5D vs 7D

MBX

macrumors 68000
Original poster
Sep 14, 2006
1,699
330
after having tested the 5D vs 7D side by side i can tell you the 5D is worth the couple 100 bucks more.

If you really need 60fps then go for 7D but i think it's not worth it. It's really noisier footage, especially in lower light settings or indoors if you don't have 100% good lighting conditions.

and the fullframe sensor is worth it a bit too.
 

Techhie

macrumors 65816
Dec 7, 2008
1,160
0
The hub of stupidity
yeah, but is the 5D weather sealed?
Not only does it have weather seals, but it also has a pro-level magnesium frame similar to the 1Ds mk III. The 5D mk II is an excellent camera, although the 7D does have better features. They are both excellent cameras, but the 5D would be optimal for low-light shooting because of its larger sensor.
 

MBX

macrumors 68000
Original poster
Sep 14, 2006
1,699
330
The 7D is even noisier in brighter lit settings.

I tested with same iso settings, etc and same lenses. You can really notice the difference.

The 7D also gives bit more of a digital DV look while 5D looks more filmic, probably because of the full sensor.

Yes the 7D has some more video fps features but you might as well conform the 30fps to 25 or 24 in cinema tools.

Just my 2c
 

TH3D4RKKN1GH7

macrumors 6502a
Mar 25, 2009
727
88
Disagree, 7D looks more like film than 5D does. The 5D tends to over do the depth of field for the subject distance. The 7D sensor is more aligned to the size of 35mm motion to begin with. I also think you're overstating the noise difference, the 7D footage is noisier but its not like night and day at all. I'm buying both cameras soon (5D around the time it gets 23.976 option cause its useless to me FOR VIDEO without it). I think they're both great cameras, spent a fair share of time fondling them both =].
 

TH3D4RKKN1GH7

macrumors 6502a
Mar 25, 2009
727
88
Sorry if that came off harsh didn't mean to.

Both look like digital, I've been shooting all on film recently and I feel the 7D comes closer then the 5D. As I've said the 5D tends to have a more shallow depth of field than actual 35 motion has at respective subject distance from the camera, the light intake is also smaller on film since the film plate is smaller then the Full Frame still camera.

Film is grainy, digital is noisy, there's a reason for all those lights on a film set. As a member of the audience you rarely see film in its RAW form or on a cheap production... not as pretty. 16mm even looks like a star with the right light set up so yeah, light the 7D shots enough and it sings. 7D is closer to 35mm motion to me. Search vimeo for some 7D stuff, great video called "Perya" out there.
 

Macinposh

macrumors 6502a
Jun 7, 2006
700
0
Kreplakistan

Macinposh

macrumors 6502a
Jun 7, 2006
700
0
Kreplakistan
And oh, I wonder if the next eos1Ds will have the half mirror that the old film eos1RS used to have,that way the autofocus would function normally when shooting film?
Wonder why they still havent gone that route? It took only -1/3 of the light so it should not be an issue. And cost? Meh...
 

TH3D4RKKN1GH7

macrumors 6502a
Mar 25, 2009
727
88
Tell a photog you're taking away a third of light for a video purpose and see how they respond.

Converted frames do not look as smooth as naturally frames and it also means resyncing audio, which when you have an enormous amount of content is not fun. The pluses aren't enough to make me rush out and buy one before the 7D and before the firmware hits. I might end up buying a 7D and shooting single camera while my lens collection builds. If an idiot like Snyder can make Watchmen on a single camera I can do the same here.
 

FX120

macrumors 65816
May 18, 2007
1,173
232
Not only does it have weather seals, but it also has a pro-level magnesium frame similar to the 1Ds mk III. The 5D mk II is an excellent camera, although the 7D does have better features. They are both excellent cameras, but the 5D would be optimal for low-light shooting because of its larger sensor.
The 7D and 5DII share the same level of sealing around the buttons and doors, but neither have full sealing around the seams like the 1D bodies do. Both have magnesium frames but still have plastic bottoms and doors. Build wise they're identical.
 

Macinposh

macrumors 6502a
Jun 7, 2006
700
0
Kreplakistan
Tell a photog you're taking away a third of light for a video purpose and see how they respond.
Duude!!!

ONE.THIRD.OF.A.STOP!
Learn the goddam principles. That is from 1.4 to 1.6.
And I wonder how me and my collegues managed to shoot all the stuff with that camera in the day...:rolleyes:
Sheessh...


Converted frames do not look as smooth as naturally frames and it also means resyncing audio, which when you have an enormous amount of content is not fun. The pluses aren't enough to make me rush out and buy one before the 7D and before the firmware hits. I might end up buying a 7D and shooting single camera while my lens collection builds. If an idiot like Snyder can make Watchmen on a single camera I can do the same here.
But your trained eye wont find a lot of difference with the conversion if you do it proper.Do it in shake or cinematools.
Resynching audio is a bitch,that is true. Philip bloom has some good pointers though.
 

TH3D4RKKN1GH7

macrumors 6502a
Mar 25, 2009
727
88
Duude!!!

ONE.THIRD.OF.A.STOP!
Learn the goddam principles. That is from 1.4 to 1.6.
And I wonder how me and my collegues managed to shoot all the stuff with that camera in the day...:rolleyes:
Sheessh...




But your trained eye wont find a lot of difference with the conversion if you do it proper.Do it in shake or cinematools.
Resynching audio is a bitch,that is true. Philip bloom has some good pointers though.
I know what it is calm the **** down. The point is even a measly sacrifice like that will piss them off, especially since it holds no benefit to them. Just the mere inclusion of video makes them go insane and that doesn't even have a proven negative effect on digital production so imagine you tell them hey you're gonna loose a tiny bit of light for this video function. They'll whine like they were losing a whole stop.

I know Phil's conversion tips for audio and video and even he knows 23.976 from converted 30 ain't the same and there are programs to get around the audio issues, but it ain't worth fussing with when I can just wait. Cameras not getting discontinued its no big deal.

@ Fuzz: Yeah Stu is the best, his bits in the Spirit were the best parts of the entire movie lol.
 

Macinposh

macrumors 6502a
Jun 7, 2006
700
0
Kreplakistan
The point is even a measly sacrifice like that will piss them off, especially since it holds no benefit to them. Just the mere inclusion of video makes them go insane and that doesn't even have a proven negative effect on digital production so imagine you tell them hey you're gonna loose a tiny bit of light for this video function. They'll whine like they were losing a whole stop.

No they wont. I know,I was one of them.Even when we were shooting to such slow films as Velvia Kodachrome64 or such.Total non issue then,even more now as you can push the ISO so easily. That would be,say, 100-to-125...boohoo.

People would die for to have:
A)Quiter cameras:No mirror housing clatter during shooting.
B)More durable:No moving parts to get broken.
C)More dustproof :as the mirror casing can be made fully sealed.
D)Constant autofocus during shooting : The holy grail,no need to explain..


And oh,isnt it weird that most of the moviecameras (except some arris,wich use rotating mirror shutter) utilize that same technique as well... Cant hear the DPs crying themselves to sleep there either.
 

mbell75

macrumors 6502
Oct 30, 2007
489
0
The 5D II is more than a few hundred dollars within a 7D, its a full thousand more. It all depends on what you are shooting but the 35mm sensor in the 5D is amazing. You wont get better quality out of a video camera short of $120k.
 

LethalWolfe

macrumors G3
Jan 11, 2002
9,366
119
Los Angeles
The 5D II is more than a few hundred dollars within a 7D, its a full thousand more. It all depends on what you are shooting but the 35mm sensor in the 5D is amazing. You wont get better quality out of a video camera short of $120k.
LOL. I think you added an extra digit to your guesstimate 'cause you can get less aliasing and more image quality out of sub-$10k video cameras than you can any of the VSLRs on the market right now.


Lethal
 

Digital Skunk

macrumors 604
Dec 23, 2006
7,750
354
In my imagination
LOL. I think you added an extra digit to your guesstimate 'cause you can get less aliasing and more image quality out of sub-$10k video cameras than you can any of the VSLRs on the market right now.


Lethal
Agreed!

I've seen the tame video pieces from those camera and they are okay... right up there with consumer 3 chip cameras and some top notch single chip ones.

But as soon as you want to shoot something moving fast, or scenes with much more visual information than the camera can handle for get about it.

Then there's the rolling shutter issues.

www.finalcutuser.com

Check out bendy propeller to see for yourself. The VSLR bodies are great for video in a pinch, but it's a fad to try to make them into midrange HD video cams right now. Any multimedia journalist is in love, but indie film makers ..... fuggitaboutit!
 

mbell75

macrumors 6502
Oct 30, 2007
489
0
LOL. I think you added an extra digit to your guesstimate 'cause you can get less aliasing and more image quality out of sub-$10k video cameras than you can any of the VSLRs on the market right now.


Lethal
Not true. Have you looked at the price of a 35mm video camera that shoots 1080p? I havent seen one for under $100k. You are not going to get better quality video off a 1/3 sensor chip camera no matter what you do. A 4.80x3.60mm sensor as found in a 1/3 chip camera is nothing compared to the 36x28mm sensor on the 5D II. Then you add to that the ability to work with any Canon L glass lens...you would be VERY hard pressed to find similar image quality on a video camera under $100k. Sure, the 5D II isnt perfect. But its power lies in its brute strength, that being its physical sensor size which is unmatched in a semi pro camera and most pro cams not used for feature films. Of course canon isnt going to pack it with all the features and make it doing everything perfect, they would kill their video camera sales.

This video speaks for itself and it had to be rendered down to only 1/4 quality of the original. The quailty of this video at only 1/4 the original is still better than the full resolution of any semi-pro video camera I have ever seen

http://www.usa.canon.com/dlc/controller?act=GetArticleAct&articleID=2326
 

LethalWolfe

macrumors G3
Jan 11, 2002
9,366
119
Los Angeles
Not true. Have you looked at the price of a 35mm video camera that shoots 1080p? I havent seen one for under $100k. You are not going to get better quality video off a 1/3 sensor chip camera no matter what you do. A 4.80x3.60mm sensor as found in a 1/3 chip camera is nothing compared to the 36x28mm sensor on the 5D II. Then you add to that the ability to work with any Canon L glass lens...you would be VERY hard pressed to find similar image quality on a video camera under $100k. Sure, the 5D II isnt perfect. But its power lies in its brute strength, that being its physical sensor size which is unmatched in a semi pro camera and most pro cams not used for feature films. Of course canon isnt going to pack it with all the features and make it doing everything perfect, they would kill their video camera sales.

This video speaks for itself and it had to be rendered down to only 1/4 quality of the original. The quailty of this video at only 1/4 the original is still better than the full resolution of any semi-pro video camera I have ever seen

http://www.usa.canon.com/dlc/controller?act=GetArticleAct&articleID=2326
You need to let go of the hype, man. Aliasing by Barry Green is a really good article talking about the temporal and spacial aliasing that the current crop of VSLRs have and why the perceived sharpness of the cameras isn't image detail but just aliasing. If for some reason you don't believe Barry then feel free to read this blog post by Stu Maschwitz. The current crop of popular VSLRs resolve around 600 lines on a test chart (which is greater than SD but obviously less than the 720 and 1080 of HD). The Sony EX-1, by comparison, resolves around 1000 lines and the Red One resolves aroun 3200 lines and neither exhibits near the same level of temporal or spacial aliasing as a VSLR.

The bigger sensor of the 5D doesn't mean squat if the image gets butchered by things like the made-for-stills OLPF and poor image processing.


Lethal
 

mbell75

macrumors 6502
Oct 30, 2007
489
0
You need to let go of the hype, man. Aliasing by Barry Green is a really good article talking about the temporal and spacial aliasing that the current crop of VSLRs have and why the perceived sharpness of the cameras isn't image detail but just aliasing. If for some reason you don't believe Barry then feel free to read this blog post by Stu Maschwitz. The current crop of popular VSLRs resolve around 600 lines on a test chart (which is greater than SD but obviously less than the 720 and 1080 of HD). The Sony EX-1, by comparison, resolves around 1000 lines and the Red One resolves aroun 3200 lines and neither exhibits near the same level of temporal or spacial aliasing as a VSLR.

The bigger sensor of the 5D doesn't mean squat if the image gets butchered by things like the made-for-stills OLPF and poor image processing.


Lethal

Ok. Well can you show me video shot off a $3k video camera that looks anywhere close to the one off the 5D II I posted? The colors, the DOF, the extreme sharpness...would love to see it please. Remember, that video has been highly compressed too. The uncompressed version is jaw dropping. I only care about the end result and I have yet to see video off a video camera under $50k that rivals the 5D II footage.