PDA

View Full Version : Vs EX1 and stills



morgan_moore
10-29-2009, 12:58 PM
This camera is pants IMO , and I dont want it to be!

http://www.halfinchrails.com/hir/pics/7dgrabs/My_7d_Sucks.html

S

Eddy Robinson
10-29-2009, 02:03 PM
I think your comments are little flame-baity ('pants'...'sucks'...'lemon') but your photographs and frame grabs provide a useful test. Obviously the 5d would be better for you, especially when it has the 24p update in January. Then again I'm also thinking that the 7d + lens is about half the price of the EX1 - you get some benefits, and you make some losses.

For me the most useful information was not the performance on the barcodes (which I expected, after seeing Barry green's tests, and which can be avoided, at least in narrative situations, with proper planning; more helpful was to see the variety of aliasing issues around the different squares on the color chart.

PerroneFord
10-29-2009, 02:11 PM
You might want to clean up the factual errors on your page also before you call a product out. I've noticed several in regards to the EX1 already, and I'm not even done with the page loading.

morgan_moore
10-29-2009, 02:19 PM
OK maybe Im a little cross but Ive sold my 5d and 24-105, losing 1000UK , bought a 16-55 , 70-200, (I had a 100-300) and a 7d basically on the nod from Blooms blog

Ive also wasted a week figuring out 'is it me'

Dumb maybe

Backpedalling that situation is costly, the 25p announcement three days later - is virtually criminal

The bar codes are angled at differend angles on purpose, the rest of the scene is quite carefully selected, cloth and assorted angles

The moving fan is an attempt to confuse the codec

I use the phrase lemon because maybe I have a duff early 7d number (1700 ish)

Remember I WANT it to be a good camera - I already own it and the EX1 (which I dont like), I dont have a mine is better than yours agenda - they are both mine

(A note on the cost vs the EX1 - to get similar function you need , two zooms and ND filters, the cost is nearly the same)

S

morgan_moore
10-29-2009, 02:21 PM
"Clean up the factual errors on your page also before you call a product out. I've noticed several in regards to the EX1 already, and I'm not even done with the page loading."

Such as ?

S

PerroneFord
10-29-2009, 02:26 PM
The EX1 may be a 4000 POUND camera but it certainly is not a 4000 dollar one. The EX1 is a 1080p camera. Period. The codec does not change it's resolution. It is not HDV. And as far as sharp images go, the EX1 can stand up to the RED in 2k mode. It's plenty sharp. The codec let's it down on some motion but with uncompressed HD on tap, that is fixable. The 5D suffers from other ailments that don't plague the EX1. So it's a tossup which one meets the need more.

I am sorry that you are unhappy with the 7D. However, just because the camera doesn't operate to your standard doesn't mean it's a lemon. Spinning the fan won't confuse the codec. Spin the camera if you want to do that. Why not wait 6-12 months, sell the EX1 and the 7D and buy a RED. Maybe that will make you more happy?

Kholi
10-29-2009, 02:33 PM
The only way I could fathom the 5D being anymore resolute than the 7D is because the 5Ds aliasing is worse. By Barrys article the percieved sharpness would be increased. But I highly doubt it's actually resolving much more if any at all when shooting video.

Furthermore you may keep into consideration that if you werte not shooting wide open with the 5D then that may also be a factor.

Other than that I really don't see a major difference between the images coming out of the 5D and 7D. The EX1 should definitely resolve more than either. Here again, Barry has shown us why.

morgan_moore
10-29-2009, 02:38 PM
Peronne

Lets clarify 'lemon'

Im saying that my personal 7d camera number 1700 may have a specific error of some nature that makes it perform badly - it might be faulty - this would be great news - Ill send it back to canon when I get my 5d back at the weekend

I dont beleive what you say that all 1080 is the same, for a start the EX1 has a poor lens you can see flare and CA in my test shots

Thats like saying a 1080 FLip is as good as a $50k ENG 1080 cam

The EX1 is IMO adequate, similar to what my competition own, and good value, It also, IMO produces an image that is not as good as a 5d with a nice prime

On the costs I got mine just before western currencies collapsed against the Yen - I dont know what they cost now

S

morgan_moore
10-29-2009, 02:44 PM
The only way I could fathom the 5D being anymore resolute than the 7D is because the 5Ds aliasing is worse. By Barrys article the percieved sharpness would be increased. But I highly doubt it's actually resolving much more if any at all when shooting video.

Furthermore you may keep into consideration that if you werte not shooting wide open with the 5D then that may also be a factor.

Other than that I really don't see a major difference between the images coming out of the 5D and 7D. The EX1 should definitely resolve more than either. Here again, Barry has shown us why.

There are many reason why the 7d could be worse

It requires more LPI from the lens and the pixels are half the size, it just cant catch as much light, same with the EX1, Then of course there is the design of the AA filter and a host of other factors

Proper 'Moiree' should show its face when the pixel pitch matches the projected subject pitch, I have had two stills cameras (with no AA Filter) , kodak SLRn and Hassy 22mp that have incredible resolving power as long as they are not attempting to resolve thier own pixel pitch

S

morgan_moore
10-29-2009, 02:51 PM
on another board someone noted that..

"Another important thing, is the the bitrate is a fixed quantity, and when the background is moving or detailed much of the overall bandwidth must be dedicated to that, leaving less to devote to fine details. Also, a blurred BG takes much less overall bandwidth leaving more for the details on the in focus part. "

Rember I strated testing this camera because I was not real world happy, my first ever shot with the 5d was a 14mm steadicam shot walkthrough

Maybe the 5d in real world situations gives it self a huge advantage by blurring the background !

S

PerroneFord
10-29-2009, 02:57 PM
I dont beleive what you say that all 1080 is the same, for a start the EX1 has a poor lens you can see flare and CA in my test shots


All 1080 is certainly not the same. But in the sub-$10k market the EX1 is widely regarded as having the best, or maybe second best image of currently available camcorders.



Thats like saying a 1080 FLip is as good as a $50k ENG 1080 cam


Hardly.



The EX1 is IMO adequate, similar to what my competition own, and good value, It also, IMO produces an image that is not as good as a 5d with a nice prime


Well of COURSE. Compare the EX1 with it's built in lens to the 5D with the kit lens. Or, tell me this. The EX1 comes with a 35mm full frame equivlaent of a 31-460mm zoom... at F2. How much would such a lens cost for your 5D? The EX1 is built to a price. If you want to mount strong glass on it, get the EX3 and go to town.




On the costs I got mine just before western currencies collapsed against the Yen - I dont know what they cost now


I believe I paid $6400 for mine, June 2008. It's replacement is $7,790.

morgan_moore
10-29-2009, 03:04 PM
We agree therefore that while not perfect the EX1 makes a fine reference camera to test other sub $5k solutions against

My personal 7d fails this test with flying colors - which is a shame because one thing the EX1 does not give is a cinematic perspective and small form factor

S

PerroneFord
10-29-2009, 03:07 PM
Agreed on both counts. Though the EX1 can be made to look somewhat cinematic, it's not it's forte. Shoehorning it into that role makes as much sense as trying to use the 5D for event work. But people certainly do both.

morgan_moore
10-29-2009, 03:14 PM
Indeed

I was hoping the the 7 would give me a fine compromise and also reasonable reach with the compact 70-200 F4

While allowing me to cross cover glass with my nikon D3 stills camera

Both my 100-300 and 400 2.8 are very poor to operate with the canons due to physical limitations

Back to the original point I dont think MY 7d is any good - which is a shame praticularly to me !

S

Kholi
10-29-2009, 03:26 PM
THere's NOTHING wrong with your camera. The bottom line is that you may have just made the wrong decision based on your preferences.

However, I would suggest going to find a 5D to test out in this same method so that you see the results are the same with either camera, if-- again-- the 7D isn't better.

I've shot with both side by side a few times now and they're identical aside from the 5D's aliasing issue being a bit more exaggerated.

I'd imagine if you were a new customer you would be HIGHLY pissed if you had sold your EX-1 for a 7D. LOL. Just one more reason Barry's tests and articles or... "Pixel Peeping" has probably saved frustration for a lot.

William_Robinette
10-29-2009, 03:27 PM
I don't get this.

You bought a sub $2,000 STILL camera that also shoots video and you are comparing it to a dedicated VIDEO camera costing several thousand dollars more? You bought it without trying it out first and you are upset about having to have sold your 5D as well.

I don't know what it is about this camera that throws everyone for a loop. Maybe because of those four little numbers: one, zero, eight, zero?

Come on people, get realistic. It has it's limitations, drawbacks, and problems that are all clearly spelled out on the internet on many a different forum and web page. That alone should kill any over expectations anyone has about the 7D. Not to mention it would make sense to try out a piece of equipment that costs a couple thousand dollars before you buy it. And basing a purchasing decision on the whim that a prior camera made by the same company was good just doesn't make much sense to me.

I don't mean to be harsh, but really? Go out and shoot, have fun.

Kholi
10-29-2009, 03:36 PM
I don't get this.

You bought a sub $2,000 STILL camera that also shoots video and you are comparing it to a dedicated VIDEO camera costing several thousand dollars more? You bought it without trying it out first and you are upset about having to have sold your 5D as well.

I don't know what it is about this camera that throws everyone for a loop. Maybe because of those four little numbers: one, zero, eight, zero?

Come on people, get realistic. It has it's limitations, drawbacks, and problems that are all clearly spelled out on the internet on many a different forum and web page. That alone should kill any over expectations anyone has about the 7D. Not to mention it would make sense to try out a piece of equipment that costs a couple thousand dollars before you buy it. And basing a purchasing decision on the whim that a prior camera made by the same company was good just doesn't make much sense to me.

I don't mean to be harsh, but really? Go out and shoot, have fun.
WHOA WHOA WHOA... Don't wolf out on this guy, William. I rather like your hyumin form better.

Agreed, by the way.

morgan_moore
10-29-2009, 03:45 PM
I bought it two weeks ago or more now, all the web info was good at that point

It is difficult for me to try B4 I buy because I live in a very remote location

Any one in Pal land who has spent a little time with compressor has been busting to get rid of the 5d

Also anyone who has tried pulling focus wit the 5d is looking for a slightly smaller chip

I sold the 5d fast to a mate whose 1DS has just crap ped out he needed it fast

IMO the 5d whips the EX1 for overall viewing joy, for watever reason, codec, glass, Bokeh, whatever so there is no reason other DSLRs cannot do the same

the EX1 of course has its place for long record and RnG use

I bought the camera as a swap for the 5d, and IMO this is a big error, because my 7d is wooly even at 480p unlike either of the other two cams and not just when there is a fence, roof or herringbone jacket in shot - I can avoid those

It is also an error I would think may be of interest to other viewers of the DLSR forum, on my web page all I say is 'try before you buy'

ps there is no need to go easy on me - Im pretty tough

S

PerroneFord
10-29-2009, 03:55 PM
Also anyone who has tried pulling focus wit the 5d is looking for a slightly smaller chip

Certainly can't agree with this at all. We're pulling focus just fine on the 5D.

morgan_moore
10-29-2009, 03:58 PM
I think the phrase 'we' give that away

I operate alone

But I do feel that the pop of the DOF drop off does indeed help

Id like to see some stuff ? how tight do you frame, do you follow action ?

S

Barry_Green
10-29-2009, 04:57 PM
Okay, look -- for the last time hopefully:

THE CANON AND PANASONIC AND NIKON AND PENTAX STILL CAMERAS DO NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT HAVE THE RESOLVING POWER OF DEDICATED VIDEO CAMERAS. They do not. It does not matter what anyone else says, because they simply do not have it. They will not have it. They are not sharper, not now, not after a firmware update, not any time in the future. Not until the hardware is completely redesigned.

Of COURSE an EX1 will spank a 5D or 7D in sharpness. To expect otherwise is naivete, or buying into hype.

The resolution charts have clearly demonstrated exactly what you just discovered -- the actual real resolved resolution just. is. not. there.

If anyone tells you otherwise, they simply do not know the facts. This is not a matter of opinion, this is a matter of simply observable fact. Hard, cold, unrelenting, merciless truth.

You should not be surprised that it's not as sharp as your EX1. And I guarantee you with an ironclad guarantee that the 5D isn't either. And I can pretty much guarantee you that the 1D won't be sharper than an EX1 either.

The 7D (and the 5D, and the GH1, and the K-X, and the Nikon whatevers) are STILL cameras that have a video feature grafted on. They are NOT superior to video cameras, at making video, at least in terms of sharpness or dynamic range. Period. Full stop.

Sorry you found out the hard way. But don't go believing the hype. Believe in the actual measurements, because those will tell you what the real story is.

And yes, I've shot shockingly good footage on my 7D and GH1 cameras, I'm not saying they can't do amazing things. But the absolute irrefutable FACT is that they are not able to resolve as much detail as an EX1, HPX300, or even HMC40, and I'd wager they won't hold up in resolving power to most any other modern 1080p video camera either.

morgan_moore
10-29-2009, 05:20 PM
Barry

I dispute this

I believe my 5d was in real life use sharper than my EX1

I didnt do tests of charts or bar codes to be fair

From my test here if one is inclined one can see the failing of the EX1 compared to the dowsized still

It is just worse than the still, and with some sharpening a lot more could be brought out of the EX1 - also I am no expert on setting the EX1, I use a cine profile cribbed from this forum

Resons the 5d could be better in real world ..

Typical scenes show less focus and are there fore simpler and better handled by the codec

(again Im ignoring External record of the EX1)

The EX1 lens clearly is close to its resolving limit showing both, flare, softness and CA**

Those reasons could make the 5d sharper than the EX1

I shot the 5d with L glass or class nikkors

Of course I could be baffling myself with bokeh and a nice look to the images

The bottom line is obviously my own personal acceptable resolution which probably is 720, that is what my eyes can resolve on my monitor when I slump at my normal viewing distance

I realise thae my normal viewing distance is quite close, especially compared to a telly in a domestic setting

Watching Dans screening of 5d works in London I realised that the viewing distance was comparitively distant even though the screen was large (projection)

The bottom line is that both the EX1 and the 5d create a resolution I personally require - ie one that outresolves my eyes at that viewing distance, while the 7d does not

--------

Incedentally my 5d was given the harshest test in tests against the EX1 - not by me but by my girlfriend who just said 'nicer' when shown the 5d in a 'blind' test, she also rejected the 7d as 'soft' in another test

Fundamentally her opinion is more important than mine because she knows nothing of the technology and cares even less so is objective ??

I am testing sharpening and 720p ing some 7d footage right now

S

** the ex1 resolve limit may not be the lens but the AA softening filter if it has one which I guess it does

basspig
10-29-2009, 05:24 PM
This camera is pants IMO , and I dont want it to be!

http://www.halfinchrails.com/hir/pics/7dgrabs/My_7d_Sucks.html

S


Amazing. What an uninformed web site, chock full of unscientific testing and unresearched (and false) statements. And it loads so slow, it must be on dialup connection.

Barry_Green
10-29-2009, 05:32 PM
Barry

I dispute this
Go ahead, but -- with all due respect, you would be wrong.


I believe my 5d was in real life use sharper than my EX1
There is a difference between "perceived sharpness" and "more resolution". Your EX1 is absolutely unquestionably and without any manner of doubt whatsoever, higher resolution than any 5D in the world with any lens you choose to put on it. I guarantee it beyond any shadow of a doubt.

If you want to know more about why the DSLRs appear to be sharper than they actually are, read the aliasing article.

But under no circumstances ever, will aliasing help small text or bar codes or things like that to be more legible. It will only hurt those situations.


The bottom line is that both the EX1 and the 5d create a resolution I personally require - ie one that outresolves my eyes at that viewing distance, while the 7d does not

--------

The bottom line is that the 5D doesn't create ANY more resolution than the 7D does. You don't have to believe me (although, frankly, whether you believe or not has no bearing on the facts); just run this same test that you just did, on a 5D. And hold on to your hat when you find out that an EX1 is simply able to resolve more detail, MUCH more detail, than a 5D does.

And, if it makes you feel better, rent the very best lens in the universe and put that on the 5D.

It won't help.

The 5D and 7D and GH1 and 1DMkIV and all the other DSLRs do not have very high resolution IN VIDEO MODE. They use aliasing to create the appearance of sharper images, but they are not, in fact, rendering detail more clearly.

And that is the truth.

morgan_moore
10-29-2009, 05:33 PM
it loads slow because the images are oversized to view seperately if you want

DL them to your desktop and observe in a controlled environment like Photo Shop

It is not strict science I admit but pretty even handed testing

Tell me which statements are unresearched or false

I have the cameras in my hands - do you?

More important tell me how I can get my 7d to look great and I will be very happy

S

morgan_moore
10-29-2009, 05:47 PM
There is a difference between "perceived sharpness" and "more resolution". Your EX1 is absolutely unquestionably and without any manner of doubt whatsoever, higher resolution than any 5D in the world with any lens you choose to put on it. I guarantee it beyond any shadow of a doubt..

OK we dont need to argue the science, I dont dispute any of your findings in any way

(but can you link me to trumpets of the three cameras - Ive seen the 7d joke trumpets - have you done the same on the 5d)

Really im not that interested in the EX1 its the two canons that float my boat

In practice I am finding my 7d is an unpleasant shooting and viewing experience compared to the 5d

This could be..

Failure of the lense to resolve (doubtful) ?

more noise generation?

Shallow focus less stressful on the codec ?

Different compression technology?

Diffraction ?


It would not suprise me at all if a chip with a surface area of 864 SQmm (5d) could outdo a chip (using similar technology) of 329 SQmm (7d) it simple science to expect better perfoance on the larger chip

I cant beleive I even thought that they may be in the same ballpark looking at that 800 Vs 300 statistic

S

Barry_Green
10-29-2009, 05:55 PM
(but can you link me to trumpets of the three cameras - Ive seen the 7d joke trumpets - have you done the same on the 5d)
What do you mean "joke trumpets"?

I haven't done the test on a 5D, but I saw Alan Roberts' zone plate from his BBC evaluation of the 5D and it shows that exactly the same things happen. There is no reason whatsoever (other than undying optimism and faith) to expect the 5D to outperform the 7D when it comes to video. Stills, yes -- but video, no.


Really im not that interested in the EX1 its the two canons that float my boat
And yet that's the funny thing -- you've just proven to yourself, in your testing, that the EX1 is superior in sharpness, but you're not interested in the EX1, you want the Canon. Even though you've proven that it's inferior and not up to the job you want to do, you still want it.

Can't help you on that one. All I can say is, if you want actual resolved resolution and legitimate detail, no HDSLR can compare to an EX1 (or HPX300 or HMC40 or any other native-1080p video camera).


Shallow focus less stressful on the codec ?

Different compression technology?
The 7D's compression is the same as the 5D's, but better. 48mbps instead of 40mbps.


It would not suprise me at all if a chip with a surface area of 864 SQmm (5d) could outdo a chip (using similar technology) of 329 SQmm (7d) it simple science to expect better perfoance on the larger chip
And in stills, you will see that difference. But the way they work with video, they don't deliver anywhere near the performance, in video, that they do in stills.

There is a saying that goes (and forgive my editing of it): "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull****." I humbly submit that the HDSLRs take the second option, filling the frame with aliased false detail and getting people excited about their supposed "sharpness". Which ain't.

But, if people like it, they like it.

morgan_moore
10-29-2009, 06:14 PM
Joke trumpets - your charts that show the res of the 7d to be a joke (my phrase)

im not that interested in the EX1 because it is big heavy and has a visually to me unapealing format

it does not take my nikkor prime set

you know perfectly well why I like a bigger chip

A shallow focus can be less stressful on a codec, I guess; I know it can in terms of stills compression of which i have far more expertise, because it is simpler to 'describe' a simpler image - it has less information to communicate

Now you have not done the same test with the 5d

My understanding of moiree - as it is known in the stills game - alaising - is that it is an effect that happens when the frequency of the projected subject, comes close to the frequency of the pixel pitch

this is combatted with an AA filter that is deigned to blur the image before it occurs

I have, as stated, above owned two stills cameras that have no AA filter, I can tell you that my Kodak SRLn of 2004 or something still knocks any sub 20mp AA filter camera to bits for sharpness

Again my AA filter free hasselblad 22mp blows a 5d in stills mode clear out of the water

Those AA filters and their design are a significant portion of defining images quality

I know little about the 5d and 7d AA filters, but considering there is siginicant pixel pitch difference between the cameras one can assume they are very different in design, both aimed at optimising stills performance and may or may not have a different influence on video performance

The fact that the 5d fails the zone tests at a point where pixel pitch closes to test chart is no suprise possiblly pointing to a situation where it is actually sharper when recording an image out of phase with the pixel pitch - in the same way as the Hassy and the SLRn are very sharp then fail dismally

Anyway all will become clear (or fuzzy or blocky) when I get my 5d back :)

An exapmle of AA filter removal is here..

http://maxmax.com/nikon_d200hr.htm

You see (at the bottom of the page) that the filterless camera suffers worse on the test chart, but is clearly sharper on real world subjects the rope and the dollar bill showing that test charts to not always reflect real world sharpness

S

Everts
10-29-2009, 06:21 PM
I humbly submit that the HDSLRs take the second option, filling the frame with aliased false detail and getting people excited about their supposed "sharpness".....



Didn't know that it was possible to aliase an image , I thought that aliasing had to do with rescaling a high resolution image to half or a third of its orginal size .

Kellar42
10-29-2009, 06:23 PM
Look Morgan, for some of the newcomers to these concepts, like me, the 5D seems amazingly sharp, also. I would like to see Barry get one and do the same tests as he did to the 7D and GH1, because it may do a little better than the 7D. Or it's smoke and mirrors are more potent, who knows.

But they have been repeatedly proven to have less actual RESOLUTION than the EX series, and many other video cameras.

Barry is not saying that the HDSLRS are useless, or they look bad. He is simply pointing out the science about the resolving power (different from pixel resolution, which is the same across the board, as I understand it).

You may love the 5D, it may seem more filmlike for a number of reasons. Lots of people do. The Terminator DP is doing amazing things. The firmware update might inspire me to knock over a liquor-store or something and get one.

But it doesn't have the same resolution (among other things) as the dedicated video cams. Period.

basspig
10-29-2009, 06:24 PM
it loads slow because the images are oversized to view seperately if you want

DL them to your desktop and observe in a controlled environment like Photo Shop

It is not strict science I admit but pretty even handed testing

Tell me which statements are unresearched or false

I have the cameras in my hands - do you?

More important tell me how I can get my 7d to look great and I will be very happy

S


First, the price of the EX1 is not $4000. It's $6099 at last available street price.
Second, the resolution of the EX1 is 1920x1080. It's not reduced by the CODEC, except the color subsampling, but then the Bayer filter on a DSLR single imager does that anyway.

Jim Klatt
10-29-2009, 06:25 PM
I think one of the cycles here at DVXuser with a release of a new dslr is HYPE, HYPE, HYPE, REALITY, REALITY, REALITY.

If you are in a reality-mode while the others are in the hype-mode during the launch or right after a slew of videos is released, then you are disregarded. I remember making comments about the resolving power and how the wide shots did not look good and I was laughed off the thread by all those that were caught up in the hype. People didn't want to hear reality. It didn't take a genius to look at the first videos that were released uncompressed to see that wide is weak on the 7d, and there was ugly aliasing

It happened during the GH1 then it happened during the 7d.

Then when the hype dies down, those that got caught up in it are almost vindictive when reality sets in, or act like they knew it all along, and didn't initially get caught up in the hype.

morgan_moore
10-29-2009, 06:33 PM
First, the price of the EX1 is not $4000. It's $6099 at last available street price.
Second, the resolution of the EX1 is 1920x1080. It's not reduced by the CODEC, except the color subsampling, but then the Bayer filter on a DSLR single imager does that anyway.

You are right on the price of course

Now

1920 * 1080 is
2073600 pixels
51840000 three channels of colour
155520000 bits per second at 25 FPS
155.52 MBS

Is required for proper 1080

The EX1 does not do proper 1080 which is why people still spend $100k on cameras that do

--------

morgan_moore
10-29-2009, 06:40 PM
Look Morgan, for some of the newcomers to these concepts, like me, the 5D seems amazingly sharp, also. I would like to see Barry get one and do the same tests as he did to the 7D and GH1, because it may do a little better than the 7D. Or it's smoke and mirrors are more potent, who knows.

But they have been repeatedly proven to have less actual RESOLUTION than the EX series, and many other video cameras.

.

The 5d looks sharp to me to - I would like to see those tests

BUT

in an edited post earlier I also showed why those tests can be not valid in the real world

http://maxmax.com/nikon_d200hr.htm

Shows how the D200 with an AA filter beats the Filterless D200 in tests

but given some more random subject matter, rope, dollar bills, the Filterless camera Beats the camera with a filter

of course the cameras (EX1 and the Canons all have filters but they will be of different strenghts)

Just because a camera moirees it does not mean it cannot resolve (out side of that moiree environment) - check out the images at the bottom of the page

(and what is true of moiree is true for line skipping too)

If such a phenomon is not widely known in the video world I am suprised

(Those who question the relevance of my test image; off angles, circles, cloth, should therefore possibly reconsider its value as potentialy a more relevant test than a test chart)

S

morgan_moore
10-29-2009, 07:23 PM
Thinking further on this it is obvious that the EX1 has a filter designed to render good test results in video mode

The 5d has a filter that is designed to have a frequency relevant to stills mode

That softening effect is about 10X less to deal with 22mp stills

So in effect it is an AA filter free camera

one would expect it to perform well in the real world but fall over on tests and real world situations where the test are relevant , distant fences, bridal gowns

This is exactly what we see

Which of course does not accout for the poor performance in the real world (and tests) of the 7d

I think there is something else up with it, but the 5d may be as good as it is perceived to be with a sensible scientific argument

My experience of shooting filter free stills cams (and I have had some nightmare jobs - a wetsuit shoot that showed both horrifying moire and terrible IR leak with the Kodak SLRN)

Is that deailing with localised moiree in post is generally a higher res way of shooting than using an AA filter camera


S

ASG
10-29-2009, 07:38 PM
http://maxmax.com/nikon_d200hr.htm




Great link.... maybe this explains the difference between the 5D and the 7D, and the 7D would look sharper but you'd have to have even more moire :smile:

Guess it's a compromise the camera engineers choose one over the other.

Anyways I think the quality of my 7D looks the same as yours. I wonder what the 7D would look like if you got the maxmax guys to remove the AA filter?????

Tom Roper
10-29-2009, 07:38 PM
Morgan, I have the 5DMkII with some pretty good Canon glass, 85LII 1.2, 70-200F4 IS, among others...and I also have the EX1.

I can't agree with you at all. The EX1 picture is far more detailed.

morgan_moore
10-29-2009, 07:42 PM
I am not saying that the Ex1 is not better than the 5d although it is more beautiful

Im saying the 7d is not as good as either of them and that the terrible zone plate test result for the 5d may be somewhat misleading

My opinion is that the 5d (when not filming wires or brides) and the EX1 meet my personal expectation of detail while the 7d does not

S

Tom Roper
10-29-2009, 08:00 PM
Well Barry is saying the 7D is around 500 lines using the chart, using Imatest I got numbers somewhat better than that for my 5DMkII, but still below an average HDV cam. The horizontal MTF50 was around 620 lines, the vertical actually pretty good at around 750 lines. But the HV10 put up higher numbers, and the EX1 was several orders of magnitude better.

I can't comment on the 7D, I don't have it. The major problem I have with the 5D is aliasing.

None of that is to diminish the 5D or 7D. In comparison to 1080 video cams, the DSLRs have great low light and shallow depth of field. But for resolved detail, the video cams show more.

PerroneFord
10-29-2009, 08:51 PM
You are right on the price of course

Now

1920 * 1080 is
2073600 pixels
51840000 three channels of colour
155520000 bits per second at 25 FPS
155.52 MBS

Is required for proper 1080

The EX1 does not do proper 1080 which is why people still spend $100k on cameras that do

--------

Sure it does. Connect a recorder capable of that bitrate to the little HDSDI spigot and you'll get all of that and more. The HDSDI port is 10-bit color and not 8.

morgan_moore
10-30-2009, 01:14 AM
People

I dont like my EX1 for many non technical reasons

I dont like my 7d which I swapped for a 5d

Information (at pre order time) pointed that the 7d had comparable real world visual appeal as the 5d but with PAL frame rates,

Information at that time also pointed that PAL was not going to happen ever on a 5d

To swap was therefore a sensible choice

I now believe this choice to be very far from sensible because the 7d, IMO has little visual appeal

Others reading the DSLR BOARD may in be in this boat of considering swapping a 5d for a 7d

I hope my test images help them with making their choice

Thanks for the interest

SMM

Barry_Green
10-30-2009, 09:43 AM
im not that interested in the EX1 because it is big heavy and has a visually to me unapealing format

it does not take my nikkor prime set

you know perfectly well why I like a bigger chip
Well, then, I'd say that it's not that you prefer the Canons, you prefer the promise of what the Canons could be, right? Because if you want the ultimate in resolved detail, the Canons can't do it as well as the EX1 does.


A shallow focus can be less stressful on a codec, I guess; I know it can in terms of stills compression of which i have far more expertise, because it is simpler to 'describe' a simpler image - it has less information to communicate
This is correct. But none of the cameras being discussed have codec trouble, the 5D and 7D use a lot of bandwidth to overcome it. Well, at least, I haven't tested for codec trouble but I haven't noticed any in these two.


My understanding of moiree - as it is known in the stills game - alaising - is that it is an effect that happens when the frequency of the projected subject, comes close to the frequency of the pixel pitch
Aliasing is not moire. Moire is one example of how aliasing exhibits itself, and it is one of the most objectionable ways that aliasing exhibits itself. But aliasing happens in many ways, and moire is just one of the ways it shows itself.

For more on aliasing, check out the article in the articles section.


this is combatted with an AA filter that is deigned to blur the image before it occurs
Yes, but the problem with the HDSLRs is that they have such low ability to resolve true detail, if you used an appropriate AA filter that blocked out all
aliased detail, you'd end up with an image that's less than 720p.


I have, as stated, above owned two stills cameras that have no AA filter, I can tell you that my Kodak SRLn of 2004 or something still knocks any sub 20mp AA filter camera to bits for sharpness
Perceived sharpness, yes, but perhaps not actual resolved detail.


I know little about the 5d and 7d AA filters, but considering there is siginicant pixel pitch difference between the cameras one can assume they are very different in design, both aimed at optimising stills performance and may or may not have a different influence on video performance
They are unquestionably optimized for still performance, and they have pretty much *no* effect on video performance. The 5D and 7D (and GH1 and K-X and any other DSLR) are pretty much operating as if they had no AA filter when in video mode.


The fact that the 5d fails the zone tests at a point where pixel pitch closes to test chart is no suprise possiblly pointing to a situation where it is actually sharper when recording an image out of phase with the pixel pitch - in the same way as the Hassy and the SLRn are very sharp then fail dismally
Did you look at the zone plate? The 5D fails at about 500 lines. Your EX1 can easily handle in excess of 800 lines. That's why I'm telling you, regardless of any romanticizing of the 5D, that the EX1 is unquestionably going to be sharper and clearer in resolving detail.


You see (at the bottom of the page) that the filterless camera suffers worse on the test chart, but is clearly sharper on real world subjects the rope and the dollar bill showing that test charts to not always reflect real world sharpness
Test charts always reflect resolving power. Always. That's inherently what they do. What you're showing is that aliasing adds to the "perceived" sharpness. But it is not actually making the image sharper. You proved it for yourself, using the bar codes. And your 5D will perform the same.

Aliasing lets spurious detail through, that can indeed affect a person's perception of how sharp it is. But it's not accurate detail, and it moves and moires and confuses and muddles up the image.

There's a reason that camera manufacturers design AA filters specifically to remove that spurious alias detail!

Barry_Green
10-30-2009, 09:44 AM
Didn't know that it was possible to aliase an image , I thought that aliasing had to do with rescaling a high resolution image to half or a third of its orginal size .
Check it out here.
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=187503

Barry_Green
10-30-2009, 09:49 AM
but given some more random subject matter, rope, dollar bills, the Filterless camera Beats the camera with a filter
But -- and please, follow along with me on this -- ONLY BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT PROPERLY RECREATING THE IMAGE PUT IN FRONT OF THEM!

Please, read the aliasing article at http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=187503. Look at the shots of the res chart, I think it will make everything become a lot more clear (pun intended).


Just because a camera moirees it does not mean it cannot resolve (out side of that moiree environment) - check out the images at the bottom of the page
Yes, it does -- inherently, that's exactly what it means! The presence of moire means that you have exceeded the camera's ability to resolve detail! The moire is false detail, fake, invented, and not real.


(Those who question the relevance of my test image; off angles, circles, cloth, should therefore possibly reconsider its value as potentialy a more relevant test than a test chart)
Again, ONLY if you don't care that it's not represented accurately!

Barry_Green
10-30-2009, 09:52 AM
Im saying the 7d is not as good as either of them and that the terrible zone plate test result for the 5d may be somewhat misleading
Unfortunately I must point out the inherent impossibility in this statement. The zone plate is the hard cold truth. What's misleading is the scenes where the failings don't show up. The DSLRs use "cheats" to create their detail, and by and large, they get away with it. The zone plate doesn't let them cheat, it removes the "smoke and mirrors" and shows what the hard, stone cold reality is.


My opinion is that the 5d (when not filming wires or brides) and the EX1 meet my personal expectation of detail while the 7d does not
I do believe that that might be a romanticized opinion, remembering it more fondly than it actually performed. I think if you put the 5D and the 7D together, as Kholi has done, you'll find that they perform pretty much identically in video mode.

Kholi
10-30-2009, 09:55 AM
I do believe that that might be a romanticized opinion, remembering it more fondly than it actually performed. I think if you put the 5D and the 7D together, as Kholi has done, you'll find that they perform pretty much identically in video mode.

Been saying this since the 7D got into the hands of users... They are pretty much identical and, if anything, the 7D has the edge on image quality thanks to updated compression and technology. And even THAT needs to be scientifically measured, something I have no~ time to do. LoL

I dunno how Barry finds the time or Patience. O_o;

morgan_moore
11-01-2009, 09:14 AM
Thanks for your thoughts,

Barry I still dont see you acknowledging the D200 test of 'why charts can fail'

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=188981

I have strated testing aginst the 5d

Another reasons that charts may 'fail' is that in the real world the 5d has less DOF and can use its bit ber frame to represent sharp parts of the image better (this is just a theory)

S

astigmatic
11-04-2009, 02:30 AM
does the 7d resolve more detail in lower lighting situations than the ex1? I'm thinking once the ex1 ups the gain, resolution goes out the window. Where in that same lighting scenario, the 5d keeps up a very clean image, thus resolving more detail. This is perhaps why people in real world situations think these cams are sharper than the ex1.

morgan_moore
11-04-2009, 05:30 AM
I started this whole thread using the EX1 as a kind of 'reference of expectation' for the 7d

I think DSLR sharpness perception is mainly driven by narrow DOF popping the subject off the background

I think the EX1 would be noisier in low light but this is not the reason for the sharpness perception

BTW

Testing against the 5d I have found them to be similar in ability to resolve the 5 having a weaker filter look, meaning that it is a little sharper but more alaised, the 5d is less noisy

I think that using the 7 requires costly primes in a way that the 5 does not to be made to pull off the 'sharp' illusion

I think that poor wideangle perception of images is actually the lack of DOF compared to a small chip camera

currently Im thinking I will stick with them both and despose of the 7 when the firmware becomes available

at the time of purchases word on the street was that no firmware would become available for the 5, this was an outrageous lack of comms from canon that pushed me to the 7

S

ASG
11-04-2009, 05:39 AM
The resolving power of the 7 or 5 for that matter is so low I'm not convinced the quality of the glass makes a significant difference to the apparent sharpness of the video image. You only have to compare a still with video grab to prove it - even cheap lenses like sigmas produce very good quality sharp stills, not so in video mode. So it's not the lens.

Ian-T
11-04-2009, 07:23 AM
Ha ha…I got to laugh at all of these complaints about resolving power etc. I’ll say this…it does not matter. The only time it matters is if you are comparing cameras or trying to match footage with a higher resolving camera. But other than that no one is going to tell….”hmm…this cam doesn’t resolve well.” Fact is….they still look sharp. I mean….no one cared about resolving issues when the 5Dll first came out. It just looked darn good in…”what it can do.” LOL

From as many movies and movie trailers I have watched I can say that not all FILM have the same resolving power either. But you don’t hear people complaining about that. I never worked with film but I can imagine that not all film stocks are the same. Some go for this or that for its resolution, color. Grain, yada, yada, yada. They are all different. I look at all of these DSLRs as different kinds of film stocks having their own characteristics. Now it’s up to you to go and choose your poison. One will prefer the GH-1 for its (fill in the blank_____) while the other will choose the 7D/5Dll for their (fill in the blank______) while another will choose Kodak Film for its (fill in the blank______) etc. That list can keep going on and on. It’s just crazy to see folks getting up in arms and defending their choice of camera as if it were their offspring.

I had an HV20 for a few years….and most people (including myself) loved using its Cinemode feature. Now….we know that the HV20 resolves details better than a 5Dll….but when using Cinemode in the HV20…detail is not as good as when you are using it in its standard mode…yet…we all still loved to use Cinemode. It just looked better for post production (regardless…it did not look as good as these DSLRs…and yes…even the crappy codec ridden D90). Not all cameras resolve the same kind of detail…but that does in no way dictate which cam is better than which in regards to their overall image. Ergonomically one could make a good case against these DSLRs….but for me it’s all about the final picture and coming from an HV20 I’m used to cutting corners to get a good image (or an image that I like)..

The 7D does not look soft to me….neither does the 5Dll or GH-1. If you put them side by side with an EX-1 then my perception of sharpness is likely to change. Leave them separate and I’ll probably give the same answer every time which is….I love what I see from these DSLRs over what I see from the EX-1. If you put all these cameras together and somehow make them work seamlessly then I’ll say....”more power to you.” It’s no different from a professional trying to match up two very different types of film for a feature. If they can get away with it then more power to them. If they can’t…then it just might end up being distracting.

SPZ
11-04-2009, 09:10 AM
I'm currently editing a video that has footage from an HVX200, HVX200+ Brevis, EX1 and just a bit of 7D. In sharpness, the 7D is about the same to what I get with the HVX without adapter. Since I-ve sucessfully been able to broadcast HVX 200 footage with and without 35mm adapter to International TV Stations, the 7D sharpness doesn't seem like much of a concern to me. I bought the 7D not as a replacement to my HVX, but as a complement.

Someone talked about the quailty of the glass not influencing the picture. Well, I can confirm that it does, and in a big way: color can change from a top lens to a "cheapo", Bokeh, even sharpness. For the 7D I have currently the 16-35 L and the EF 28-200 (no stabilization). The difference between them is very, very noticeable-to the point of me being seriously considering both the 24-70 and the very expensive 70-200, for latter use when Canon comes out with their proper Video camera, which should be soon (this is a small hunch from no source whatsoever) ;)

morgan_moore
11-04-2009, 09:15 AM
The resolving power of the 7 or 5 for that matter is so low I'm not convinced the quality of the glass makes a significant difference to the apparent sharpness of the video image. You only have to compare a still with video grab to prove it - even cheap lenses like sigmas produce very good quality sharp stills, not so in video mode. So it's not the lens.

Indeed but for the image to 'pop' you need narrow DOF which is easier to create with the 5 or with expensive cine primes at the wide end

There are not many 2 or 2.8 options that are cheap less than 20mm

especailly if you want the convenience of zooms

S

dcloud
11-04-2009, 09:39 AM
I'm currently editing a video that has footage from an HVX200, HVX200+ Brevis, EX1 and just a bit of 7D. In sharpness, the 7D is about the same to what I get with the HVX without adapter. Since I-ve sucessfully been able to broadcast HVX 200 footage with and without 35mm adapter to International TV Stations, the 7D sharpness doesn't seem like much of a concern to me. I bought the 7D not as a replacement to my HVX, but as a complement.

Someone talked about the quailty of the glass not influencing the picture. Well, I can confirm that it does, and in a big way: color can change from a top lens to a "cheapo", Bokeh, even sharpness. For the 7D I have currently the 16-35 L and the EF 28-200 (no stabilization). The difference between them is very, very noticeable-to the point of me being seriously considering both the 24-70 and the very expensive 70-200, for latter use when Canon comes out with their proper Video camera, which should be soon (this is a small hunch from no source whatsoever) ;)

agreed. ive been scouting for lenses and its really hard to find great lenses without the high price :(

Kholi
11-04-2009, 09:42 AM
Indeed but for the image to 'pop' you need narrow DOF which is easier to create with the 5 or with expensive cine primes at the wide end

There are not many 2 or 2.8 options that are cheap less than 20mm

especailly if you want the convenience of zooms

S

I don't understand what you mean at all. You mean to create a decent image you need to throw things out of focus? Trying to understand what you mean and how it's relevant to the quality of glass?

Kholi
11-04-2009, 09:44 AM
The resolving power of the 7 or 5 for that matter is so low I'm not convinced the quality of the glass makes a significant difference to the apparent sharpness of the video image. You only have to compare a still with video grab to prove it - even cheap lenses like sigmas produce very good quality sharp stills, not so in video mode. So it's not the lens.

It only takes slapping on a cheap lens and then a Canon L or Zeiss prime and comparing the two images to see this.

I've got a cheap-ass 17-35/2.8~4 Tamron zoom and bet your money that I can tell the difference between this @ 35 F4 and my Zeiss Contax 35 @ F4.

If you want an even easier way to compare, just use the camera's zoom function. Focus on any object and zoom in, check what it looks like then switch the lens.

The glass absolutely, undoubtedly matters.

Ian-T
11-04-2009, 10:49 AM
The resolving power of the 7 or 5 for that matter is so low I'm not convinced the quality of the glass makes a significant difference to the apparent sharpness of the video image. You only have to compare a still with video grab to prove it - even cheap lenses like sigmas produce very good quality sharp stills, not so in video mode. So it's not the lens.
Huh? Tell me something....what video camera (other than Red maybe) do you know of that can resolve its image just as good as its stills capability? What video camera do you use? Have you compared its still and video grab? i assure you unless you are coming out via HDMI or SDI whatever compression and color scheme it uses will muddy up the image as compared to the still capture of the very same image.

mtan
11-04-2009, 11:44 AM
It think it all depends on what you are after. If you are primarily a filmmaker then the most absolutely high resolution detail might not be as important as other factors, so long as it is a nice clean image. The 7d can certainly produce a nice clean image and i think many of the 7d videos I have seen are amazing.

However if you are expecting a crisp high resolution image then you might be disappointed. I expected more when I bought the camera since it advertises as 1920 X 1080p. How would I expect the hv20 to have better resolution at 1440 X 1080i and being $1000 cheaper? I read a lot of these forums and never saw anything about the the hv20 having a better resolution image than the canon dslrs, otherwise i certainly never would have bought the 7d.

Thank goodness I still have an hv30 and will use that primarily for my purposes. I like the still capabilities of the 7d but it is too expensive for just that purpose.

Not sure what i am going to do, maybe I will sell the 7d whenever the next camera comes out and I will withhold buying any lenses or accessories for the 7d. I feel sort of misled by Canon with this purchase, just my personal feeling.

Not to take away from the positives of the camera though, it is great tool for professionals who can work miracles in post, I don't have the skills or patience to spend that much time on my footage.

astigmatic
11-04-2009, 12:16 PM
Knowing that the ex1 is tact sharp... i bet one can pump the gain up to get close to the lowlight of the 7d, then run a de-noiser such has neatvideo, do a sharpen.. and end up with about the same resolution as the canon. Throw in a 35mm adapter and crush the blacks and I bet the picture quality would be pretty close.

Kholi
11-04-2009, 12:20 PM
Knowing that the ex1 is tact sharp... i bet one can pump the gain up to get close to the lowlight of the 7d, then run a de-noiser such has neatvideo, do a sharpen.. and end up with about the same resolution as the canon. Throw in a 35mm adapter and crush the blacks and I bet the picture quality would be pretty close.

Well, there are other anomalies that come with the 35mm Adapter other than lowlight.

So while that's slightly true, it's a bit trickier.

astigmatic
11-04-2009, 12:36 PM
Here's a test i did with the sony fx1000 with sgblade's filmic rr2 glass. I didn't up the gain or run neatvideo, but I did crush the blacks and increased the color depth in camera. I also white balanced towards yellow in camera... I think one could easily pass this off as hdlsr footage..
7198249

Kholi
11-04-2009, 12:56 PM
For anyone that doesn't really know what they're looking at, sure. However, diffusion etc all have a distinct 35mm Adapter look. The closest I think you can get to a DSLR image with an Adapter is a G35 or SGpro and those still have a distinct look.

Barry_Green
11-04-2009, 12:59 PM
Throw in a 35mm adapter and crush the blacks and I bet the picture quality would be pretty close.
An EX1 with a good adapter will outdo a DSLR all day long. Better sharpness, better dynamic range, better overall.

But the point is, that EX1 with an adapter is going to be minimum $7500. The DSLR is $1500 to $2500.

bwwd
11-04-2009, 01:08 PM
I dont know... better sharpness ? but 7d image is rescaled from 5k not upscaled from 720 lines like charts are telling us,every line is just from different place ,they are far from each other when thrown into 1080 resolution so it creates jaggies and moire.
Barry its not the same as upscaling 720p to 1080p.It doesnt have blur created by upscaling,it has sharp edges and jaggies because of wrong downscaling algorithm.
Lets compare ,720p upscaled to 1080p and 1080p straight from 7D.
EX1 doesnt have better sharpness than 7D just because downscaling in 7D is terrible and creates moire,stairstepping and jaggies.
But i agree that its big problem when everything is in focus,you can see moire and jaggies easily.

Kellar42
11-04-2009, 01:21 PM
The Ex1 resolves a hell of a lot more detail than any of the DLRS. Look around for the charts...

Barry_Green
11-04-2009, 01:28 PM
Yes better sharpness. Look at a chart, or shoot a page of text, with progressively smaller letters. You'll be able to read the EX1's letters easier and clearer than you would a 7D (or 5D or GH1).

The DSLR's don't have all that much actual resolved detail, especially in comparison to a class-leader like the EX1 or HPX300.

astigmatic
11-04-2009, 01:38 PM
For anyone that doesn't really know what they're looking at, sure. However, diffusion etc all have a distinct 35mm Adapter look. The closest I think you can get to a DSLR image with an Adapter is a G35 or SGpro and those still have a distinct look.

actually I'm using the same ground glass as found on the original SGpro. I should post a sample of a higher gain test i did that I denoised then sharpened. It disturbingly took on that crispy smooth quality the canon dslrs have.

bwwd
11-04-2009, 01:46 PM
i think youre right ,so is there something to count if it has 1080 individual lines or only 700 but some are doubled to achieve 1080p?

morgan_moore
11-04-2009, 02:05 PM
I dont think expensive lenses make that much difference

most 50 1.8s are the same

BUT

you cant get an 18 F2, for example, cheaply or at all maybe

Such a lens would make the 7d 'pop'

The 5d looks more cinematic at f4 or 5.6 (IMO it looks stupid open at 2 or 1.4)

purchasing F4 or 3.5 lenses is cheap, also some cheaper 2.8s work better at 3.5/4

S

Kholi
11-04-2009, 02:20 PM
I dont think expensive lenses make that much difference

most 50 1.8s are the same

BUT

you cant get an 18 F2, for example, cheaply or at all maybe

Such a lens would make the 7d 'pop'

The 5d looks more cinematic at f4 or 5.6 (IMO it looks stupid open at 2 or 1.4)

purchasing F4 or 3.5 lenses is cheap, also some cheaper 2.8s work better at 3.5/4

S

I'm not sure how this one is missed, but aside from resolving power, sharpness both It's very obvious that A-Grade glass makes a difference. If you have primo glass and cheap glass, do the comparison yourself. You don't need to get scientific, just point the camera at something-- a logo or text-- and focus on it. Then switch lenses, use the x10 zoom to double check focus and you'll see the difference immediately.

No, you can't find a cheap 18/2 but you can get superb performance out of the Canon and Nikon zooms, my preference beeing the 14-24/2.8 Nikon and 17-35/2.8 Nikon. Both of which are stellar.

I do agree that the MKii should be shot somewhere around 4-5.6 Split, but there are applications where wide open can be useful. Adverse to that, you don't have to shoot 4 or 5.6 split with the 7D. You can shoot 2.8 - 4 and get more light than you would with the MKii @ 4 - 5.6.

Cheap glass in video mode will give cheap results, I stand by this one from viewing similar focal lengths side-by-side. Zooms and Primes. If you're someone concerned about resolved detail, you absolutely want to consider purchasing THE best glass you can afford.

Again, my 35mm Zeiss Contax versus my 17-35mm Tamron Zoom @ 35mm, there is an OBVIOUS difference. As well, even my Zeiss Cy Zoom at 28, 35, and 50 versus my 28, 35 and 50mm Zeiss primes (all @ F4 or 5.6) loses in the resolved detail and sharpness categories.

I'm on the verge of getting my Zeiss ZF set (21 - 100mm primes) and will comment back on those, I have a feeling the updated optics do out perform the C/Y but we'll see.

Also, gonna grab some Takumars. Namely a wide and a telephoto since I have a mediumish. Specifically because of their vintage color cast and softness.

ASG
11-04-2009, 02:56 PM
Maybe my cheap lenses aren't as cheap as your cheap lenses :) My main interest is wides, as an example I have the sigma 10-20 f4-5.6 and the sigma 20 f1.8. Stills performance is more than adequate for my needs and I often use them for timelapse. But in video mode would I really see a better image from a zeiss distagon? I would doubt it as this is where the camera really falls down, super wide deep dof. So I guess I have to keep using my video cam for wides, but you can't get wide adapters for video cams that go as wide as an SLR wide without suffering chroma fringing, soft edges and distortion.

Another example - I have a nikkor 50 f1.2. If I takes stills at 1.2 or zoom in to 10x to set focus in video mode at 1.2 the image on the LCD is very diffuse, almost promist looking, which I hate, so I stop down to 1.4 and it is much improved. But that obvious difference between 1.2 and 1.4 really doesn't show up in the video, especially after you apply sharpening in post (which is basically a must as far as I'm concerned, YMMV).

So that's my experience and where I'm coming from. The quality of the video is such a dissappointment to me I wouldn't consider spending the money on expensive lenses, especially when the next best camera could be a different brand :)

Ian-T
11-04-2009, 03:51 PM
actually I'm using the same ground glass as found on the original SGpro. I should post a sample of a higher gain test i did that I denoised then sharpened. It disturbingly took on that crispy smooth quality the canon dslrs have.In good light...I don't see why it wouldn't. But in low light...both the DSLR and EX-1 shooting the same thing....it's no contest. The DSLR wins. And....if you try to compensate for the difference by raising the gain in the EX-1...then here comes the noise which will.....soften the image. Now you are back at square one leaving you to decide which compromise you like better. They both have their strengths and weaknesses.

Ian-T
11-04-2009, 03:55 PM
Here's a test i did with the sony fx1000 with sgblade's filmic rr2 glass. I didn't up the gain or run neatvideo, but I did crush the blacks and increased the color depth in camera. I also white balanced towards yellow in camera... I think one could easily pass this off as hdlsr footage..
I see what you are trying to do but it really looks more like a DSLR with a very slow lens. Once you raise the gain in post noise will appear and saturation lost.

Ian-T
11-04-2009, 04:04 PM
Also, gonna grab some Takumars.
Once I get my camera I'm going to try my Super Takumar F1.4 lens. I'm glad I hung on to it.

Question for you...but if you recall Rodney Charters some weeks back had this HUGE cinema lens on the 7D. Would a lens like that have made any difference with the charts Barry shot recently?

ASG
11-04-2009, 04:16 PM
I've got a cheap-ass 17-35/2.8~4 Tamron zoom and bet your money that I can tell the difference between this @ 35 F4 and my Zeiss Contax 35 @ F4.

The glass absolutely, undoubtedly matters.

I'd love to see grabs just to see how much difference it really makes.

astigmatic
11-04-2009, 05:25 PM
I see what you are trying to do but it really looks more like a DSLR with a very slow lens. Once you raise the gain in post noise will appear and saturation lost.

my point is that if you gain up, all you have to do is run a de-noiser and sharpen filter in post to get rid of the EX1 grain and you may just l end up with about as sharp and clean image as the 7d. Also you can bump up the color depth in-camera to compensate for the low-light.

Kholi
11-04-2009, 06:09 PM
Maybe my cheap lenses aren't as cheap as your cheap lenses :) My main interest is wides, as an example I have the sigma 10-20 f4-5.6 and the sigma 20 f1.8. Stills performance is more than adequate for my needs and I often use them for timelapse. But in video mode would I really see a better image from a zeiss distagon?

I bet money that you would.


I would doubt it as this is where the camera really falls down, super wide deep dof. So I guess I have to keep using my video cam for wides, but you can't get wide adapters for video cams that go as wide as an SLR wide without suffering chroma fringing, soft edges and distortion.

Again, I bet money on it. A 21/2.8 Zeiss ZF or C/Y Distagon versus yoru 20/1.8 Sigma @ 2.8. In video mode, there WILL be a difference.



Another example - I have a nikkor 50 f1.2. If I takes stills at 1.2 or zoom in to 10x to set focus in video mode at 1.2 the image on the LCD is very diffuse, almost promist looking, which I hate, so I stop down to 1.4 and it is much improved. But that obvious difference between 1.2 and 1.4 really doesn't show up in the video, especially after you apply sharpening in post (which is basically a must as far as I'm concerned, YMMV).Are you using this on a 7D? 1.2 - 1.4 really isn't a major differnce to begin with. 2.8 - 4 is. Again, if you're using it on a 7D just push the zoom in button and check. Nothing scientific needed.



So that's my experience and where I'm coming from. The quality of the video is such a dissappointment to me I wouldn't consider spending the money on expensive lenses, especially when the next best camera could be a different brand :)I dont' disgree that the video is a disappointment, however I do disagree that the lens does not make a difference. It surely does. It's not even that hard to prove.

Kholi
11-04-2009, 06:11 PM
Once I get my camera I'm going to try my Super Takumar F1.4 lens. I'm glad I hung on to it.

Question for you...but if you recall Rodney Charters some weeks back had this HUGE cinema lens on the 7D. Would a lens like that have made any difference with the charts Barry shot recently?

The Charts? No. IN fact, if anything I think it'll make it WORSE because the lens is going to resolve so much detail, the aliasing would go crazy. I haven't tested it, though.

So nah, I don't think it would have helped but I am damned pressed that a Nikon 35/2 or 1.4 Versus a Cine Lens or even a Zeiss ZF will show plenty difference. I dunno if it has to do with micro contrast and all of those other attributes, but I do stand by this.

I have the 50/1.4 Super Takumar and it looks so nice on the 7D. It's pretty sharp @ F4 for video, not as resolute as my 50/1.4 Zeiss C/Y.

Kholi
11-04-2009, 06:14 PM
I'd love to see grabs just to see how much difference it really makes.

I'm not the most efficient at getting test material up. If you do have the camera, though, I urge you to try it.

I'm in the writing process right now on a feature and I haven't touched my cameras in days, I'll try to get a worthy test scenario up just for stills.

Kholi
11-04-2009, 06:26 PM
One thought that I have is that it comes down to lens design. Not just one attribute, of course, but all. My Zeiss C/Y 50/1.4 looks softer @ 1.4 than the Super Takumar, but by 2.8 it's obviously sharper to my eyes, especially when zoomed in. Diffraction, Abberation, etc etc. All of that has an effect on the video image just the same as a still image.

The question's more if it's a major difference or enough to warrant the purchase of more expensive glass. That's a personal choice, though.

ASG
11-04-2009, 07:05 PM
Are you using this on a 7D? 1.2 - 1.4 really isn't a major differnce to begin with.

Yes I use that lens on the 7D. The difference is at 1.2 the lens blooms (not sure that's the right term) but everything has a diffuse look, like a promist filter. Stop down to 1.4 and it goes away. Same deal on the Sigma 20mm at f1.8, stop down to f2 and it looks much better. You can see this on the LCD when you are setting focus at 10x zoom.

But once you record the video that difference is not noticeable on the footage.

dcloud
11-04-2009, 07:08 PM
kholi how would you compare the tamron 17-50 2.8
i know its not a zeiss but is it good enough?

pix2pixels
11-15-2009, 02:25 AM
This 7D review looks a little bit disturbing:
http://darwinwiggett.wordpress.com/

Even put side by side as a stills camera, doesn't beat a G11, except for noise. I will be able to borrow a recent model, hopefully with a later serial number and test it.

Ian-T
11-15-2009, 07:46 AM
This 7D review looks a little bit disturbing:
http://darwinwiggett.wordpress.com/

Even put side by side as a stills camera, doesn't beat a G11, except for noise. I will be able to borrow a recent model, hopefully with a later serial number and test it.
Well...it seems a little fishy to me. If you read into the comments even the tester's own buddy (that lives near him) seems doubtful about his results.

Gordon Prince
11-15-2009, 03:56 PM
I think your comments are little flame-baity ('pants'...'sucks'...'lemon') but your photographs and frame grabs provide a useful test.I agree.

mtan
11-15-2009, 07:13 PM
Well...it seems a little fishy to me. If you read into the comments even the tester's own buddy (that lives near him) seems doubtful about his results.

I am not an expert at all with still photography but my photos seem pretty soft and all of my jpegs need an good amout of unsharpen mask even with sharpening at +4 on the camera.

morgan_moore
11-16-2009, 03:49 AM
I have not had a lot of time for continuted testing but I dont think there is any problem calling my 7d a 'lemon'

This means IMO a bad version

I think that my early model may be flawed in some way that leter models are not

We see around the inet various people posting the same issues while others rave about thier 7ds

If we assume that none of us are idiots, just photographers or videographers doing their best to find good tools for themselves, we must conclude that there is variance across models or batches of 7ds

My camera may very well be a lemon while other 7ds may not be

I will try to do more testing but it is difficult to fit in while I am also using my cams to make a living

S

mhood
11-16-2009, 04:23 AM
I would base the "lemon" conclusion upon actual files rather than the ravings and opinions of internet strangers. ;-)

Ian-T
11-16-2009, 05:51 AM
Just download and watch some “real-world” videos online. As of now there are plenty of them to compare yours with. If it’s a lemon just send it back for another one (non-lemon that is).

andrew00
11-16-2009, 01:10 PM
I'm currently having a tough time multi cam editing some live music, where one camera was an Ex1/Letus/50mm f1.4 and the other a 5d/24-70.

Live music often has awful colours for video - lots of harsh blue and magenta colours. The Ex1 is having a noisy old time with these and generally giving me grief. The 5d, w/superflat, is fearing a lot better.

In live situations too, the contrast tends to be mental as the lights are so bright, again the low contrast superflat is dealing with this very well.

The ex1 was set to a cine profile, I forget which - an old custom from the days we used to worry about them heh. Either way the image is horrible in comparison. The 5d looks much better.