Very helpful. I've still yet to make up my mind!

The SD card content I received from my daughter is in 50p and I'm using ClipWrap to get it into FCPX which has had ProRes 422 added by Apple.

Claire - how very strange. My SD900 doesn't have this 'picture adjust' option, which is why I asked if it was a remote option. And p 74 of my pdf instructions is AF assist lamp and shtr sound. I'll have to dig further, as I'm sure the TM wouldn't be different from the SD in the menu dept.

tom.

edit - oops, cam needs to be in manual mode for all the menu options to appear. Got hat, coat and wellies.

It rains on all of us at some time, Tom!