PDA

View Full Version : 5D / 7D - Full Frame vs. 1.6x - Pros and Cons



Mirezzi
09-02-2009, 09:28 AM
Okay, so for dummies like me, can somebody explain to me the pros and cons of Full Frame vs. 1.6x (aka. 5D vs. 7D) for video mode?

Here is my understanding so far. With Full Frame / 5D, you get the full focal length of your 35mm lenses. With the 1.6x APS-C sensor / 7D, you are cropped to 1.6x (so a 35mm lens becomes roughly equivalent to 55mm, etc.) - why are people excited about this? It seems to me that losing that much focal length kinda sucks. To get a good wide angle with the 7D, shooters will have to use a 17mm lens just to get something equivalent to a 28mm. That will require a pretty hefty investment in glass, yes?

Thanks in advance for info...

morgan_moore
09-02-2009, 09:43 AM
You are on the right track

however pulling focus with the big chip is a PITA

the smaller chip has the same size as 35mm cinema so creates a cinematic look

Telephotos obvioulsy drop in price but you are indeed forced into expensive wides - there are some cheapo stigmas lenses in the 12-24 range I beleive

My 400 2.8 is pretty hard to stabilise and requires a costly head too and is very heavy considering its reach on FF is about the same as an EX1 camera

Traditional knowledge suggests that smaller chips are noisier

the frame rate IMO really outwieghs all of that

S

Mirezzi
09-02-2009, 09:44 AM
Okay... so those who are unfamiliar will know...

the 7D is pretty much right on with the Sensor Size of say, the RED. And RED is around S35mm size, the same size frame that nearly everything is shot on that you watch in theaters. Full Frame is not the current acquisition standard in Cinematography.

By acuiring images with 7D's image sensor you will be immediately within range of reproducing the same cinematic characteristics that everyone has been striving toward for so many years. Pulling focus @ Stops of 2.8 will be simple for the practiced focus puller. And even wide open at 1.4 it's not too difficult at all.

DOF, Angle of View, Field of View will be plenty good for this stuff. It's a very happy medium between everything, and works very well.

I pulled this from another thread. I apologize for the redundancy, but it seems like starting a thread to specifically address this issue might be useful.

My understanding now is that Full Frame cinematography isn't orthodox and therefore harder to control vignetting / difficult to pull focus or even maintain focus. Is that an accurate assessment?

I have come from a background of shooting with the Canon XHA1 + Letus Extreme + Nikkor primes. How will that experience compare to the 5D / 7D?

Ian-T
09-02-2009, 09:45 AM
If all you're shooting with these cameras are still pictures then sure it would be a disadvantage. But for flim-making or making movies the size of this new sensor is equivalent to standard 35mm FILM. Full frame is a bit too much to pull focus accurately with.
EDIT: Morgan beat me to it.

Barry_Green
09-02-2009, 09:46 AM
With "full frame", you get 35mm still-camera field of view and depth of field.

With the 7D, you get 35mm movie-camera field of view and depth of field. The 7D's sensor is almost exactly the same size as a 35mm movie camera. So you'll get the same perspective, the same depth of field, the same "feel" as 35mm movies. The 5D doesn't give that, it's too shallow (as compared to movies). The 7D replicates the DOF characteristics of a motion-picture camera perfectly.

Mirezzi
09-02-2009, 09:48 AM
Awesome, thanks everyone. About my last question, how will shooting with 7D compare to my experience shooting with video camera + letus extreme adaptor + 35mm primes?

Barry_Green
09-02-2009, 09:51 AM
You'll have the same DOF, just a lot less equipment to accomplish it.

Buck Forester
09-02-2009, 09:53 AM
(so a 35mm lens becomes roughly equivalent to 55mm, etc.)


It becomes equivalent to a 55mm lens in terms of field of view, but not magnification. Some people (not saying you) have the misconception that the crop makes your lenses 'longer', but it's really just reducing the field of view at the same focal length.

One argument for using the 1.6x chip with full-frame lenses is that it uses the sweet spot of your lens, cropping off the edges and using the sharpest middle area. If you use an APS-C lens then this is not the case.

I shot with a Canon 20D when it first came out, which is a cropped sensor. I really liked it but I was used to shooting film and when I got my first 5D it was so nice to have my full 35mm full-frame back. Now I have the 5D II and it's completely amazing. But if moolah were an issue and/or I already had some APS-C lenses, this 7D looks el fantastico.

Mirezzi
09-02-2009, 09:58 AM
You'll have the same DOF, just a lot less equipment to accomplish it.

I see, so video camera + 35mm adaptor + 35mm primes is more comparable to the 7D?

For some reason, I thought it was more comparable to the 5D...meaning, I was under the impression that I was getting "full frame" from my old video camera rig (XHA1 / Letus Extreme).

Mirezzi
09-02-2009, 10:01 AM
Some people (not saying you) have the misconception that the crop makes your lenses 'longer', but it's really just reducing the field of view at the same focal length.

You certainly could have said me, because I indeed had that misconception!

So they make specific APS-C lenses where this is not an issue (1.6x crop). I didn't realize that...I'm learning slowly here. Thanks!

Buck Forester
09-02-2009, 10:17 AM
So they make specific APS-C lenses where this is not an issue (1.6x crop). I didn't realize that...I'm learning slowly here. Thanks!

Yes, there are specific APS-C lenses (they can't be used on full-frame EOS cameras), but the APS-C cameras will take full-frame lenses (with a reduced field of view). The APS-C lenses, such as the Canon 10-22mm, is really equivelant to a 16-35mm full-frame lens.

Barry_Green
09-02-2009, 10:33 AM
I see, so video camera + 35mm adaptor + 35mm primes is more comparable to the 7D?
When properly configured for cinema applications, yes.


For some reason, I thought it was more comparable to the 5D...meaning, I was under the impression that I was getting "full frame" from my old video camera rig (XHA1 / Letus Extreme).
That's possible. It depends on how far you zoom into the ground glass.

Mirezzi
09-02-2009, 10:39 AM
Edit: This doesn't make sense, ignore it.

kenbaby
09-02-2009, 10:43 AM
May I ask about how 7D and 5DII handle low light situations? Does the different sizes of sensor have anything to do with low light capability? I know there are not many 7D clips available yet but I'm very curious.

Thank you.

KeithAndrews.TV
09-02-2009, 10:45 AM
One thing you have to consider is any full-frame sensor (5D Mark II for instance) will be able to create the same shallow look that the 7D can, just at a higher aperture. No one is saying that you have to shoot at f/2.8 or faster to get a shallow look with a full-frame sensor. In fact you will most likely be shooting at the sweet spot of your full-frame lens and still get the same shallow DOF look the smaller sensor is capable of without having to shoot wide open.

This thread proves the point perfectly. Although the 7D is close to s35mm it is not exact, it's actually a little smaller. I would prefer to have that extra control over my DOF in a shot when I want to use it with the full-frame sensor, as opposed to being limited to what I would get with a crop sensor. Referring to DOF and aperture, you can always add DOF to a shot, but you can't take away what isn't physically possible with a smaller sensor.

Barry_Green
09-02-2009, 10:45 AM
Ah, so the 35mm "frame" on the ground glass from companies like Letus, etc. is a 35mm cinema frame or 35mm still photo frame?
It depends on the adapter. The glass on the Letus Ultimate and on the Brevis are both 35mm still-photo frame (or, at least in the case of the Ultimate, actually even a bit larger).

The glass on the Mini35 is designed to be 35mm cinema frame size.

Don't know about others.

Mirezzi
09-02-2009, 10:48 AM
It depends on the adapter. The glass on the Letus Ultimate and on the Brevis are both 35mm still-photo frame (or, at least in the case of the Ultimate, actually even a bit larger).

The glass on the Mini35 is designed to be 35mm cinema frame size.

Don't know about others.

Yep, that's what I was looking for...thanks.

Therefore, since I was always framing the Letus Extreme so that the 35mm frame on the ground glass was virtually edge to edge, I was essentially emulating 35mm full frame photography.

This is all very intriguing to me, sorry if it's rather novice and pedantic. :)

Barry_Green
09-02-2009, 10:51 AM
May I ask about how 7D and 5DII handle low light situations? Does the different sizes of sensor have anything to do with low light capability?
Size of the sensor, in and of itself, has nothing to do with low light capability directly. But indirectly, it definitely does.

See, the thing that determines (or, better said, greatly influences) low light capability is the size of the individual pixels on the sensor, not the size of the sensor itself. The bigger the pixels, the more sensitive the chip will be.

Bigger sensors traditionally mean bigger pixels, because if the amount of pixels stays the same, then each pixel can be bigger. So a 1920x1080 1/3" camera like the HPX300 doesn't have nearly the same sensitivity as a 1920x1080 2/3" camera. In the 2/3" camera the same number of pixels are spread across a chip that's 4x as large, so each pixel can be 4x larger, and that lets each pixel accumulate that many more electrons, making it more sensitive.

But here's where things go wonky: what if the larger sensor has more pixels? Then each pixel will have to be smaller. So what if you were comparing a 1/3" standard-def chip against a 2/3" high-def chip? They might be the exact same sensitivity in that case. The 1/3" chip might have 1/4 as many pixels as the 2/3" chip, and the 2/3" chip has 4x as much surface area to spread them around on, so -- it nets out that the pixels are the same size, hence the sensitivity is the same.

So just by virtue of the 7D having a smaller chip than the 5D, if the pixel count was the same, that would imply that the 7D would have lower sensitivity. But because the pixel counts are *not* the same, and the 5D has more than the 7D, that means there's a chance that the sensitivity will be closer than the sensor size difference might otherwise imply.

Of course, there are other factors too, including that the 7D is a year more technologically advanced (perhaps) than the 5D, and that might allow it to deliver cleaner imagery at a higher native ISO. Or not. We'll see.

Overall, I am optimistic that the 7D might deliver low-light performance that's comparable or at least near to what the 5D can do.

Mirezzi
09-02-2009, 10:54 AM
One thing you have to consider is any full-frame sensor (5D Mark II for instance) will be able to create the same shallow look that the 7D can, just at a higher aperture. No one is saying that you have to shoot at f/2.8 or faster to get a shallow look with a full-frame sensor. In fact you will most likely be shooting at the sweet spot of your full-frame lens and still get the same shallow DOF look the smaller sensor is capable of without having to shoot wide open.

This thread proves the point perfectly. Although the 7D is close to s35mm it is not exact, it's actually a little smaller. I would prefer to have that extra control over my DOF in a shot when I want to use it with the full-frame sensor, as opposed to being limited to what I would get with a crop sensor. Referring to DOF and aperture, you can always add DOF to a shot, but you can't take away what isn't physically possible with a smaller sensor.

I can understand that perspective. Depth can be added, but it can't always be taken away?

KeithAndrews.TV
09-02-2009, 11:02 AM
I can understand that perspective. Depth can be added, but it can't always be taken away?

Exactly. You will reach a stopping point with the 7D where the DOF cannot go any shallower as compared with the 5D Mark II for example. It goes the other way too! The 7D will be able to achieve greater DOF than the 5D Mark II will for a given field of view.

Jean Dodge
09-02-2009, 11:05 AM
keep in mind the D5mk2 sensor only reads from every third line when in "live view" mode for recording video. I've yet to read a real breakdown of what the 7D does.

Kholi
09-02-2009, 12:20 PM
Hey Barry mentions something else in passing that I always fail to get into, but keep in mind that you also deal with a different image compression and perspective aesthetic when going from Full Frame to S35 (APS-C in our Case) Photography and Cinematography.

For me, it's MUCH easier to get most of what I'm going for as far as composition, depth compression and perspective on subject(s) with an APS-C (7D) sized sensor. Where I find myself living on a 25mm or 35mm and the sort of image it produces-- mentally trained to know exactly what I'm going to get if I'm ten inches away from a subject at minimal focus distance or ten feet away from a subject-- on an APS-C sized sensor, I always felt like I had to have a 60 or 70mm to get what I wanted out of the MKii as far as perspective goes.

A 50mm on the MKii will easily begin to distort the perspective of a subject framed head to toe, while a 25mm on a RED (while about the same focal length) looks as though the perspective is actually very different and much more natural (aka no leaning bodies or bowed lines) to my eyes.

I really dunno why, because they should look exactly the same I think? But it's something else that I struggled with as well.

kenbaby
09-02-2009, 12:23 PM
Thank you very much Barry!



Size of the sensor, in and of itself, has nothing to do with low light capability directly. But indirectly, it definitely does.

See, the thing that determines (or, better said, greatly influences) low light capability is the size of the individual pixels on the sensor, not the size of the sensor itself. The bigger the pixels, the more sensitive the chip will be.

Bigger sensors traditionally mean bigger pixels, because if the amount of pixels stays the same, then each pixel can be bigger. So a 1920x1080 1/3" camera like the HPX300 doesn't have nearly the same sensitivity as a 1920x1080 2/3" camera. In the 2/3" camera the same number of pixels are spread across a chip that's 4x as large, so each pixel can be 4x larger, and that lets each pixel accumulate that many more electrons, making it more sensitive.

But here's where things go wonky: what if the larger sensor has more pixels? Then each pixel will have to be smaller. So what if you were comparing a 1/3" standard-def chip against a 2/3" high-def chip? They might be the exact same sensitivity in that case. The 1/3" chip might have 1/4 as many pixels as the 2/3" chip, and the 2/3" chip has 4x as much surface area to spread them around on, so -- it nets out that the pixels are the same size, hence the sensitivity is the same.

So just by virtue of the 7D having a smaller chip than the 5D, if the pixel count was the same, that would imply that the 7D would have lower sensitivity. But because the pixel counts are *not* the same, and the 5D has more than the 7D, that means there's a chance that the sensitivity will be closer than the sensor size difference might otherwise imply.

Of course, there are other factors too, including that the 7D is a year more technologically advanced (perhaps) than the 5D, and that might allow it to deliver cleaner imagery at a higher native ISO. Or not. We'll see.

Overall, I am optimistic that the 7D might deliver low-light performance that's comparable or at least near to what the 5D can do.

bwwd
09-02-2009, 12:33 PM
So how it is exactly in motion picture camera and academy frame ? Cause academy frame is 24mm ,canon sensor is 22mm and because of crop on canon sensor 50mm is 85mm. So on motion picture cameras there is the same crop and 50mm lens is 80mm or close ,and in reality 50mm is not 50mm or lenses for motion picture cams are made with academy frame crop in mind and 50mm is 50mm not 80mm?

Barry_Green
09-02-2009, 12:39 PM
Cinema film is rarely 24mm wide, normally it's shot at 22mm wide.

Crop factors only confuse the issue, and it's about time for them to die and forever be buried in the annals of anachronistic useless information.

The fact of the matter is: for a cinema shooter, the 7D is going to deliver the same DOF and the same FOV as a 35mm movie camera. Done. End of story. No need to worry about whether a 50mm "becomes" and 80mm, because it doesn't. Put a 50mm lens on a movie camera, and then take it off and put that lens on the 7D, and you'll have identical results (or near-enough identical that nobody's complaining.)

The only reason a "crop factor" exists is to talk about how the lens field of view compares to that of a 35mm still camera. Has nothing to do with us motion/moving image folks.

Ian-T
09-02-2009, 12:54 PM
Thank you. I get so tired of people throwing that mess around.

Most don't have a clue on what they are talking about.....or just like to seem smart I guess.

Mirezzi
09-02-2009, 12:58 PM
Totally. That's why I started this thread. I couldn't sort through all the fiction and misconceptions regarding the topic.

Kholi
09-02-2009, 01:05 PM
Full Frame, as stated, really has little to do with us and I just have no idea why people keep harping about wides not being wide enough because it's not a full framed sensor. Wides have been wide enough @ 17mm or even 14mm in Cinema Application for years!

Now, you can get an SLR 11/2.8 in Tokina flavor that's excellent, and it will be plenty wide.

jamesc
09-02-2009, 03:30 PM
I'm still trying to understand how cropped sensors relate to depth of field, but this where I've gotten to so far. I'm still wrapping my head around these concepts, so please correct me if I'm wrong with any of this.

On a full frame, if you're shooting 50mm f/2.8 and you're 10 feet away from your subject, your depth of field will be between 9.08 ft and 11.1 ft, giving you 2.06 ft of focus.

Now when you switch over to an APS-C, if you shoot 50mm f/2.8 from 10 feet away your dof would be between 9.39 ft and 10.7 ft for 1.29 ft of focus. HOWEVER, your framing is now cropped/enlarged and it looks like you're shooting 80mm. Or you medium shot is now a med close up. IF you wanted to achieve the same framing as a 50mm on full frame, then you'd have two choices:

1. Move backwards 1.6x your distance. Now you're 50mm f/2.8, 16 feet away and your framing matches. However, since you've moved further away, your DOF changes to between 14.5 ft and 17.9 ft or 3.36 ft of focus. You've added an extra 1.3 feet of focus which may or may not be desirable. If you wanted the original framing and the same depth of field with the same lens, your only option now would be to open your iris a bit. At 50mm f/1.8, 16 feet away on the APS-C your depth of field is between 15 ft and 17.1 ft giving you 2.1 ft of focus, close to the orginal.

2. Your second option to match framing is to use a wider lens. If you put on a 31mm lens, then you'd have roughly the equivalent of the original 50mm. However, your 31mm lens will by default have greater depth of field. An an APS-C 31mm f/2.8, 10 feet away from your subject has a depth of field between 8.56 ft and 12 ft or 3.47 ft. Same problem as when you moved backwards. To get the equivalent, you'd have to open up to 31mm f/1.8.

This may or may not make a difference depending on your shooting situation. If, for example, you knew that you wanted to maintain a focal plane of 2 ft for your entire shoot, then factors of shooting distance + lens selection/speed/costs can factor in.

Something to keep in mind is that most Hollywood films are usually entirely shot at ~T2.8. (quickly looked through some American Cinematographer to confirm: Star Trek - T2.875, Terminator Salvation - T2, Julie & Julia - T2.8). This might be your goal as well. In this case, the full frame 5d2 might be a little bit more forgiving since you can be closer to your subject to achieve the same framing, which may allow you to get away with slightly slower (and cheaper) lenses.

Also, hopefully this wasn't already mentioned, but the Letus35 Extreme is 46mmx30mm, larger than the 35mm full frame size (36mmx24mm), and much larger than 24mmx18mm (academy frame size). I think that's still one of the winning things about 35mm adapters. You can zoom in and choose your framing size.

f64manray
09-02-2009, 03:56 PM
Just curious, so why is it that Red is pushing to offer Full Frame in their upcoming cameras if APS-C is traditional cinema?

morgan_moore
09-02-2009, 04:07 PM
because they want people to use it for stills?

S

f64manray
09-02-2009, 04:09 PM
because they want people to use it for stills?

S

Really? ...well, that's very optimistic of them. I'll give them that.

Barry_Green
09-02-2009, 06:22 PM
The new Reds are DSMC, "Digital Still and Motion Cameras", so yes, they want "full frame" for stills. And, some folks will want to shoot motion with them to emulate 65mm/"VistaVision" cinematography.

And, some will want to use the "full frame" in a cropped Super35 mode, to get the highest quality 2.40:1 image possible for anamorphic projection.

dracalat
09-03-2009, 08:13 AM
I'm still trying to understand how cropped sensors relate to depth of field, but this where I've gotten to so far. I'm still wrapping my head around these concepts, so please correct me if I'm wrong with any of this.

On a full frame, if you're shooting 50mm f/2.8 and you're 10 feet away from your subject, your depth of field will be between 9.08 ft and 11.1 ft, giving you 2.06 ft of focus.

Now when you switch over to an APS-C, if you shoot 50mm f/2.8 from 10 feet away your dof would be between 9.39 ft and 10.7 ft for 1.29 ft of focus. HOWEVER, your framing is now cropped/enlarged and it looks like you're shooting 80mm. Or you medium shot is now a med close up. IF you wanted to achieve the same framing as a 50mm on full frame, then you'd have two choices:

1. Move backwards 1.6x your distance. Now you're 50mm f/2.8, 16 feet away and your framing matches. However, since you've moved further away, your DOF changes to between 14.5 ft and 17.9 ft or 3.36 ft of focus. You've added an extra 1.3 feet of focus which may or may not be desirable. If you wanted the original framing and the same depth of field with the same lens, your only option now would be to open your iris a bit. At 50mm f/1.8, 16 feet away on the APS-C your depth of field is between 15 ft and 17.1 ft giving you 2.1 ft of focus, close to the orginal.

2. Your second option to match framing is to use a wider lens. If you put on a 31mm lens, then you'd have roughly the equivalent of the original 50mm. However, your 31mm lens will by default have greater depth of field. An an APS-C 31mm f/2.8, 10 feet away from your subject has a depth of field between 8.56 ft and 12 ft or 3.47 ft. Same problem as when you moved backwards. To get the equivalent, you'd have to open up to 31mm f/1.8.

This may or may not make a difference depending on your shooting situation. If, for example, you knew that you wanted to maintain a focal plane of 2 ft for your entire shoot, then factors of shooting distance + lens selection/speed/costs can factor in.

Something to keep in mind is that most Hollywood films are usually entirely shot at ~T2.8. (quickly looked through some American Cinematographer to confirm: Star Trek - T2.875, Terminator Salvation - T2, Julie & Julia - T2.8). This might be your goal as well. In this case, the full frame 5d2 might be a little bit more forgiving since you can be closer to your subject to achieve the same framing, which may allow you to get away with slightly slower (and cheaper) lenses.

Also, hopefully this wasn't already mentioned, but the Letus35 Extreme is 46mmx30mm, larger than the 35mm full frame size (36mmx24mm), and much larger than 24mmx18mm (academy frame size). I think that's still one of the winning things about 35mm adapters. You can zoom in and choose your framing size.

You are absolutely right, James, and here's the main reason why I will not buy a 7D. Current APS-C lenses aren't really fast and it's impossible to achieve the T2.8 film look (I think 3.5 is the fastest) Using standard 35mm photography lenses makes it very difficult to obtain mid & wide angles so you will end up shooting further away than you would like, hence drastically changing your depth of field and visually 'compressing' the composition of your framing. Using a 7D with an adequate adaptor and cinema lenses would be an ideal situation, but I will never be able to afford a set of Cookes, Zeiss' or an Angenieux zoom...

So all things considered, the 5D, in my opinion, gives you a bit more flexibility. With enough lighting to shoot things at f/5.6-6.3 you can get closer to that film look.

P.S: The minute most APS-C lenses get anywhere near f.2, I'll be jumping the wagon.

Mirezzi
09-03-2009, 08:27 AM
Why would you insist on using APS-C lenses in the first place with the 7D?

Michael Olsen
09-03-2009, 08:42 AM
Regarding APS-C lenses that could achieve the "f/2.8 35mm film look"...

Tokina f/2.8 160-50mm (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/498661-REG/Tokina_ATX165PRODXC_16_50mm_f_2_8_AT_X_165.html)

Tokina f/2.8 11-16mm (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/554035REG/Tokina_ATX116PRODXC_11_16mm_f_2_8_AT_X_116.html)

Tokina f/2.8 50-135mm (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/469653REG/Tokina_ATXAF535DXC_50_135mm_f_2_8_AT_X_535.html)

How do those hold up?

KeithAndrews.TV
09-03-2009, 09:52 AM
Why would you insist on using APS-C lenses in the first place with the 7D?

It would be a waste of money to use EF lenses on a crop sensor because you lose all of the extra field of view that you were paying for in the first place. The faster EF lenses wouldn't help either because the crop sensor does not have the same low-light capabilities of the full frame sensor. Best thing to do with APS-C cameras is use the APS-C lenses that were designed for them. Unless you have the extra money for more expensive primes from Zeiss, Cooke, etc...in which case you probably wouldn't be looking to buy the semi-pro 7D model.

ydgmdlu
09-03-2009, 09:54 AM
Size of the sensor, in and of itself, has nothing to do with low light capability directly. But indirectly, it definitely does.

See, the thing that determines (or, better said, greatly influences) low light capability is the size of the individual pixels on the sensor, not the size of the sensor itself. The bigger the pixels, the more sensitive the chip will be.
THANK YOU BARRY for lending the voice of authority on this matter. I try to bring it up all the time when people start talking about sensor size and low-light performance, but I can't seem to get people to listen to what should be good sense...

ydgmdlu
09-03-2009, 09:55 AM
\The faster EF lenses wouldn't help either because the crop sensor does not have the same low-light capabilities of the full frame sensor.
Sensor size, in itself, has nothing to do with low-light capability.

KeithAndrews.TV
09-03-2009, 10:16 AM
Sensor size and the number of photodiodes on the sensor are related so it does contribute to low-light capabilities. Full-frame sensors have fewer, larger photodiodes on the chip, which in turn helps the chip gather more light.

I think you need to read up on Canon's white paper on Full-Frame CMOS chips.

http://www.usa.canon.com/uploadedimages/FCK/Image/White%20Papers/Canon_CMOS_WP.pdf

Do a little research yourself sometimes before just quoting what someone else has said.

egproductions
09-03-2009, 10:20 AM
It would be a waste of money to use EF lenses on a crop sensor because you lose all of the extra field of view that you were paying for in the first place. The faster EF lenses wouldn't help either because the crop sensor does not have the same low-light capabilities of the full frame sensor. Best thing to do with APS-C cameras is use the APS-C lenses that were designed for them. Unless you have the extra money for more expensive primes from Zeiss, Cooke, etc...in which case you probably wouldn't be looking to buy the semi-pro 7D model.


Just the opposite. it's a waste of money to buy EF-S lenses. Yes they are cheaper to manufacture but their resale value is not great. EF lenses are almost an investment. You can sometimes sell them for more than you bought them for years down the road.

Secondly, using an EF lens on a cropped sensor will discard the edges of the lens which are optically inferior to the middle of the glass.

"The faster EF lenses wouldn't help either because the crop sensor does not have the same low-light capabilities of the full frame sensor."

All the more reason to buy faster lenses

ydgmdlu
09-03-2009, 10:23 AM
Sensor size and the number of photodiodes on the sensor are related so it does contribute to low-light capabilities. Full-frame sensors have fewer, larger photodiodes on the chip, which in turn helps the chip gather more light.

I think you need to read up on Canon's white paper on Full-Frame CMOS chips.

http://www.usa.canon.com/uploadedimages/FCK/Image/White%20Papers/Canon_CMOS_WP.pdf

Do a little research yourself sometimes before just quoting what someone else has said.
Thank you for being presumptuous about what I know and don't know. I guess that you might not have been around these forums long enough to know that I've said EVERYTHING that Barry said in his post months ago when people were just starting to talk about the GH1 and its low-light abilities.

Here is an example of one of my posts: http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?p=1637000

Sensor size is not a factor. Photosite size is the factor. The correlation between sensor size and low-light performance is coincidental.

Ian-T
09-03-2009, 10:29 AM
Um…vdgmdlu is correct on this one. It’s quite possible that the low light capability on this new cam will match the 5Dll. Too early to tell.

KeithAndrews.TV
09-03-2009, 10:30 AM
So basically it is correct then to say that chip size does influence low-light capability. The reason being is that based on current offerings by Canon, Nikon, etc... no one is manufacturing a full-frame chip with hundreds of tiny sensors, they are manufacturing them with fewer, larger sensors. Not coincidence, that's just how they are being made.

The opposite stands true for APS-C sensors. They make those with many smaller sensors. I think people are being a little too nitpicky with wording on these forums.

egproductions
09-03-2009, 10:35 AM
When everyone is speaking of full frame and APS-C sensors, they are really talking about the 7D and the 5D. It's true that it's too early to tell which one is better in low light but given that they have both been produced in a relativly short time from eachother, I think it's safe to say that the 5D will be able to handle low light better maybe 1 stop.

egproductions
09-03-2009, 10:37 AM
It's like saying that desktops are more powerful than laptops. It's generally true unless you are talking about a 10 year old desktop and a core2 duo laptop

KeithAndrews.TV
09-03-2009, 10:38 AM
Just the opposite. it's a waste of money to buy EF-S lenses. Yes they are cheaper to manufacture but their resale value is not great. EF lenses are almost an investment. You can sometimes sell them for more than you bought them for years down the road.

Secondly, using an EF lens on a cropped sensor will discard the edges of the lens which are optically inferior to the middle of the glass.

"The faster EF lenses wouldn't help either because the crop sensor does not have the same low-light capabilities of the full frame sensor."

All the more reason to buy faster lenses

Considering this is a forum based around video production, I would have to disagree that it would be worth the extra money to use faster EF lenses on an APS-C camera. Although the edges of a lens are traditionally the weakest, you would need a lot more detail than what HD can resolve in order to see that loss. It's a great idea for still photography shooting 5k res, but you wouldn't see the difference in HD.

Also, you have to pick your battles. You either gain light sensitivity and lose field of view from the crop, or you keep the original field of view intended and maybe have a slower lens. It would really depend on what lenses you were comparing.

KeithAndrews.TV
09-03-2009, 10:41 AM
When everyone is speaking of full frame and APS-C sensors, they are really talking about the 7D and the 5D. It's true that it's too early to tell which one is better in low light but given that they have both been produced in a relativly short time from eachother, I think it's safe to say that the 5D will be able to handle low light better maybe 1 stop.

Oh it's absolutely true that down the road, maybe even with the 7D, that the low-light capabilities of these cameras, whether full-frame, or not, will be very close to one another, or even the same. I'm just basing my information from my experiences, and what I have gathered from original sources.

Barry_Green
09-03-2009, 10:42 AM
So basically it is correct then to say that chip size does influence low-light capability.
Only maybe.

For example, you can get a 1/3" Z1U, or a 1/3" VX2000. The VX2000 is miles better in terms of sensitivity. Laughably better. But they're the same chip size!

The difference, again, and the only difference that matters, is pixel size.

All other things being equal, a 14-megapixel full-frame sensor will be more sensitive than a 14-megapixel APS-C sensor. But a 10-megapixel APS-C sensor would be way more sensitive than a 28-megapixel full-frame sensor.

The argument you're applying (bigger sensor size = better sensitivity) is akin to someone declaring that coats are toxic to plants. When asked to explain, said individual says "well, I put my plants in the closet, and they all died. The only things in my closet were coats, therefore I deduce that coats are deadly to plants." :)

Fewer, bigger pixels = better imagery in all ways (except one: resolution). Fewer, bigger pixels = better sensitivity, better dynamic range.

So, just do the math -- figure out the sensor size (22mm for Canon 7D APS-C, 36mm for "full frame") and divide by the # of horizontal pixels (5000-something for Canon 7D, don't know on the 5D) and figure out which one has the bigger pixels. If the 7D has bigger pixels, it should be more sensitive than the 5D, even though the 5D has the bigger sensor!


I think people are being a little too nitpicky with wording on these forums.
If you're meaning ydgmdlu and me, we're being picky about accurate terminology. Can't help it, and not gonna change. :)

ydgmdlu
09-03-2009, 10:42 AM
So basically it is correct then to say that chip size does influence low-light capability. The reason being is that based on current offerings by Canon, Nikon, etc... no one is manufacturing a full-frame chip with hundreds of tiny sensors, they are manufacturing them with fewer, larger sensors. Not coincidence, that's just how they are being made.

The opposite stands true for APS-C sensors. They make those with many smaller sensors. I think people are being a little too nitpicky with wording on these forums.No, it is coincidental in the sense that larger chips seem to perform better in low light only because they allow for larger pixels (as well as lenses with larger absolute apertures). In the end, what counts is the pixel size, not the chip size. You're using confusing terminology.

An APS-C chip can have identical low-light performance to an FF chip, if the sensor and image processor technology is the same, and if the sizes of the pixels are the same.

With the 7D, the pixels may or may not be smaller than the 5D's. We do know that Canon claims that the pixels are much closer together than in previous CMOS generations.

Taylor Rudd
09-03-2009, 10:42 AM
I think it's safe to say that the 5D will be able to handle low light better maybe 1 stop.

While the pixel density of the 5D is probably less than that of the 7D, I doubt the 5D is twice as sensitive as the 7D.

Taylor Rudd
09-03-2009, 10:48 AM
So basically it is correct then to say that chip size does influence low-light capability.

Indirectly. Pixel density is what affects low-light capabilities. What is true in this situation - though not for any other reason than marketing - is that bigger sensors mean more pixels, simply because more pixels sell.

I would rather the 7D be a 10 or 12 mp camera and have higher light sensitivity. If the sensor was only 1920x1080, this thing would be off the hook.

Less pixel density = higher light-sensitivity.

Barry_Green
09-03-2009, 10:49 AM
Okay, math on the 7D: largest image it takes is 5184x3456, so assuming that's the active pixel data on the sensor, that leaves a pixel size of 4.25 microns in each dimension, or 18 square microns.

On the 5D, the largest image it takes is 5616x3744; that leaves a pixel size of 6.4 microns in each dimension, or about 41 square microns.

Lots more imager area, not a lot more pixels, means each individual pixel is over twice as big. Which means, basically, that you can probably expect the 5D to be a bit over a stop more sensitive than the 7D. If all other things are equal.

Rakesh Jacob
09-03-2009, 10:50 AM
If you're meaning ydgmdlu and me, we're being picky about accurate terminology. Can't help it, and not gonna change. :)

This is why we love you!
You had me at "At the National Association of Broadcasters convention in 2002, Panasonic made two startling announcements." :love4:

EDIT: Seriously the DVX Handbook was the first and only book I've read on video cameras and filmmaking and the knowledge has served me well thus far!!!! (everything else I know I learned on the streets like I did about sex and how to make crack, etc...)

Taylor Rudd
09-03-2009, 10:51 AM
Which means, basically, that you can probably expect the 5D to be a bit over a stop more sensitive than the 7D. If all other things are equal.

I stand corrected!

What I said about pixel density remains true, right Barry? By density, of course, I mean how many pixels are found in an X by Y area. This correlates with your Micron measurements of the 5D and 7D.

5D has larger microns, therefore has less pixel density, therefore has higher light-sensitivity. Correct?

ydgmdlu
09-03-2009, 10:52 AM
However, bear in mind that Canon claims that the pixels on the 7D are closer together, which means that they could still be comparable in size to the 5D's.

So the answer is still: Gonna have to wait until someone (i.e. Phillip) actually tests and does a side-by-side comparison before we know for sure.

KeithAndrews.TV
09-03-2009, 10:53 AM
No, it is coincidental in the sense that larger chips seem to perform better in low light only because they allow for larger pixels (as well as lenses with larger absolute apertures). In the end, what counts is the pixel size, not the chip size. You're using confusing terminology.

An APS-C chip can have identical low-light performance to an FF chip, if the sensor and image processor technology is the same, and if the size of the pixels are the same.

With the 7D, the pixels may or may not be smaller than the 5D's. We do know that Canon claims that the pixels are much closer together than in previous CMOS generations.

Well I certainly appreciate the accurate wording from everyone, although one persons sensor is another persons chip is another persons pickup device is another persons imager, etc... The point is unless we were to all use the same exact terminology, maybe that designated by the manufacturer, we are going to spend all day correcting one another and probably not even be talking about the same thing.

I was just making a generalization that based on the larger sensors of today, which in turn offer more room for larger pixels (again, current offering from the manufacturers), the larger sensors offer better light gather capabilities. That's it. Of course that may not be true 10 years from now, or even 1 year from now. Just basing the information on what has been released to date.

Barry_Green
09-03-2009, 10:53 AM
I would rather the 7D be a 10 or 12 mp camera and have higher light sensitivity.
Me too!


If the sensor was only 1920x1080, this thing would be off the hook.
No, there'd be quite a bit of hook there, because the res would be too negatively impacted. Remember that this is a single-sensor design, utilizing a Bayer pattern. Therefore the maximum resolvable detail is only going to be around 75% of the native pixel density. On a 1920x1080 sensor, you'll get a pretty good 720p's worth of detail out of it, but not much more.

Now, a 3K sensor at APS-C size... that would be the premium bomb-diggity. Ultimate sensitivity, ultimate resolution, movie-film-style DOF, miniscule noise, maximum latitude, and massive 61-micron pixels... now you're talking!

Barry_Green
09-03-2009, 10:56 AM
What I said about pixel density remains true, right Barry? By density, of course, I mean how many pixels are found in an X by Y area. This correlates with your Micron measurements of the 5D and 7D.
Exactly. The only factor that we haven't really accounted for is the insensitive registers between pixels... that becomes a proportionately bigger factor the smaller the pixels get.


5D has larger microns, therefore has less pixel density, therefore has higher light-sensitivity. Correct?
Well, yes except the terminology. Microns are a set unit of measurement, like "millimeter" or "inch". The 5D's pixels are larger, meaning they measure more microns across, and that does indeed mean that the relative density of pixels is lower, with each pixel being over twice as large, and should therefore translate into higher sensitivity.

With the wild-card being that we don't know if all other things are equal... maybe some technical wizardry has been implemented which makes the new 7D's sensor effectively more sensitive? Remember that all these discussions are crucially related to "all other things being equal."

KeithAndrews.TV
09-03-2009, 10:56 AM
Me too!


No, there'd be quite a bit of hook there, because the res would be too negatively impacted. Remember that this is a single-sensor design, utilizing a Bayer pattern. Therefore the maximum resolvable detail is only going to be around 75% of the native pixel density. On a 1920x1080 sensor, you'll get a pretty good 720p's worth of detail out of it, but not much more.

Now, a 3K sensor at APS-C size... that would be the premium bomb-diggity. Ultimate sensitivity, ultimate resolution, movie-film-style DOF, miniscule noise, maximum latitude, and massive 61-micron pixels... now you're talking!

You're an engineer right?! Why don't you draft one up and submit it to Canon :grin:

Mirezzi
09-03-2009, 10:56 AM
I'm still confused as to what lenses are or are not going to work well with the 7D.

I have a box full of Nikkor primes and I'm worried they'll be (nearly) useless with it.

Taylor Rudd
09-03-2009, 10:56 AM
that would be the premium bomb-diggity.

Now you're speaking my language. Hah! Thanks for the clarification.

This is probably jumping the shark a bit, but I just had oral surgery so I have nothing else to think about.... do you think the native ISO of the 7D will be 160 as well? Or do we just have to wait and see?

ydgmdlu
09-03-2009, 10:57 AM
Now, a 3K sensor at APS-C size... that would be the premium bomb-diggity. Ultimate sensitivity, ultimate resolution, movie-film-style DOF, miniscule noise, maximum latitude, and massive 61-micron pixels... now you're talking!
As a RED fan, I hate to say this, but I wish that RED would release just such a product. I understand why resolution is important to them, but they should make the option available to filmmakers who work in HD, rather than in 4K+.

Barry_Green
09-03-2009, 10:59 AM
However, bear in mind that Canon claims that the pixels on the 7D are closer together, which means that they could still be comparable in size to the 5D's.
Hmmm, I hadn't heard that claim. Interesting.

Presumably this means that the "registers" between the pixels are smaller on the 7D than the 5D? Interesting... but I doubt the register size is all that big on 18-micron pixels. That would make a huge difference to something like an HMC40, maybe. But heck, it's gotta help, and this is the kind of "all other things being equal" stuff that complicates solving questions like this with simple math!

Taylor Rudd
09-03-2009, 10:59 AM
I'm still confused as to what lenses are or are not going to work well with the 7D.

I have a box full of Nikkor primes and I'm worried they'll be (nearly) useless with it.

To quote myself.... http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?p=1734080#post1734080


I've been using Nikon lenses no problem on my Canon 30D (the great grandfather to the 7D).

I bought 2 adapters from eBay user "buyitjnow" and will soon be buying more. They ship from China, so it takes some time. I had to put a piece of gaff tape between the lens and the adapter to prevent slipping, and I recommend getting each lens its own adapter.

http://myworld.ebay.com/buyitjnow

__________________

KeithAndrews.TV
09-03-2009, 10:59 AM
"I'm still confused as to what lenses are or are not going to work well with the 7D.

I have a box full of Nikkor primes and I'm worried they'll be (nearly) useless with it. "

What do you mean by well? They are photo lenses designed for much higher quality resolution than HD can ever provide so just use them all. The only thing to consider is the crop factor and what field of view you lose on a APS-C camera versus a full-frame camera.

Barry_Green
09-03-2009, 10:59 AM
You're an engineer right?! Why don't you draft one up and submit it to Canon :grin:
Retired from software engineering, not hardware. That hardware stuff is all voodoo and black magic. :)

ydgmdlu
09-03-2009, 11:00 AM
I'm still confused as to what lenses are or are not going to work well with the 7D.

I have a box full of Nikkor primes and I'm worried they'll be (nearly) useless with it.
As I said in another thread:


Off the top of my head, the only SLR lenses that don't work are Canon FD mount and Minolta mounts. Nikon, Pentax, M42, Olympus, and more all work fine. I have a 5D, and I actually have lenses in all four of those mounts for it, plus a Pentacon 6 (medium format) mount. And every one of my lenses has its own adapter.

egproductions
09-03-2009, 11:01 AM
Considering this is a forum based around video production, I would have to disagree that it would be worth the extra money to use faster EF lenses on an APS-C camera. Although the edges of a lens are traditionally the weakest, you would need a lot more detail than what HD can resolve in order to see that loss. It's a great idea for still photography shooting 5k res, but you wouldn't see the difference in HD.

This is what I originally thought as well because When i take a 21MP image using a soft lens on my 5D and downrez it to HD its as sharp as I could ever want it. However, lenses do in fact make a difference when you are shooting video on these cameras because of the bayer interpolation at the pixel level. It isn't a 21MP image being dowrezed its pixels being skipped. You will definitly notice a differnce between good and bad quality glass, wide open apertures and closed ones and even lens edges.



Also, you have to pick your battles. You either gain light sensitivity and lose field of view from the crop, or you keep the original field of view intended and maybe have a slower lens. It would really depend on what lenses you were comparing.

Why not just buy a 50mm lens if you were looking for a 85mm full frame equivelent? You get the FOV you want and you can get the EF lens.

Barry_Green
09-03-2009, 11:03 AM
As a RED fan, I hate to say this, but I wish that RED would release just such a product. I understand why resolution is important to them, but they should make the option available to filmmakers who work in HD, rather than in 4K+.
Y'know what? That is a brilliant idea. That's a way that Red could compete with the DSLRs and hand them their own *** at the same time. Forget the 3K/4K/5K/6K race, just make the most jaw-droppingly awesome 1080p/2K...

I imagine that'd mean starting over with a new sensor, but yeah, I would TOTALLY buy that Scarlet!

That'd be huge, and it'd give them a mile-wide gulf between the Red One, Epic, and Scarlet too. Red One/Epic for 4K/5K/6K etc, Scarlet for killer 2K with maximum sharpness and massively awesome noise/sensitivity/latitude performance. I'd buy that!

ydgmdlu
09-03-2009, 11:05 AM
Hmmm, I hadn't heard that claim. Interesting.

Presumably this means that the "registers" between the pixels are smaller on the 7D than the 5D? Interesting... but I doubt the register size is all that big on 18-micron pixels. That would make a huge difference to something like an HMC40, maybe. But heck, it's gotta help, and this is the kind of "all other things being equal" stuff that complicates solving questions like this with simple math!
This is from Digital Photography Review's preview of the camera: http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canoneos7d/page3.asp


The EOS 7D sports a new 18 MP APS-C CMOS sensor which is an in-house development. Canon claims the sensor delivers an improved signal to noise ratio which is achieved through a new photodiode and microlens design. The EOS 7D's sensor features the gapless microlenses that we first saw on the EOS 50D but on the new model the distance between microlenses and photodiodes has been reduced which results in the light being more easily focused onto the photodiode.

Taylor Rudd
09-03-2009, 11:06 AM
Y'know what? That is a brilliant idea. That's a way that Red could compete with the DSLRs and hand them their own *** at the same time. Forget the 3K/4K/5K/6K race, just make the most jaw-droppingly awesome 1080p/2K...

I imagine that'd mean starting over with a new sensor, but yeah, I would TOTALLY buy that Scarlet!

That'd be huge, and it'd give them a mile-wide gulf between the Red One, Epic, and Scarlet too. Red One/Epic for 4K/5K/6K etc, Scarlet for killer 2K with maximum sharpness and massively awesome noise/sensitivity/latitude performance. I'd buy that!

Hah. I bet they nix the Scarlet and Epic and tomorrow they announce the "Skeptic," a camera that has no specs, no release date, and no intention of being more than a 3D render.

/end thread crapping

KeithAndrews.TV
09-03-2009, 11:08 AM
This is what I originally thought as well because When i take a 21MP image using a soft lens on my 5D and downrez it to HD its as sharp as I could ever want it. However, lenses do in fact make a difference when you are shooting video on these cameras because of the bayer interpolation at the pixel level. It isn't a 21MP image being dowrezed its pixels being skipped. You will definitly notice a differnce between good and bad quality glass, wide open apertures and closed ones and even lens edges.



Why not just buy a 50mm lens if you were looking for a 85mm full frame equivelent? You get the FOV you want and you can get the EF lens.

Well of course there are exceptions to the rule. Where people get burned is when they take their collection of EF lenses, like the 24-70mm, and put it onto an APS-C size camera. Obviously if you know what FOV you want on you APS-C camera and then go out and buy an EF lens with comparable FOV for that camera then you are all set, but it will definitely cost you more than the equivilent EF-S lenses. Not saying you can't match the FOV with a 7D to that of a 5D Mark II, I am just saying using the more expensive EF lenses, is well....more expensive. How about we agree to just rent!

Rakesh Jacob
09-03-2009, 11:11 AM
Hah. I bet they nix the Scarlet and Epic and tomorrow they announce the "Skeptic," a camera that has no specs, no release date, and no intention of being more than a 3D render.

/end thread crapping

LMFAO!!!! Just so everyone is paying attention, I didn't say it! We didnt pm each other, we weren't seperated at birth, this is just a very common feeling people have about RED because of the way the choose to run their hype machine.
:dankk2: Taylor

Taylor Rudd
09-03-2009, 11:13 AM
Well of course there are exceptions to the rule. Where people get burned is when they take their collection of EF lenses, like the 24-70mm, and put it onto an APS-C size camera. Obviously if you know what FOV you want on you APS-C camera and then go out and buy an EF lens with comparable FOV for that camera then you are all set, but it will definitely cost you more than the equivilent EF-S lenses. Not saying you can't match the FOV with a 7D to that of a 5D Mark II, I am just saying using the more expensive EF lenses, is well....more expensive. How about we agree to just rent!


I might buy a toy lens, like the Tokina 12-24, to satisfy my super wide tastes. Otherwise I'll be sticking with L glass or my existing Nikon prime collection (28, 35, 50, 85, 135, 300).

I wouldn't say people get burned on APS-C bodies. They should know what they are getting into. L glass holds its value big time. I bought my 17-40 f/4L used for just under $600 a few years ago and could sell it for just that much today. I would never invest too much in APS-C specific lenses...what happens when Canon releases a killer 1.3x crop body that blows the 7D out of the water? EF-S will be worthless, at least wide open.

Buy well, buy once.

egproductions
09-03-2009, 11:16 AM
Well of course there are exceptions to the rule. Where people get burned is when they take their collection of EF lenses, like the 24-70mm, and put it onto an APS-C size camera. Obviously if you know what FOV you want on you APS-C camera and then go out and buy an EF lens with comparable FOV for that camera then you are all set, but it will definitely cost you more than the equivilent EF-S lenses. Not saying you can't match the FOV with a 7D to that of a 5D Mark II, I am just saying using the more expensive EF lenses, is well....more expensive. How about we agree to just rent!

The best lenses I use are cheap enough to buy. I have the 24-70L but to be honest I enjoy shooting with my 50 1.8 and 100 2.8 more. The 100 is the sharpest lens I've ever used.

It's all a moot point for me. I have the 5D II and have no regrets.

Barry_Green
09-03-2009, 11:47 AM
Hah. I bet they nix the Scarlet and Epic and tomorrow they announce the "Skeptic,"
Okay, I love Red and what they're doing, but I must admit that you just caused a genuine spit-take with that line. :D

aalleexx
09-03-2009, 12:24 PM
Barry, I could not help notice that you jumped to buy the 7D as soon as it was announced (I did too) can you fill us in what features (hopes) made you place the order?





Okay, I love Red and what they're doing, but I must admit that you just caused a genuine spit-take with that line. :D

Barry_Green
09-03-2009, 12:47 PM
Barry, I could not help notice that you jumped to buy the 7D as soon as it was announced (I did too) can you fill us in what features (hopes) made you place the order?
Same things that made me buy a GH1 -- hopefully superb 1080/24p with no need to use an adapter.

I love the GH1, but if the 7D does the same job and better, I'll be happy with it too. The 7D offers a few promising tidbits, such as 1080/24p with no need to remove pulldown, and a higher-bitrate codec.

I also like the idea of having 1080/30p and 720/50p as mild and moderate slow-mo options.

On the downside, it sounds like it's going to have aliasing and jello issues, which the GH1 just doesn't have.

In the end I expect that they'll end up being two different and comparable tools. And they're both so ridiculously cheap it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to not have both.

I bought a D90 early on, and I found it basically unusable (others are free to disagree, etc...) I gave it to my daughter to use for her nascent wedding photography business.

I was never in the slightest bit tempted by the EOS 5D Mark II, 30p workarounds were ridiculous and it's way more expensive, and the no-manual-control thing (at the time) made it more a pain in the butt than it was worth.

The GH1 was (and is) the nearly-perfect storm. If it wasn't for the codec occasionally puking, and the unfathomable exclusion of 24pN recording, and no live monitoring, I'd say it's The New DVX. In fact, at $1500 including lens, it might very well still be.

So along comes Canon, promising to fix the codec and adding 24pN and live monitoring. Very promising. I just hope that the jello and aliasing aren't showstoppers.

Right now I'm still very happy with the GH1, with the only real annoyance being the necessity of using NeoScene to remove the pulldown.

xbourque
09-03-2009, 01:12 PM
I just hope that the jello and aliasing aren't showstoppers.

Barry, have you seen the 7D promo clip from canon with the motorbikes and the rally car (Line of Sight)?

http://web.canon.jp/imaging/eosd/samples/eos7d/

These lo-rez clips don't tell us much about aliasing, but I don't think jello looks outrageous.

-- X

edy4eva
09-03-2009, 01:29 PM
Okay, math on the 7D: largest image it takes is 5184x3456, so assuming that's the active pixel data on the sensor, that leaves a pixel size of 4.25 microns in each dimension, or 18 square microns.

On the 5D, the largest image it takes is 5616x3744; that leaves a pixel size of 6.4 microns in each dimension, or about 41 square microns.

Lots more imager area, not a lot more pixels, means each individual pixel is over twice as big. Which means, basically, that you can probably expect the 5D to be a bit over a stop more sensitive than the 7D. If all other things are equal.

From TDP ( http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EOS-7D-Digital-SLR-Camera-Review.aspx )
Model FOVCF Sensor Pixel Size Pixels/Megapixels Viewfinder DLA
Canon EOS 7D 1.6x 22.3 x 14.9mm 4.3Ám 5184 x 3456 18.0 1.0x 100% f/6.8
Canon EOS 5D Mark II 1.0x 36.0 x 24.0mm 6.4Ám 5616 x 3744 21.1 .71x 98% f/10.3

Your approximations are bang on :)
Thanks for the great explanation. :thumbup:

Rakesh Jacob
09-03-2009, 01:45 PM
Barry, have you seen the 7D promo clip from canon with the motorbikes and the rally car (Line of Sight)?

http://web.canon.jp/imaging/eosd/samples/eos7d/

These lo-rez clips don't tell us much about aliasing, but I don't think jello looks outrageous.

-- X

I have to agree, just a gut shot reaction on the available clips, the skew seems VERY improved, even possibly better than the GH1. 720p alliasaing on the 7D... that's another story :(
If we lived in a 720p world then the GH1 would already be "the perfect storm." I think it's amazing at that resolution.

Hopefully all these questions and more will be answered on Phillip Bloom: International Man of Camera Demos!

EDIT: First Philip Bloom video and the CMOS skew/ jello is better than the 5D but seems about as twitchy as a GH1 with an unstabalized lens.

speedracerlo
09-04-2009, 12:44 AM
great info thank you

anthonyt
09-05-2009, 05:18 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2coVjCjwb8 - have a look at this korean film (7.26), theres not much bokeh and yet it still looks great... im sure the 7D would be able to produce something lookin like that ! :D

Columbo
09-15-2009, 03:26 PM
The fact of the matter is: for a cinema shooter, the 7D is going to deliver the same DOF and the same FOV as a 35mm movie camera. Done. End of story. No need to worry about whether a 50mm "becomes" and 80mm, because it doesn't. Put a 50mm lens on a movie camera, and then take it off and put that lens on the 7D, and you'll have identical results (or near-enough identical that nobody's complaining.)

The only reason a "crop factor" exists is to talk about how the lens field of view compares to that of a 35mm still camera. Has nothing to do with us motion/moving image folks.

Just to clarify (off the back of reading this thread http://www.cinema5d.com/viewtopic.php?f=64&t=4940 ...

Cine lenses on a 7D will act the same as they do on a movie camera, right?

Does this apply to regular primes too, like Zeiss Contax for example?

Cheers C

Michael Olsen
09-15-2009, 03:31 PM
Just to clarify (off the back of reading this thread http://www.cinema5d.com/viewtopic.php?f=64&t=4940 ...

Cine lenses on a 7D will act the same as they do on a movie camera, right?

Does this apply to regular primes too, like Zeiss Contax for example?

Cheers C

In short, yes. If the lens is meant for use on a Super35mm film camera, it will provide almost exactly the same DOF and FOV on the 7D because the capture devices (one being film, the other a sensor) are almost exactly the same size.

Ian-T
09-15-2009, 04:03 PM
Ha...explain that to those who keep saying..."But it's not full frame." :)

Columbo
09-15-2009, 04:11 PM
In short, yes. If the lens is meant for use on a Super35mm film camera, it will provide almost exactly the same DOF and FOV on the 7D because the capture devices (one being film, the other a sensor) are almost exactly the same size.

Sweet, thanks Michael.

Barry_Green
09-15-2009, 05:24 PM
Ha...explain that to those who keep saying..."But it's not full frame." :)

The fact that it's "not full frame" is THE ENTIRE POINT.

It's the same frame as the Red One. Or a 35mm cinema camera. Or an F35. Or a Dalsa Origin. Or a Thomson Viper.

ydgmdlu
09-15-2009, 05:26 PM
The fact that it's "not full frame" is THE ENTIRE POINT.

It's the same frame as the Red One. Or a 35mm cinema camera. Or an F35. Or a Dalsa Origin. Or a Thomson Viper.
Or a Genesis. :)

dcloud
09-15-2009, 07:58 PM
5d has awesome low light.. the fact that 7D is just 1 to 2 stops away is fantastic.

Columbo
09-16-2009, 02:07 AM
Ha...explain that to those who keep saying..."But it's not full frame." :)

Unless I'm missing something here, FF/5D seems to me a strange reference point.

Surely cinema is the gold standard, so that should be the reference point, not full frame.

So that being the case, it'd be more accurate to say a 50mm on a 5D acts like a 28mm or whatever, rather than saying a 28mm on a 7D acts like a 50mm, right?

USLatin
09-16-2009, 03:15 AM
So that being the case, it'd be more accurate to say a 50mm on a 5D acts like a 28mm or whatever, rather than saying a 28mm on a 7D acts like a 50mm, right?

Personally I would agree with that, but people like to say that a given lens is a lens, period. Which is right, and avoids confusion.

I think that if you want to communicate a lens and its behavior, you'd speak both the lens info, together with the format.
I.E.: "We shot that on S35, on a 28mm at f/1.3" or "Red One 2:1, on a 28mm at f/1.3" or "HPX170 with a Blade set up for S35, on a 28mm at f/1.3".

Alvise Tedesco
10-01-2009, 03:56 PM
Interesting thread.
Cinema size sensor yelds easier focus pulling compared to ff still sensor, but then a 28 or 35 still lens yelds much shorter focus throw than a 50.
So, witch lens to choose for a fast "normal" to pull focus more accurately with?
Sigma 30 1.4 I've heard has too stiff a focus ring
Canon 28 1.8 maybe? Or the focus ring isn't dampened enough since it's a more an autofocus?
Nikon 35 2? I have one, unfortunately not a good copy in respect to focus ring
Canon 35 L 1.4?

Sttratos
10-01-2009, 05:10 PM
One thing you have to consider is any full-frame sensor (5D Mark II for instance) will be able to create the same shallow look that the 7D can, just at a higher aperture. No one is saying that you have to shoot at f/2.8 or faster to get a shallow look with a full-frame sensor. In fact you will most likely be shooting at the sweet spot of your full-frame lens and still get the same shallow DOF look the smaller sensor is capable of without having to shoot wide open.

This thread proves the point perfectly. Although the 7D is close to s35mm it is not exact, it's actually a little smaller. I would prefer to have that extra control over my DOF in a shot when I want to use it with the full-frame sensor, as opposed to being limited to what I would get with a crop sensor. Referring to DOF and aperture, you can always add DOF to a shot, but you can't take away what isn't physically possible with a smaller sensor.


Well, that of course, if you have full and 100% control over your environment. But if you ever have to shoot in low light and can't add more light, which is often the case, you will be forced to shoot with your lens wide open and then, your whole theory goes down the drain while your 1AC goes out the door.

By the way, I don't really understand the point of all these 5D owners about the 7D DOF not being shallow enough etc (not necessarily talking about you). S35 has been fine for filmmaking for decades now. Why do 5D owners think we suddenly need Vista Vision DOF and angle of view? Maybe it's a case of buyer's remorse or bias?

Sttratos
10-01-2009, 05:37 PM
S

The GH1 was (and is) the nearly-perfect storm. If it wasn't for the codec occasionally puking, and the unfathomable exclusion of 24pN recording, and no live monitoring, I'd say it's The New DVX. .

This is exactly how I feel. I bought a 7D and I'm loving it so far, but I keep thinking, man, if I could combine the 7D with a GH1 it would be the best movie camera out there till you are talking high end stuff.
But what could be perfectly possible would be for Panasonic to release a new version of the GH1 with better codec, real 24p ,external monitoring and maybe even a bigger sensor (although I wouldn't hold my breath on that since it would mean a new line of cameras.) I could see that happening more easily than Canon making a camera closer to the GH1, specially a camera without a mirror, which is the biggest attraction in the GH1 for me.
Maybe Panasonic will, or maybe they will not in order to protect their video division. Who knows. I know I would be first in line to pre order one. I almost bought a GH1 actually. What stopped me was really just the nasty codec. The rest I could even live with.

DR1V3
12-18-2010, 05:16 AM
Ok guys,
everything seems clear about lenses and sensor but what about post production: shooting with both 5d and 7d. How do I manage to edit my footage? should I consider while shooting with the 5d some cropping?

Miguel
01-03-2011, 06:44 AM
Wow. Okay, lots of information. I am trying to digest it all at the moment.

Something that I noticed wasn't really mentioned was the Dynamic Range. I realise this thread was about full frame vs cropped frame but surely this must have an impact on any decisions to buy either camera.

Maybe Barry or someone can tell me if the size of the pixel increases the DR?

Barry_Green
01-03-2011, 09:47 AM
All other things being equal, larger pixels will lead to higher dynamic range (and less noise).

But again, that's only true if all other things are equal.

Miguel
01-03-2011, 07:24 PM
Thanks for that. So does that mean that the 5D mkII has higher dynamic range than the 7d? I have read conflicting accounts on this.