5D vs 7D

[LethalWolfe]

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.

Extreme sharpness? Did you even read article? The only thing extremely sharp about the 5D's video is the aliasing it produces. The camera captures about 600 lines of image detail. That's it and that's not sharp by HD standards.

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.

You've yet to see anything shot w/the Red One, for example? Can you create nice really nice looking videos w/a VSLR? Sure, as long as you play to it's strengths and avoid its weaknesses. But saying that these cameras are unrivaled by anything less than $120k (oops, I mean $50k) is just flat out ridiculous.


Lethal

 

[mbell75]

Extreme sharpness? Did you even read article? The only thing extremely sharp about the 5D's video is the aliasing it produces. The camera captures about 600 lines of image detail. That's it and that's not sharp by HD standards.


You've yet to see anything shot w/the Red One, for example? Can you create nice really nice looking videos w/a VSLR? Sure, as long as you play to it's strengths and avoid its weaknesses. But saying that these cameras are unrivaled by anything less than $120k (oops, I mean $50k) is just flat out ridiculous.


Lethal

Yea, I have seen the Red samples on their site. They dont jump off the screen as that 5D II video does though. Its also a more expensive system and its not 35mm is it?

 

[LethalWolfe]

Yea, I have seen the Red samples on their site. They dont jump off the screen as that 5D II video does though.

What about District 9? Gamer? Night at the Museum 2? The nifty thing about a camera like the Red One is that you don't have to rely on web videos as you can go to the theater and watch it on a 40ft screen or pick up a Blu-ray to see what the camera can do.

Its also a more expensive system and its not 35mm is it?

And the goal posts move yet again... I thought the 5D II was the best camera for less than $50k/$120k or so? And by not 35mm are you referring to Red One not being 35mm film or not having a 35mm sized imager? If you are referring to it not having a 35mm image like the 5D II I think that's more of a knock against the 5D as it has a larger imager but produces an inferior image.


Lethal

 

[anthemus]

Here's a VDSLR field test of the 5D, 7D and D300s.

http://provideocoalition.com/index.php/rharrington/story/dslr_shootout/

Pretty interesting stuff. Backs a lot that has been mentioned here.

Personally I bought the 7D and love the camera and most of all the lenses. As a video person first and a photographer second. The extra frame rates is what I was after when deciding over the 5D. Had I been a photographer first, I probable would have bought the 5D.

 

[mbell75]

And the goal posts move yet again... I thought the 5D II was the best camera for less than $50k/$120k or so? And by not 35mm are you referring to Red One not being 35mm film or not having a 35mm sized imager? If you are referring to it not having a 35mm image like the 5D II I think that's more of a knock against the 5D as it has a larger imager but produces an inferior image.


Lethal

Again, I dont really care about the aliasing issue. Who shoots a propeller spinning around or some graph in the real world? Its only noticeable in very rare instances. You can pick apart ANY video or still camera by pointing out its weakness whether its aliasing, noise in low light, optics etc...Bottom line is a bigger physical sensor will allow you to do things you cant with one half its size or smaller. You can shoot in much lower light, get better DOF at further distances and more.

Sure, you could spend $80k for one of those Red systems or get a 7D with a larger sensor for $1600 or a 5DII with an even larger sensor for $2700. Then you have lenses. The fastest lens Red makes is f/2.8. I am sure my Canon 85mm f/1.2 or 135mm f/2.0L will produce just as good an image than any Red lens. Especially on a camera with a larger image sensor. But comparing a pro video camera to a still camera that happens to shoot video is a bit silly. So maybe saying any camera under $120k was a bit of a stretch on my part. However, unless you are shooting spinning propellers or graph charts, I think its safe to say a 7D and especially a 5DII with some nice L series glass will produce a more quality video than most semi-pro video cameras available and for alot less money.

 

[mbell75]

Double post, ooops

 

[KeithPratt]

Again, I dont really care about the aliasing issue. Who shoots a propeller spinning around or some graph in the real world? Its only noticeable in very rare instances.

What about on telegraph wires or roofs or patterned clothing?

Sure, you could spend $80k for one of those Red systems

Wanna show your workings?

The fastest lens Red makes is f/2.8.

Not sure where you're going with this one but Master Primes are T1.3 across the range. And they are a world apart from Canon lenses when it comes to manual focusing.

But comparing a pro video camera to a still camera that happens to shoot video is a bit silly.

Did you not start it?

Not attempting to make you seem like a charlatan but I don't think you've had experience with the cameras you're dismissing. And $120k seems like an arbitrary number you've plucked out of thin air.

 

[LethalWolfe]

You can pick apart ANY video or still camera by pointing out its weakness whether its aliasing, noise in low light, optics etc...

Agreed. So why are you blatantly ignoring/overlooking the faults of the VSLRs and saying they are hands down better than cameras that cost X amount more?

Sure, you could spend $80k for one of those Red systems or get a 7D with a larger sensor for $1600 or a 5DII with an even larger sensor for $2700.

So now you are comparing a nicely geared up Red One to an out of the box VSLR? Seriously? Of course the Red One is going to be more expensive but a similarly outfitted VSLR (matte box, filters, rods, follow focus, adapter-so-you-can-try-to-use-the-LCD-as-a-viewfinder, etc.,) is not going to be $1600/$2700. Hell, a rig from Zacuto to make a VSLR shoulder mountable can set you back up to $5k.

The fastest lens Red makes is f/2.8. I am sure my Canon 85mm f/1.2 or 135mm f/2.0L will produce just as good an image than any Red lens. Especially on a camera with a larger image sensor.

It can't. The 5D is functionally capable of only resolving about 1/5th the image detail the Red One can. No amount of quality glass can over come the fact that the current VSLRs butcher the signal coming off the imager.

But comparing a pro video camera to a still camera that happens to shoot video is a bit silly. So maybe saying any camera under $120k was a bit of a stretch on my part.

Agreed, yet you keep doing it. VSLRs give you things that other cameras don't and they take away things that other cameras give you. What is better depends entirely on the needs of the project. Sometimes a Red One is the best option sometimes a Viper is the best option sometimes a 5D is the best option and sometimes an EX1 is the best option. Hell, Clint Eastwood used Sony Z1Us for some POV shots in Flags of our Fathers.

Knowing what your gear can't do is just as important as knowing what it can do, IMO, and no tool is right for every job. Horses of courses as they say.

However, unless you are shooting spinning propellers or graph charts, I think its safe to say a 7D and especially a 5DII with some nice L series glass will produce a more quality video than most semi-pro video cameras available and for alot less money.

Yes, as long as you are very careful around things like fast moving objects, objects w/a lot of high frequency detail (waves, bricks, shingles) as well as parallel lines (like aluminum siding or telephone wires). There is a reason people choose to shoot really shallow depth of field w/VSLRs and it's not just because they think it looks cool.


Lethal

 

[fiercetiger224]

The 5DII and 7D should only be used in special instances. They're great for DOF purposes, low-light and really nothing more than that.

That said, even with all the talk about aliasing, footage actually look very good with sharpening, almost similar to photo sharpening. If you don't have the focus spot on, then the footage won't be sharp. The problem with both cameras is that DOF is almost razor thin, especially if you use any L glass on the cameras. I actually try to keep from post-sharpening, because you get to the point where it'll look too much like video. Rolling shutter isn't really an issue, as there's a plugin in After Effects to correct it.

I like the classy, filmy look of both cameras. Keep in mind that I also shoot with an XH-A1.

 

[LethalWolfe]

Just ran across this post on DVXUser and thought the timing of it was interesting.

I just came back from an Indie film festival and the difference between the DSLR flims and the Red films was not subtle. Let's ignore moire, Jason put his finger on the thing that was most obvious. The DSLR films suffered whenever the lighting was less than optimal, shadow etc., but with the Red films there was much less color breakup and much cleaner images throughout the range. I found myself wondering if a clean image was really much more important than shallow DOF. To my eye the answer is yes. I think that the eye is drawn naturally to distortion so get rid of that before you can optimize the image.

After viewing both DSLR and Red films in the same night, I now wonder if those of us on the lower end of the DSLR bandwagon might end up changing ships to favor clean images over shallow DOF. With our budget, and today's technology, we can have one or the other, but not both.

 

[mbell75]

Just ran across this post on DVXUser and thought the timing of it was interesting.

Interesting read. Why are people so quick to put down DSLR video these days? The Red camera costs like at least 5-6 times more than any DSLR. Plus, Canon would be VERY unwise to pack all kinds of features and technology into any of their still cams, they would kill their video sales.

If Canon really wanted to make a true 35mm high def digital video camera with the sensor from the 5DII, I am sure it would easily out-perform anything Red has out now. Canon has been doing photo and video for many decades, I think they know their stuff. They are also tinkering with a medium format (50mm) sensor camera. If they put HD video on that as is rumored, forget it. I cant see any video camera coming close to that.

 

[fiercetiger224]

Interesting read. Why are people so quick to put down DSLR video these days? The Red camera costs like at least 5-6 times more than any DSLR. Plus, Canon would be VERY unwise to pack all kinds of features and technology into any of their still cams, they would kill their video sales.

If Canon really wanted to make a true 35mm high def digital video camera with the sensor from the 5DII, I am sure it would easily out-perform anything Red has out now. Canon has been doing photo and video for many decades, I think they know their stuff. They are also tinkering with a medium format (50mm) sensor camera. If they put HD video on that as is rumored, forget it. I cant see any video camera coming close to that.

Yeah, with a sensor as big as the 5DII, if Canon wanted to, they could make a video processor that could do 4K. Basically the implementation of the video in DSLRs is cheap. They build liveview into the DIGIC processor, and it offloads that liveview to an encoder chip. If they built that DIGIC processor to actually process video too, that'd be a different story...

I'm still not a big fan of CMOS sensors for video, unless they make global shutters. Then I'd be all over it.

 

[mbell75]

Yeah, with a sensor as big as the 5DII, if Canon wanted to, they could make a video processor that could do 4K. Basically the implementation of the video in DSLRs is cheap. They build liveview into the DIGIC processor, and it offloads that liveview to an encoder chip. If they built that DIGIC processor to actually process video too, that'd be a different story...

I'm still not a big fan of CMOS sensors for video, unless they make global shutters. Then I'd be all over it.

Yea, good points.

 

[LethalWolfe]

Interesting read. Why are people so quick to put down DSLR video these days?

Acknowledging and/or discussing the limitations of a tool is a far cry from putting it down. W/o knowing what each tools' strengths and weaknesses are how can we pick the right tool for the job? The emotional investment should be in what one shoots, not what one shoots with.


Lethal

 

[Jodorowsky]

Well, back on point, the 5D is rumored to get 60fps pretty soon:

http://gizmodo.com/5420472/new-canon-eos-5d-mark-ii-firmware-to-pack-60fps-hd

May change things for some people.

 

[TH3D4RKKN1GH7]

Not rumored its confirmed. Getting 720 60, 1080 24/30 (29.98, 23.98) and the SD is now 60 FPS. There's video of the Canon conference. I'm still going with my 7D cause its a newer product, better processing unit inside, I'll hold off till 5D Mark III in a year or two. Gives me time to get my lens collection up. Camera is nothing without the lens.

 

[akdj]

Back to the OP's question...

I think the differences you'll notice between the 7d and 5d2 are much more prominent in the world of still shooting...While I like the video from my 5d2 a hair more than my 7d, it's almost a wash...Colors are so close, the look at 30p is so similar...I have a tough time telling them apart.

However, for video shooting only, I'm a bit happier with the 7d ergonomically. Not sure if you've handled the two of them...but with the dedicated start/stop button and the level...also a bit better of an LCD and the "Q" quick control, I've found the 7d a bit easier to shoot with in the field.

When it comes to still shooting though, I love my 5d2. I like my 5d for stills more than I prefer the 7d over the 5d for video...so, if I was doing both, I would choose the 5d2. If video was my main concern, the 7d.

Also, to address some of the arguments about moire, and more specifically, aliasing...it is an issue, IF you are not looking to avoid it. You can easily knock chain link fences, shingles, and telephone lines out of focus. These cameras are incredible for people shots and street/candid videography. Faces don't tend to have repeating patterns in their faces...keep your eye out on their clothes though. I've been shooting an HVX200a and original 200 for a couple of years now...and they, too, only resolve around 600 lines of detail...they are also susceptible to moire. My EX-1 "only" resolves about 900 lines...still a couple hundred away from a true 1080 cam...but often, I soften the video...as there is times it can be "too" sharp

There have been plenty of films and videos blown up to 40 foot (and bigger) screens with FAR less resolving power than the current crop of DSLR cameras. They do have limitations...but so does every camera! RED is a revolutionary product. It really is and for us to even be able to compare the two is pretty freakin' cool. The tools available now to the independent filmmaker are incredible! A killer kit can be put together for under 5k these days...and you're shooting high-def!

I'd say the bigger issues many should be concerned with are sound and handling. Picking up an outboard system like the Zoom H4n and a killer tripod/head OR some type of Zacuto/Shoulder/RedRock stabilization system will do wonders for your rig (and can be used with all cameras)...

I respect Barry Green...I own a couple of his books DVX and HVX and several of his DVDs. He and his site (DVXuser) are the reasons I bought a DVX100 and then the HVX family of cams...he's very good at finding the faults in ANY camera and their shortcomings. BUT, if you spend more time reading what he says....he also talks about the extreme value of the 7d at 1700 bucks or the GH1 at 1500 bucks...or even the 5d2 at 2600. We are still in the infancy of DSLR cameras. At this point, these cameras OLPF (Low Pass filter) can only be optimized for ONE or the OTHER...Still or Video. If you optimized for 1080p video, that's only 2 (just over 2) megapixels. You'd be throwing out a hell of a lot of info on the still side with 18 or 21 megapixel stills. These cameras are optimized...at this time...for still, not video. We'll see improvements...just a couple of years ago, mBell is right, the cost was well over $50,000 to get the DOF shots or low light video that this new family of cameras is capable of

They're only going to get better. Nikon (with the D90) and Canon with the 5d2 and 7d....and Panasonic with the GH1...have all hit the bullseye for the video-sumer. Sony has some pretty good history with video as well...My money is on them to join the V-DSLR game too...soon. More competition will breed better products!

J