Canon Launches New Flagship XF705 Professional Camcorder Featuring 4K Video Recording at 60P/4:2:2/10-Bit

[Scott Brown]

I have yet to see anyone with these types of cameras. I was actually going to ask, who buy these.

Hi Ray,

These cameras are used extensively by run and gun style documentary shooters and also by news networks.

The XF305 was originally designed with heavy input from the BBC here in the UK and the camera became almost an industry standard in the UK for documentary production. Camera's such as Sony's FS7 and Canon's C300 and a whole generation of large sensor shallow DOF cameras have taken over much of this work BUT and it's a BIG BUT, for run and gun ob doc filming these cameras are tricky to shoot with and you see this on screen with a large amount of out of focus material.

We specialise in ob doc filming, mostly for the BBC and prefer to use smaller cameras that are less scary for the people we are filming and allow us to shoot for long periods to time using low cost media. The most important thing for us is the ability to capture footage as it happens and for this reason, we tend to avoid large sensor cameras and prefer to use small hand-held cameras such as the XF705 or the Sony Z280.

Our local news station for example has just purchased 25 Sony PXW-Z280's and the BBC in the UK will buy large quantities of the new Canon and Sony cameras.

That is the low answer - short answer is loads of folks )

 

[fullstop]

Not only do I not care for video recording, it is worse than that: in many ways it is an obstacle for optimal stills shooting. I have no problem with SOME cameras being hybrid video/stills. I am massively opposed to ALL stills cameras being stuffed with video sh*t.

And the video whiners shall f*cking go and buy f*cking video cams. Like this one here. Or any other, I don't care.

 

[bhf3737]

Reading more into specs... it has 5 axis IBIS!

Sure signs of good things to come for future R bodies??

Canon USA site mentions that it has "electronic stabilization" not IBIS.
EOS-R already has electronic stabilization.

 

[RayValdez360]

Hi Ray,

These cameras are used extensively by run and gun style documentary shooters and also by news networks.

The XF305 was originally designed with heavy input from the BBC here in the UK and the camera became almost an industry standard in the UK for documentary production. Camera's such as Sony's FS7 and Canon's C300 and a whole generation of large sensor shallow DOF cameras have taken over much of this work BUT and it's a BIG BUT, for run and gun ob doc filming these cameras are tricky to shoot with and you see this on screen with a large amount of out of focus material.

We specialise in ob doc filming, mostly for the BBC and prefer to use smaller cameras that are less scary for the people we are filming and allow us to shoot for long periods to time using low cost media. The most important thing for us is the ability to capture footage as it happens and for this reason, we tend to avoid large sensor cameras and prefer to use small hand-held cameras such as the XF705 or the Sony Z280.

Our local news station for example has just purchased 25 Sony PXW-Z280's and the BBC in the UK will buy large quantities of the new Canon and Sony cameras.

That is the low answer - short answer is loads of folks )

I know who its for. i was saying who actually buys it these days. I figured someone was going to say for TV stuff or networks

 

[RayValdez360]

Not only do I not care for video recording, it is worse than that: in many ways it is an obstacle for optimal stills shooting. I have no problem with SOME cameras being hybrid video/stills. I am massively opposed to ALL stills cameras being stuffed with video sh*t.

And the video whiners shall f*cking go and buy f*cking video cams. Like this one here. Or any other, I don't care.

It's shame you are stuck in the past like that. how does a camera having video features hurt someone that takes photos. simply dont use the video mode.

 

[fullstop]

how does a camera having video features hurt someone that takes photos. simply dont use the video mode.

video recording hinders 1. optimal stills IQ and 2. optimal stills shooting capabilities in many ways.

* starting with sensor design itself = not optimized for best possible STILLS IQ, but for running full-bore 4k video capture for 29 minutes on end = very different set of design objectives
* audio cr*p on board: total waste. stereo mics, extra mic jack, extra headphone jack, audio pre-amp/s and whathavenot. Sucking battery power and precious CPU cycles away from AF and stills capabilities. I would like that money either shaved off camera price or applied towards optimal stills IQ and stills shooting capabilities (eg "AI powered", eye controlled truly amazing AF system)
* all sorts of unnecessary clutter in and on camera: eg. totally unneeded marked in red "Video rec" button wasting precious real estate on camera body and often in places where it gets in may way when shooting video
* menu system cluttered with video sh*t. cannot even deselect it totally, so it disappears. Oh no, stills shooters "have to live with it 24/7" and sift through those god*mn video cr*p menu settings when moving between menu sub-pages
* all sorts of video-connectors, not needed for stills, causing more doors and additional cost to wheatherseal the body.

I want NONE of it. At least ONE "pure stills" mirrorfree FF camera in lineup. And please not the one priced at 6990.

 

[RayValdez360]

video recording hinders 1. optimal stills IQ and 2. optimal stills shooting capabilities in many ways.

* starting with sensor design itself = not optimized for best possible STILLS IQ, but for running full-bore 4k video capture for 29 minutes on end = very different set of design objectives
* audio cr*p on board: total waste. stereo mics, extra mic jack, extra headphone jack, audio pre-amp/s and whathavenot. Sucking battery power and precious CPU cycles away from AF and stills capabilities. I would like that money either shaved off camera price or applied towards optimal stills IQ and stills shooting capabilities (eg "AI powered", eye controlled truly amazing AF system)
* all sorts of unnecessary clutter in and on camera: eg. totally unneeded marked in red "Video rec" button wasting precious real estate on camera body and often in places where it gets in may way when shooting video
* menu system cluttered with video sh*t. cannot even deselect it totally, so it disappears. Oh no, stills shooters "have to live with it 24/7" and sift through those god*mn video cr*p menu settings when moving between menu sub-pages
* all sorts of video-connectors, not needed for stills, causing more doors and additional cost to wheatherseal the body.

I want NONE of it. At least ONE "pure stills" mirrorfree FF camera in lineup. And please not the one priced at 6990.

its funny the first thing I was going to mention was the record button. so ok the biggest and most logical thing you complain about is the size of the camera increrasing slightly due to hardware related to video. I dont understand how video messes with IQ without some type of technically facts. I think you got it backwards. The cinema line is the one where the IQ is dedicated to video with a low MPix sensor.

 

[fullstop]

so ok the biggest and most logical thing you complain about is the size of the camera increrasing slightly due to hardware related to video.

nope. My main complaint is that I am forced to pay for and accept unwanted, stills-performance impeding video recording stuff in [virtually] every stills camera.

 

[EduPortas]

video recording hinders 1. optimal stills IQ and 2. optimal stills shooting capabilities in many ways.

I want NONE of it. At least ONE "pure stills" mirrorfree FF camera in lineup. And please not the one priced at 6990.

The big N already has a camera for you, but it has a mirror :]

In all seriousness, camera purists say the DF delivers a very good image and NO video whatsoever.

 

[bhf3737]

nope. My main complaint is that I am forced to pay for and accept unwanted, stills-performance impeding video recording stuff in [virtually] every stills camera.

Being a bit more precise, there are some common technologies shared between mirrorless still and video cams, such as AF, focus tracking, histogram, focus peaking, and zebras. But there are some essential features for video cameras (such as: codecs, logs, luma waveform, multiple audio channels, triggers, false color, vector scope, timecode, etc.) that are not necessarily needed in still only cameras. Some of these features (such as codecs and multi-channel audio) are very CPU, memory, bandwidth, power demanding and perhaps costly.
Some companies, like Canon, focus mainly on essential still features but also offer a minimum subset of consumer-oriented implementation of the video features in a DSLR/mirrorless form factor. Some other companies, like Panasonic and Sony, try to market their cameras with the video features to attract more enthusiasts.
But today, there is no hybrid camera that has the full set and professional implementation of all the still and video features (e.g. they never put a high quality codec there). I guess there will never be a true hybrid, and even if it happens, it will be quite expensive.
As for the cost concerns you mentioned, no need to worry if you buy cameras designed and marketed with the focus on photo features. When you buy a DSLR/mirrorless camera you pay for the common essential photo features, anyway, and those added video-oriented features are usually nothing more than cheap gimmicks.

 

[RunAndGun]

Hi Ray,

These cameras are used extensively by run and gun style documentary shooters and also by news networks.

The XF305 was originally designed with heavy input from the BBC here in the UK and the camera became almost an industry standard in the UK for documentary production. Camera's such as Sony's FS7 and Canon's C300 and a whole generation of large sensor shallow DOF cameras have taken over much of this work BUT and it's a BIG BUT, for run and gun ob doc filming these cameras are tricky to shoot with and you see this on screen with a large amount of out of focus material.

We specialise in ob doc filming, mostly for the BBC and prefer to use smaller cameras that are less scary for the people we are filming and allow us to shoot for long periods to time using low cost media. The most important thing for us is the ability to capture footage as it happens and for this reason, we tend to avoid large sensor cameras and prefer to use small hand-held cameras such as the XF705 or the Sony Z280.

Our local news station for example has just purchased 25 Sony PXW-Z280's and the BBC in the UK will buy large quantities of the new Canon and Sony cameras.

That is the low answer - short answer is loads of folks )

After reading your first post, I was about to ask who and where, also. Because I almost NEVER see Canon "handycams" out in the wild here in the US and definitely not at the network level. I have one production client that has one or two for producers. Their "real camera" inventory for photogs is a mix of C300, C300 II, Amira and VariCams.

 

[fullstop]

In all seriousness, camera purists say the DF delivers a very good image and NO video whatsoeve

Nikon Df disqualifies for me for several reasons, mainly its botched, "pseudo-retro" user interface, the slapping mirror inside, its bulk and the very poor price/value ratio given its rather pedestrian specs.

generally i'd like to see things the other way round: less "hybrid" cameras and more uncompromised stills cameras.

nobody would ask why the XF705 video cam does not capture 50 MP stills at 10 fps with superb AF tracking. every stills camera released - eg EOS R - triggers lots of video-whining, "why no 4k/60, no 1080/120, no better codec, no this no that video cr*p. i find that totally ridiculous.

 

[waldi72]

Nikon Df disqualifies for me for several reasons, mainly its botched, "pseudo-retro" user interface, the slapping mirror inside, its bulk and the very poor price/value ratio given its rather pedestrian specs.

generally i'd like to see things the other way round: less "hybrid" cameras and more uncompromised stills cameras.

nobody would ask why the XF705 video cam does not capture 50 MP stills at 10 fps with superb AF tracking. every stills camera released - eg EOS R - triggers lots of video-whining, "why no 4k/60, no 1080/120, no better codec, no this no that video cr*p. i find that totally ridiculous.

Audio features are not useless for still image cameras. I really like voice memo for still pictures in 1D X series Canon Camera. I wish next 7D have it along with ability to download to card your C1-C3 settings.

 

[fullstop]

I really like voice memo for still pictures in 1D X series Canon Camera.

you are the second person I ever hear this from.
To me any sort of audio is totally useless in stills cameras. But no prob if voice notes are in 1D series, I will never buy one.

 

[Sibir Lupus]

I thought the lens would be brighter on this level of camera. f/2.8-4.5 is not that great

It's a 25.5 mm–382.5 mm (35mm equivalent) lens that isn't the size of your head. So yeah, that's actually pretty good. I guess they cold have just made it a consistent F/4, but then you'd loose the F/2.8 capability on the wide end.

 

[Etienne]

It's a 25.5 mm–382.5 mm (35mm equivalent) lens that isn't the size of your head. So yeah, that's actually pretty good. I guess they cold have just made it a consistent F/4, but then you'd loose the F/2.8 capability on the wide end.

It's the same lens spec as the much smaller XF405.
I would have preferred a stop faster and accept the additional weight. This is not a small / light camera already, that's the XF405. The brighter lens would have made a big difference.
This camera is still quite interesting to me.

 

[ykn123]

It's shame you are stuck in the past like that. how does a camera having video features hurt someone that takes photos. simply dont use the video mode.

Wanting to have top notch stills features without paying for 4K video crap (if you dont use it because you are not in the video business at all) is by far not living in the past - it make's a lot of sense from a photographers perspective - but it will not happen anymore because such is life. However it leads to a bunch of youtube nerds blaming cameras like the R that otherwise (without video) would be simply great stills cameras with superior glass (EF or R - no matter) , great colour science , great AF, ergonomics, usability features and innovations like the protected sensor in the R (from dust sucking) , the control ring, the MN-bar, the menues, ....) - i would purchase it any day - if i do video i simply grab another camera thats made for it.

 

[RunAndGun]

It's a 25.5 mm–382.5 mm (35mm equivalent) lens that isn't the size of your head. So yeah, that's actually pretty good. I guess they cold have just made it a consistent F/4, but then you'd loose the F/2.8 capability on the wide end.

Most of these handycams start to iris ramp almost immediately after zooming in from the bottom-end, whereas most "real" ENG or even cine lenses that ramp(and all high mag/zoom ratio lenses do) don't start to ramp until around the top 1/3 or 1/4 of the range. Kind of apples-to-oranges, but my 17-120 doesn't ramp until after 90mm, which is exactly 75% through the range, so the widest aperture spec actually means something.

 

[Dantana]

After reading your first post, I was about to ask who and where, also. Because I almost NEVER see Canon "handycams" out in the wild here in the US and definitely not at the network level. I have one production client that has one or two for producers. Their "real camera" inventory for photogs is a mix of C300, C300 II, Amira and VariCams.

I used a very similar SD camera from Canon, back in the day, to shoot behind the scenes footage when I worked at a company that designed concert sets. Construction, rehearsals, sometimes show footage. I would much rather have something like this as a dedicated video rig for just that kind of doc footage than trying to use a DSLR for that purpose. Sometimes having shallow depth of field is a curse rather than a blessing. The dedicated cine cameras are great, but way more camera and complication (and cost) than needed for the purpose.

 

[RunAndGun]

I used a very similar SD camera from Canon, back in the day, to shoot behind the scenes footage when I worked at a company that designed concert sets. Construction, rehearsals, sometimes show footage. I would much rather have something like this as a dedicated video rig for just that kind of doc footage than trying to use a DSLR for that purpose. Sometimes having shallow depth of field is a curse rather than a blessing. The dedicated cine cameras are great, but way more camera and complication (and cost) than needed for the purpose.

I hate these type of form factor cameras, for most things, but I wholeheartedly agree that you don't need large sensor cameras for everything. And a lot of times large sensor cams are a hinderance(especially shooting video with a DSLR). My favorite camera, to this day, is still my 2/3" P2 VariCam with 13x4.5 ENG lens. It's like Ken Rockwell says about how a camera should work, it just gets out of your way and lets you shoot. I went pretty much the entire month of August not picking up a large sensor camera. I shot pretty much 100% with my VariCam and it was SO NICE. People(mostly the young "kids") look down on 2/3" ENG cameras today, but they don't know what they're missing.