Anybody try the Canon Vixia HF G10?

[Jack Lynt]

I know we're DSLR centric here. But are any indie filmmakers seriously trying the Canon Vixia HF G10 out for short films etc? Any thoughts?

Best Buy puts it at around 1500 dollars. B&H puts it at around 1200 dollars. Don't know the pounds equivalent off the top of my head.

I know the GH2 is significantly cheaper. But for those of us who don't exactly love the look of Panasonic video... ?

Is it worth the coin? Any hands-on experience out there? Any interest?

Canon's website says it does shoot native 24p.

 

[that1guyy]

I have played around with the Canon XA10 at Samy's, which, I think, is pretty much the HFG10 but with the handle and XLR. I really liked the focus ring. Very sharp image, good colors. I was told it came with 64GB internally which is great and you can add more with dual sd card slots.

Overall I enjoyed using it. I didn't buy it though because it had a small 1/3" chip so not much shallow DoF if you want that.

 

[directorik]

I've shot with it and it's a fine camera. Remember the camera does not
make a movie, the people make the movie.

Or maybe not...

I know the GH2 is significantly cheaper. But for those of us who don't exactly love the look of Panasonic video... ?

So you're telling me if I sent you a DVD of four short films you could tell
me which was shot on a Canon and which was shot on a Panasonic? Can
you tell the difference between Panasonic and JVC or Sony cameras?

 

[Jack Lynt]

Thanks, guys. =)

I've shot with it and it's a fine camera. Remember the camera does not
make a movie, the people make the movie.

Or maybe not...

Words of wisdom. Thanks, Rik. =)

So you're telling me if I sent you a DVD of four short films you could tell
me which was shot on a Canon and which was shot on a Panasonic? Can
you tell the difference between Panasonic and JVC or Sony cameras?

Mmmmm, no, not the JVCs' or Sonys' so much because I've spent little to no time looking at them.

But Panasonic compared to Canon, particularly the GH2 or the AF100? Yes, I should be able to spot them. So, if you sent me 4 DVDs, one shot with one of those Panasonic cameras or even others, one by a canon, one by a JVC, and one by a Sony, well, yes, I should have a fighting chance, yes. I could probably pick the four thirds video out right away. Then, through process of elimination, well, like I said, I think I'd have a fighting, well, a pretty good chance of identifying them. I don't mean to exclude video shot with Panasonic cameras with sensor sizes other than the four thirds one. I've looked at quite a bit of video shot with Panasonic camcorders as well and I think I can say with confidence that video out of their cameras has a distictive look as does video out of other brand cameras. I only mean to say that if you sent me video from a GH2, you'd probably be making it that much easier for me to at least identify the Panasonic video.

That's barring some sort of curve ball, like, if you picked some Panasonic video for its uniquely un-Panasonicness, if that's possible, then yeah, that might throw me off. But if they were all representative, typical examples I'd have a decent chance.

And Sony...actually, I may have seen enough Sony video examples, too, to be able to zero in on it as well. And then, the process of elimation is our friend.

Hey, thanks for the valuable help, Rik and That1guy. =)

 

[jax_rox]

I think you're lumping 'Panasonic' into one category, when you're only really talking about the GH2. If I sent you a similar 'test' as the current Zacuto shootouts, with a Varicam, F3, and C300 shooting the same scene and a camera master adjusting the lighting for each, then a colourist colouring each, I think you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference. There would be some differences, of course, and you could likely tell they were shot on different cameras, but I think you'd be hard pressed to know which was shot on what without extensive use of each.

 

[Jack Lynt]

Yes, definately, I'm sure you're right, Jax. I'm sure they would all look good. But I suspect that even without extensive use of each, I could likely tell which one looked Panasonicy and which one looked Canony.

I had to look Varicam up. Nice. I like the film-like look of what video I could find. But it cannot shoot 1080p? Doesn't that sort of date it? And at 40 to 60 thousand dollars, well...I think they should think about lowering their prices for it. =P

Then again, it sounds like their customer base consists largely of those who make commercials. And since, I guess, many broadcasters are happy sitting at 720p, maybe their price point is right where it should be.

It is overall more pleasing for me to look at than their four thirds video. But, still, looks Panasonicy to me. Which is not to say that's a bad thing. I'm really only talking about subjective aesthetic preferences and choices.

But, as they say, it's not like I'd kick a Varicam out of bed!

=)

 

[jax_rox]

I had to look up Varicam. Nice. I like the film-like look of what video I could find. But it cannot shoot 1080p? Doesn't that sort of date it? And at 40 to 60 thousand dollars, well...I think they should think about lowering their prices for it. =P

The Varicam is a relatively expensive camera when comparing to what's available now. That said, it is an older camera and at it's release date, the price was pretty much on par with it's competitors. I personally really like the image out of the Varicam and find it better to work with than say a Red. I don't enjoy it as much as perhaps an Alexa, but the Alexa is almost in a league of it's own. I can't wait until they bring out the updated Varicam (whenever that happens).

It does have 2/3" sensor, which is good and bad. At it's release, again, it was pretty much top of game, but now obviously the game has changed.
There are in fact two models of Varicam, the 2700 and the 3700. The 2700 only shoots 720p, the 3700 will shoot 1080p.

Then again, it sounds like their customer base consists largely of those who make commercials. And since, I guess, many broadcasters are happy sitting at 720p, maybe their price point is right where it should be.

It's starting to decline within the market, but it is centered within a broadcast medium. In Australia, all high budget drama TV shows were shot with the Varicam up until the popularity of the Alexa, and even now those that can't afford the $1600/day+ lenses rental price on an Alexa go for Varicam.

I'm realy interested in what they're going to do with the new Varicam, there's been talk of one being released for quite a while, reports from NAB suggest the stumbling block has been trying to get full 4k out of a sensor that won't cost a million dollars - ie, if you put a 4k sensor into a camera, you won't get true 4k, if you put an 8k sensor in you will, but then you're paying extra for a sensor you only use half of..

IMO, up until recently the Varicam was the closest you could get to film on digital, though it was expensive. Then, however, you started seeing large sensors put into cameras instead of the multi 2/3" CCDs etc.
The one good thing about the Varicam is the CCDs mean there's no rolling shutter issue

Not to mention Panasonic's codecs have generally been top of game as well.

 

[ClockworkNinja]

Using a DSLR for film seems like setting yourself up for punishment when you don't need it. For $1500 I'd rather just get a dedicated HD video camera. Does it offer any advantages you couldn't get with a standard HD cam?

 

[Jack Lynt]

Great information, Jax. Thanks! A renewed Varicam sounds totally drool worthy. Since you brought Varicam up, I didn't do an extensive search, but I quickly found a few nice things.

This one on Youtube speaks for itself. Nowadays, who would be satisfied with 360p? All the same, isn't its film-like quality gorgeous?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tlp8N9lA1F0

And this short on Vimeo. It looks quite good and film-like (film-like is a very good thing in my book), and it's a good film, worth a watch. I thought I saw somewhere that it's 720p, but now I can't find that. But I still believe that's what it is. And apart from questions about which camera etc, I like this short film because, first, it's good, and second, it seems like an excellant example of how a good, smart sci-fi short can be made, while probably also having a relatively small budget and also not having to be effects heavy. An inspiration to no-to-low budget filmmakers, it seems to me.

The Un-gone.

Clock, I'm not sure. What attracts me to it is that it shoots native 24p. I haven't discovered a Canon camcorder that does that at a cheaper price. Which doesn't mean it doesn't exist. If someone knows of one, it would be great to hear of it. And in the Sony, Panasonic, or JVC lines, I don't know if that's available in the consumer level range, which models that would include, or at what cost. I haven't gotten that far. I've been watching consumer level Panasonics too, but I haven't noticed one of them delivering native 24p. Maybe I just haven't been paying enough attention. But I'm a fan of the Canon look, so that's what I've started leaning towards.

But I vacillate. And I'm always trying to remind myself of what Rik said: the camera is not even the most important factor. So...

 

[jax_rox]

Yeah, the Varicam does remind me of some older film stocks, and really lends itself to that TV beauty style image - if you're really interested in some impressive Varicam work, check out HBO's Bernard and Doris, Joss Whedon/Fox's Dollhouse, ABC's Detroit 1-8-7, or a film called Facing the Giants, which was shot on Varicam with a 35mm adapter and Panavision and Nikkor lenses. I stumbled across it when I was first interested in the Varicam and it does look nice.

As per your original question, I think you're better off spending more time looking at the Production Design than the camera - I've noticed now that initially everyone just cared about camera and didn't even think about audio. Now, people have had it drilled into them to think about audio, so you tend to get relatively decent audio, as well as decent visuals. But then, no-one talks about Production Design and so you have these films with decent shots but look kinda ugly because there's been no thought into production design. Good lighting and good production design can make any camera look good.

If I never see a blank white wall in a low budget or student film ever again, I'll be happy haha

 

[Jack Lynt]

Yeah, the Varicam does remind me of some older film stocks, and really lends itself to that TV beauty style image - if you're really interested in some impressive Varicam work, check out HBO's Bernard and Doris, Joss Whedon/Fox's Dollhouse, ABC's Detroit 1-8-7, or a film called Facing the Giants, which was shot on Varicam with a 35mm adapter and Panavision and Nikkor lenses. I stumbled across it when I was first interested in the Varicam and it does look nice.

As per your original question, I think you're better off spending more time looking at the Production Design than the camera - I've noticed now that initially everyone just cared about camera and didn't even think about audio. Now, people have had it drilled into them to think about audio, so you tend to get relatively decent audio, as well as decent visuals. But then, no-one talks about Production Design and so you have these films with decent shots but look kinda ugly because there's been no thought into production design. Good lighting and good production design can make any camera look good.

If I never see a blank white wall in a low budget or student film ever again, I'll be happy haha

Amen. =)

 

[community]

I know we're DSLR centric here. But are any indie filmmakers seriously trying the Canon Vixia HF G10 out for short films etc?

Why do most people use DSLR cameras instead of something designed to shoot video like the Vixia HF G10?
I don't think it's a cost issue, because there is the Vixia HFM50 for less than $600.

And what's wrong with Panasonic video? I haven't really tried it to know.

 

[Jack Lynt]

Why do most people use DSLR cameras instead of something designed to shoot video like the Vixia HF G10?
I don't think it's a cost issue, because there is the Vixia HFM50 for less than $600.

And what's wrong with Panasonic video? I haven't really tried it to know.

Indie filmmakers like DSLRs for their interchangeable lenses and for the kind of control over depth of field that they can give you.

There's nothing wrong with Panasonic video. A lot of people like and love it, especially given all the fans of the GH1 and the GH2.

=)

 

[community]

Indie filmmakers like DSLRs for their interchangeable lenses and for the kind of control over depth of field that they can give you.

There's nothing wrong with Panasonic video. A lot of people like and love it, especially given all the fans of the GH1 and the GH2.

=)

Thanks for the reply. I'm new to cameras/camcorders so I'm still trying to make sense of them.

But I thought that camcorders also have interchangeable lenses. I went to a store where they said they could put different lenses (such as wide angle or fish eye etc) on the camcorder.

As for depth of field, I know that some of the camcorders I looked at had that ability, but I don't know how it compares to the DSLR cameras.

 

[ipcmlr]

Indie filmmakers like DSLRs for their interchangeable lenses and for the kind of control over depth of field that they can give you.

There's nothing wrong with Panasonic video. A lot of people like and love it, especially given all the fans of the GH1 and the GH2.

=)

What is "panasonicy" video? All I have is a gh2 so can't really compare it to anything... Havent tried any canon dslrs or camcorders. I guess without color grading and old softer lenses they might look overly sharp?

Going back to the topic. I've seen some nice footage of the canon vixia hf g10. Looks great in low light. I'd love to test one.

I guess its partly price, partly flexibility with interchangeable lenses, partly a higher bitrate which theoretically is better for color grading (although I can't compare unless someone decides to gift me an HF G10!) and some of us want to take nice pictures with the camera as well. Depth of field is easier to get with the dslrs. Even the micro four thirds sensor is huge compared to the 1/3 sensor in the canon camcorders.

 

[Gonzo_Entertainment]

Why do most people use DSLR cameras instead of something designed to shoot video like the Vixia HF G10?
I don't think it's a cost issue, because there is the Vixia HFM50 for less than $600.

And what's wrong with Panasonic video? I haven't really tried it to know.

Complete manual control of everything (beyond what most video cams will do until you get to prosumer grade, with prosumer grade price), interchangeable lenses, ease of manual focus.

 

[Jack Lynt]

So you're telling me if I sent you a DVD of four short films you could tell
me which was shot on a Canon and which was shot on a Panasonic? Can
you tell the difference between Panasonic and JVC or Sony cameras?

Okay, my camdar has come under serious question for me...in a sort of amusing way (for me, anyway). Time for me to eat my words. Time to eat humble pie.

So, I love the work that they do at Joe Simon Wedding Films.

Joe Simon Wedding Films .Com

Just gorgeous. If you haven't seen what they do, check it out.

Anyway, I never saw any technical information under the videos or on that site etc. But, I took a look at those videos and concluded that they looked like they were shot with the GH2 or the AG-AF100. Yes, I thought it looked a bit Panasonicy or micro four thirdsy. So, from there on out it pretty much got stuck in my head that Joe Simon, or their team, or whoever shoots those wedding videos shoot(s) them with either one or both of those cameras. Nothing absolute, mind you. I didn't assume it. Or did I? Am I kidding myself? No, I would have said that I was hardly certain of it any absolute sort of way. But I would have told you that it would be my strong guess.

I love the GH2's resolution. I love its lack of moire. And I love its continuous clip length capability. I sure do. But overall, I just have not loved the look of the video made with it that I've seen. I've been trying to love it. I'm trying to love it now. And there is an excellant chance I will be buying one sooner or later, regardless --if its the best us low-budgetors can do.

But, when trying to embrace the GH2, I've had that shining example of those Joe Simon videos to consider. I've been thinking, hey, maybe I'm not too thrilled by the look that GH2 video has, but damn, look at what those Joe Simon people do with it. That stuff is reeeeally good! Gorgeous, like I said.

But tonight, I decided to try and actually get to the bottom of it, verify that that's what Joe Simon shoots with.

Well, it doesn't look like that's what he shoots with. Of course this is nothing definitive. Maybe he does shoot with the GH2 or the AF-AG100 and I wasn't able to google it up so far, or whatever. There are a couple of interviews from 2009 that mention his shooting with a super 8, the Panasonic AG-HVX200, and the Canon XH-A1.

For more contemporary stuff that's associated with his wedding films business, all I really found (but I didn't try to do anything like an exhaustive search, either) with any camera information about it is here on his Vimeo page:

Joe Simon Films's Videos

All the wedding videos on those three pages were shot with the 5DII, the 5DIII, the C300, or a combination of those cameras. One was shot with the Canon 814XLS.

So, wow did I get that wrong. That example, anyway.

So, tonight, I'm left realizing that what I thought was that exceptional example of how good GH2 video could look was...well, not the case, apparently.

And, no wonder I really like those videos...just, not because of, or really, inspite of, what I had thought they were shot with. =)

Anyway. Live and learn.

Or could it be that those earlier wedding films of his that I saw were shot with the AG-HVX200? And it's just that those video aren't on his Vimeo page? If so, that might explain why those videos looked Panasonicy to me. Or, am I just trying to wiggle out of my mistake? =P

And where does one get the moxie to shoot a wedding with a 5DII? What if the twelve minute clip limit comes up in the middle of their vows, or something? Or does having a camera b 5DII cover that?