There is a substantial difference between the Canon XF100 and the XF300 and PRICE is the biggest difference. I am a professional and it would be a huge compromise for me to settle for the XF100.

YET, for 99.9% of the use you might give the camera -YOU would not see the difference. Why is that?

Ask yourself these questions: 1) Are you going to shoot greenscreen footage for critical composite work? 2) Are you going to use elaborate capture systems to capture uncompressed footage for multi-layer compositing with a raid drive hardware editing system? 3) Are you going to partner with a buddy who has an XF300 to shoot multi-cam at an event like a rock concert and want to do camera match? 4) Are you going to go deep in the menu of the camera to set calibration for a "look"?

Otherwise the XF100 will be a very good camera for you - and be prepared to go into its deep menu for calibration - and only with consultation with those who already know how. The the XF100 will then be an outstanding choice.

Thanks Bob

I see what you mean by low light performance with thee sensors as apposed to one sensor. I just checked the specs on the B+H site. XF100 1.6Lux in manual, XF300 0.8 Lux in manual. BTW the sensor size is 1/3". I’m not to concerned by the size/weight. My XL1s was pimped out with a 16X manual lens, FU-1000 Professional Monochrome Viewfinder, CH910 Dual Battery Charger W/mount for MA-200, and MA-200 XLR Microphone Adaptor /Shoulder Pad. It was a bit of a beast.


http://www.ebay.com/itm/200799999926?ssPageName=STRK:MESOX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1587.l2649

When I tried the XF100 I was very disappointed with its image quality (although a lot of people seem to disagree on this!). You're also talking about an old (2YR) and still expensive camera that has a lot of new and very flashy competitors available now, including myriad DSLR options...

videoITguy: 1. Are you going to shoot greenscreen footage for critical composite work? 2) Are you going to use elaborate capture systems to capture uncompressed footage for multi-layer compositing with a raid drive hardware editing system? 3) Are you going to partner with a buddy who has an XF300 to shoot multi-cam at an event like a rock concert and want to do camera match? 4) Are you going to go deep in the menu of the camera to set calibration for a "look"?

1 Grenscreen? yes.
2. High end hardware? probably not.
3. Partner with buddy? Would like to, if it means making a couple of bucks.
4. Deep menu? That is on thing that concerns me. But If I have to deal with it I will.

One thing I would like to know is there a significant or at least a noticeable difference in quality?

John

When you say "quality"? Do you mean looking at the footage shot and edited on a NLE without efx multi-layer level and then output to a Blu-ray disc viewed on a 42" LCD?

NO.

BUT you must tweak the XF-100 to make its menu work for you. You can only do this in consultation with those people who know how.

You could similarly tweak XF300 - but most important for multi-cam camera match to a look - than change its properties.

Andy_L: When I tried the XF100 I was very disappointed with its image quality (although a lot of people seem to disagree on this!). You're also talking about an old (2YR) and still expensive camera that has a lot of new and very flashy competitors available now, including myriad DSLR options...

I've heard it go both ways. I guess image quality is subjective. MPEG-2, 50Mbs/sec, 4:2:2, certainly sounds like good stuff to me. As for the DSL, I've tried my daughters Canon 60D and to tell you the truth it's a little hard for me to manipulate. I lost my left hand when I was 18. I can use the hook on a larger video cam to fiddle with the buttons and tap a touch screen but not the DSLR. Besides I do like the ability take long running shots, clouds, weather, sunsets, nature, etc. Andy_L if you have any suggestions on another camera I would love to compare the specs.

Thanks
John

I have been very interested in the Sony FS100, and if I wasn't slightly priced out, I would be testing one right now. I believe Sony has a camcorder-style big chip camera out or coming out soon, and that's probably worth a look also.

Re: DSLR, I totally understand your concerns. The handling absolutely sucks. But when you see the kind of shots you can get with a D800 (or, now a D600) with a good lens and shallow DOF, it's kind of hard to live without one.

Remember: codec is meaningless if it's not paired with a great sensor and processor (and lens!)

Being Stretched.

The other side of all these arguments is that investing now in the XF300, which I use, could allow you to develop into better shooting and acquisition.

The manual (buttons and switches) feature-set on the XF300 is remarkable. The attention to detail on the design of the ergonomics are superb, making further long-term "pimping" straightforward.

Having come directly from my Canon XM2 (SD) to this giant (XF300) was an awesome experience, and made it clear just what I had been missing. Not withstanding the HD options, I'd place the XF100 on par with the XM2 in terms of stretching your learning abilities. On the other hand, the XF300 is keeping me on my toes and amazed at just how much better my shooting has become and what I could do next. I didn't want you to just hear about if you don't elect to do green screening - there are other features you could do with, and those features will stretch you further.

Has it been worth the extra ££s? Yes. No price on education and gaining skills. Back then I wish I had bought the XL2s, but I didn't. I'd like you to experience the XF300 in "anger". Hire one!

Cheers

Grazie