Smaller cheaper camcorder to replace XH A1?

[LowLight]

I have a XH A1. There are several things I don't like about it:
- tape based
- cannot get saturated red color out of it (may also be true for green and blue but I have not tried)
- LCD too small

Is there any smaller, flash memory based camcorder that is comparable or better in low light performance? I still need manual exposure control and lanc.

Do 3-sensor camcorders still have an advantage over 1-sensor? Compared to a few years ago, there are now more prosumer 1-sensor camcorders and video-capable DSLR. I like to know if it is because performance of 1-sensor cam has caught up with 3 sensor, or because lower quality is now acceptable.

[Daniel Rutter]

XA10, and various cameras around that line. I hear nothing but good things about them, but unfortunately they are out of my price range.

[kenkyusha]

Do 3-sensor camcorders still have an advantage over 1-sensor? Compared to a few years ago, there are now more prosumer 1-sensor camcorders and video-capable DSLR. I like to know if it is because performance of 1-sensor cam has caught up with 3 sensor, or because lower quality is now acceptable.

To muddy the waters, in addition to the 1 vs 3-chip issue, the type of sensor (CMOS vs CCD) also has a huge impact... CMOS chips are the 'go to' choice for most manufacturers of HD cameras these days (they require less power and are cheaper to produce), but they are more susceptible to jello and other artifacts with quick motion (e.g. whip-pans).

Sony and Panasonic have been making '3 CMOS' or 3-mos' cameras since at least 2007 (probably earlier), but most newer less expensive cams seem to feature a single higher resolution chip. To step up to 3 1/3" CMOS Canon is the XF300, which currently retails around $6500.

[Timbit]

The single 1/3" CMOS chip XF100 is little brother to the XF300, and runs around $2,500. It's has the 3:2:2 verses 3:2:0 which the cheaper cameras have, if that factor is important.

[cgbier]

Timbit: $2,999 and 4:2:2.. don't forget the 50mbps
I got one on (back-)order

Lowlight, if I'm not mistaken, you have a lot of color parameters to play with on your XH. You should be able to set curves and saturation to your liking. Just play around with the menus.

[Timbit]

Timbit: $2,999 and 4:2:2.. don't forget the 50mbps

My brain wasn't working.

[peterarcson]

Xf100 is the best camera in the price range. With good lighting you can't really tell the difference between XF100 and 300.

[LowLight]

The single 1/3" CMOS chip XF100 is little brother to the XF300, and runs around $2,500. It's has the 3:2:2 verses 3:2:0 which the cheaper cameras have, if that factor is important.

XF100 looks good, but I wish it uses SDXC cards instead of CF cards. I'm worry CF cards may become extinct or become rare and expensive.

[BarteS]

But wouldn't that open up the market for some good SD to CF adapters (they do already exist, but the performance is ... nowhere to be found).

But first mention a budget, makes it a lot easier.

XA10 is lovely as is its little brother if you already own some good recorder, but the XF100 is of course a different animal. Apart from the mentioned pros are the physical buttons. The lower ends do have the options, though you have to use the touchscreen and regardless of whether you're a fan of that one, it will at least be slower. (And personally I'm not a huge fan of the touchscreen itself and the way the menu is arranged, it should have been flipped to make it easier to handle, 'select button' should have been on the left not right.)

[cgbier]

A f'ed up %$^& touch screen has mutated my Sony A1 into a nice doorstop. @#$%&

[cgbier]

XF100 looks good, but I wish it uses SDXC cards instead of CF cards. I'm worry CF cards may become extinct or become rare and expensive.

Definitely not. CF cards are still used in "professional" DSLR. They won't go extinct.

The only reason I had wished for SD cards in the XF was that I could finally use the SD card slot in my MBP's - that's all. Canon seems to see the CF card as a cheaper alternative to P2 or SxS media and their (for smalltimers like me) expensive infrastructure - the main reason I cut the Sony EX1 out of my budget proposals.

[peterarcson]

CF are much more reliable compared to SDHC. With dual slot recording on XF100 it makes is the best instant back up out there. Two 64GB cards from Sandisk are less then $500! With PCi reader on my older MBP it takes about 7 minutes per 16GB card to ingest the footage into FCP6 (about 41 minutes of film). 64GB card gives you just under 3 hours of shooting with instant back up, beats any P2 or SxS in price. My advice would be to try to save up another 1K and buy XF100.

[BarteS]

Dual slot recording is also available on the cheaper cameras, such as the XA10. But what about using an imagetank to store the videos? Even though harddrive priced have increased, with an image tank you can store video way more affordable by using smaller SD cards.

[cgbier]

There are three points that speak against the XA10 for me: AVCHD, touch screen, SD cards.
There's one thing that speaks against image tanks for me: SD cards.

[BarteS]

What is wrong with SD? Personal opinion, preference or some fact (I'm not aware of) why CF are better ?

[cgbier]

CF are more robust than SD. That's why they still are a mainstay in "professional" DSLR. It is more of anecdotal value, but I still use the CF cards (Lexar, Transcend) I got with my first digital camera 8 or 9 years ago. I don't know how many cycles they have beyond them already, but they haven't given any problems. My wife had two SD cards (Transcend) die on her within three years.

[BarteS]

But that's based on these statistics? With two different persons? Hmm. (The fact pro DSLRs are still using CF is nice, though it is fading, more and more DSLRs get SD slots, whereas the DSLR it replaces had CF. I believe part of the reason is the fact SD is now fast enough too and allows for higher capacity cards.) I was actually hoping for some more substantial data to support the claim of being more robust. You could be right, CF feels more protected, though I am not sure in reality SD is less robust and reliable (has check on it too).

[peterarcson]

Bart, from my personal experience: I had 3 SD cards die on me while on a shoot. I have never had CF failure. XF100 allows you to record to two cards at once. SD cards are slower as well, CF were used to record even on RED. Anyway, I am convinced XF is the best camera in the price range.