5DII DOES 1080P footage!!!!!!

Otis Grapsas said:
The D90 is not full frame, so no difference with 35mm cine film or DOF adapters (these also crop the image, so more DOF). The 5D II is full frame, so for the same DOF with D90, multiply the aperture with 1.6x.

Candle light is not an extreme scenario. I have shot 2/3" at f1.4 and the DOF is quite usable. On a full frame you need f5.6 for the same DOF. Which is 16x less light. 24dB gain vs 0dB gain. ISO6400 vs ISO400.
Click to expand...

I get the feeling that you are trolling.

Too shallow DOF, too much rolling shutter, no night vision. IMHO your over exaggerating everything. The 5D Mk II rolling shutter is well in tolerance. Much better than the D90. Its low light performance is acceptable, and the image quality while still in question looks fine. If you take a RED One, zoom in, and start shaking the camera of course you will see distortions.

The clip you keep referring to tells us nothing. We have no idea about the settings used or lighting conditions, or if the final production unit will behave the same.

I will hold my final judgment until the unit is finally available, but the 5D Mk II promises a lot.

I'm not sure I understand the point your trying to make. There is no perfect solution, especially not for $2800.
 
Last edited:
infurno said:
I get the feeling that you are trolling.

Too shallow DOF, too much rolling shutter, no night vision. IMHO your over exaggerating everything. The 5D Mk II the rolling shutter is well in tolerance. Much better than the D90. Its low light performance is acceptable, and the image quality while still in question looks fine. If you take a RED One, zoom in, and start shaking the camera of course you will see distortions.

The clip you keep referring to tells us nothing. We have no idea about the settings used or lighting conditions, or if the final production unit will behave the same.

I will hold my final judgment until the unit is finally available, but the 5D Mk II promises a lot.

I'm not sure I understand the point your trying to make.
Click to expand...

I get the feeling that you are not reading carefully.

Point 1. A full frame camera has limited DOF, even compared to super35mm. This is an issue in low light and needs good low light performance in order to win the loss from stopping down. This is also true if you are comparing with an 1/3" or 2/3" camcorder and to a much larger degree. Having usable DOF makes you work at very high ISO on a full frame camera and that's demonstrated in the video clips mentioned on the thread (iso3200 etc).

Point 2. The rolling shutter does not look like something revolutionary or superior to other rolling shutters. How do you know the rolling shutter is much better than d90? From a couple of clips? Because it costs more? Did you test both side by side connected mehanicaly on equivalent field of view and shutter speed? I believe they are both typical cmos implementations for digital photography and should be quite similar and in a best case scenario, comparable to the Canon HV series of camcorders in rolling shutter performance.
 
Otis Grapsas said:
I get the feeling that you are not reading carefully.

Point 1. A full frame camera has limited DOF, even compared to super35mm. This is an issue in low light and needs good low light performance in order to win the loss from stopping down. This is also true if you are comparing with an 1/3" or 2/3" camcorder and to a much larger degree. Having usable DOF makes you work at very high ISO on a full frame camera and that's demonstrated in the video clips mentioned on the thread (iso3200 etc).

Point 2. The rolling shutter does not look like something revolutionary or superior to other rolling shutters. How do you know the rolling shutter is much better than d90? From a couple of clips? Because it costs more? Did you test both side by side connected mehanicaly on equivalent field of view and shutter speed? I believe they are both typical cmos implementations for digital photography and should be quite similar and in a best case scenario, comparable to the Canon HV series of camcorders in rolling shutter performance.
Click to expand...


I agree with the fundamental principals you cover in point 1. But the rest is only speculation. Both on my side and yours.
 
Well, in regards to the rolling shutter you CAN actually tell that the Canon is much better than the D90 with some of the test footage that we have already seen. I'm talking footage where the user is purposely shaking the cam side to side up and down and all around to show how much skew this cam produces. As a matter of fact his footage was all hand held. There was no wobble in any of his hand held movements and the skew happened "on purpose." One thing most of us noticed right away witht he D90 was during hand held shots, even with the slightest movement of the hand, there was a lot of wobble (Even worse than the HV20). The difference between the the rolling shutter artifacts (IMO) with the two cams are obvious.
 
Rolling shutter is obviously A LOT better than in the D90.
And if you want your "usable DOF" so badly, then I suggest you stick to those small sensor cams. Not like there aren't enough out there, amirite?
 
Some excellent CCD cameras up to $150,000, yes. Cameras that actually reduce the cost of shooting and the number of lost takes due to the deeper DOF that is considered a drawback by many, combined with low light capability. It's all a matter of perspective.
 
Otis Grapsas said:
Some excellent CCD cameras up to $150,000, yes. Cameras that actually reduce the cost of shooting and the number of lost takes due to the deeper DOF that is considered a drawback by many, combined with low light capability. It's all a matter of perspective.
Click to expand...

You must have missed the whole film adapter revolution over the last three years. The fact is people have been paying a bunch of extra money just so they CAN shoot with a shallower DOF. And they're paying huge penalties to get there - light loss, weight, complication, etc. So your point doesn't make any sense. Indie-filmmakers want shallow DOF - maybe too much. Using a 35mm adapter pretty much forces you to shoot wide open in many situation - even when you have a decent lighting package. Here's a chance to get the DOF without all the penalties. And the fact is over the years we've all been able to cut our teeth using 35mm adapters so we're ready to deal with full frame and DOF. This is EXACTLY why everyone is so excited about this DSLR.

Nobody reading on this board is looking for a camera that "reduces the cost of shooting and the number of lost takes due to deeper DOF" buy using cameras that have no DOF. We've already been there and we've done anything to get away from there including strapping light losing adapters onto our 3 chip CCD cameras and losing 2-3 stops of light in the process. Right from the start the Canon is already dynamically faster, easier, & better. Canon looks like it's still going to provide some hoops to jump through but they're going to be worth it compared to what we're going through now using adapters. Besides being CHEAPER. EX1 + Letus = double the price of Canon 5d mkII.

If you're so concerned about shallow DOF I suggest you shoot with a 35mm instead of an 85mm lens. That'll save you from stopping down to F4. Even though at F4 the 5d is probably still faster than any of the 3 chip HD video cameras out there. But hey you can still probably buy a VX-2000 that can practically see in the dark and has absolutely no DOF.
 
The 2/3" sony/panasonic camcorders are not infinite DOF cameras. (I guess you mean infinite DOF when you say zero DOF). They have shallow DOF capabilities, just like 16mm. They are 2/3" and can use fast lenses. They are not 1/3" f1.6 or 1/2" f1.9 limited like the more affordable camcorders.

The 5D II (and 1ds III) at f4 is nowhere near the low light performance of a 2/3" f1.4 CCD camera. The pixel size is similar or smaller. There are some high iso shots on dpreview.com for 5D II/1ds III.
 
Thebes said:
I am getting that feeling too.

I mean, OMG, I will have very shallow DOF if I put the camera 3 feet from the subject and shoot wide open? Who'd have thought it! </sarcasm>
Click to expand...

Sarcasm demands some prerequisites.

You might realise what I'm talking about if you try to shoot an interior with a full frame still camera. You have DOF limitations, lighting and focus pulling requirements somewhere between super35 and 65mm which is not fun. This directly translates to added cost. The DV revolution would not have happened if the sensors were 35mm. Anyway, enough HTML spend on the topic.
 
So, it's full lighting crew versus focus puller? I'll take the focus puller, even though I disagree with you as to their necessity.

Your opinion places you in a DISTINCT minority here. The advantages this larger sensor offers for night shots simply unobtainable by other formats significantly outweighs any DOF concerns. This is what we've all been waiting for, and it's only going to get better. Amazing things can and will come from this.

And listen, I enjoy healthy dissent, but what is your real purpose here? People are excited about this thing - how does that threaten you?

Anyway, back on topic. We were talking about a full frame, ~2K video SLR, I believe?
 
This is the Nikon D90 section, right? The Nikon has deeper DOF similar to super35, intraframe compression, 24p and 1/3 the pricetag. I don't understand the Canon superiority in this case and how defensive users (non users really) get in a discussion about real practical issues about the 5D II.
 
Otis Grapsas said:
This is the Nikon D90 section, right? The Nikon has deeper DOF similar to super35, intraframe compression, 24p and 1/3 the pricetag. I don't understand the Canon superiority in this case and how defensive users (non users really) get in a discussion about real practical issues about the 5D II.
Click to expand...

The superiority lies in the sensor. The sensor will be far superior to the D90 in low light. Of course there is also 1080p vs the 720p of the D90. Also, there is very little if any rolling shutter in the 5DII. If you want to do whip pans, then buy something else.
 
Otis Grapsas said:
This is the Nikon D90 section, right?
Click to expand...

Read the thread title. And the Nikon jellos from an ant fart.

Better products will follow from all camps, but just admit that the Canon is currently a VASTLY superior (though still flawed) acquisition device. The results seen thus far demonstrate this simple fact so clearly that to deny it is to admit to some major deficiency between the ears (or ulterior motive?). Barring a negative change from production units, as it stands, Canon wins this round by a knockout.

I know, don't feed the trolls - so can somebody else post more footage so we can move on?
 
Otis Grapsas said:
You might realise what I'm talking about if you try to shoot an interior with a full frame still camera.
Click to expand...

I come from a still photo background and I've owned more 35mm still cameras than my wife has owned shoes. I've also owned at least a dozen medium formats and a dozen view cameras including an 8x10. I realize what DOF will be in almost any shot with a 35mm sized sensor. Often, especially with f2.8 zooms, I am disappointed with the 1 stop deeper DOF with APS-C sized sensors... I don't normally shoot wide open but I like the ability to have very shallow DOF when I want it. I also like wide angle lenses, and APS-C cameras end up with very deep DOF as you start using shorter lenses. Unless the camera is almost on top of the subject, with 2/3" and a wide angle lens you will have deep DOF

Given that the Canon offers at least 1 stop better low light performance than the D90, I don't see how having 1 stop shallower (roughly) DOF is a problem. It increases my creative control. Oh, and if I want even more DOF control I can use a Tilt Shift lens! Coming from largely a view camera background that means a lot more to me than the supposedly better low light performance of a $20k 2/3" jumbo cam which takes $5k lenses.... If I had that kind of money and wanted a large rig I'd get a RED One.

Btw, I've been doing pull focus myself hand held on my D90 without too many takes. On a tripod its really pretty easy. None of it has cost be money. I haven't needed any more lighting than I have with my HV20, and I never use more than a 200 watt flo bank, a large CF or two, plus maybe a 150 watt CDM fresnel... really pretty cheap and minimal.

Your issues are not issues, at least to me and most of the other people here in the D90 forum.
 
Hi Thebes,

Sometimes, what is accetable for a still is not acceptable or practical for video. A still uses autofocus, captures a single moment and sometimes misses on wide open apertures. On a video shot you have to capture subject in motion, sometimes with camera in motion. I like the older 5D a lot for stills vs the smaller sensor Canons, especially for its much larger pixels. One issue I have seen is wide and extreme wide angle, the full frame lenses are inferior compared to the new designs for the crop factor because they are older designs for film. More distortion and softer edges.

An f2.8 zoom such as the one offered with Red One, is an f4.2 equivalent aperture on the 5d II. Cost of lenses does give an advantage to the full frame sensor.

Comparing to HV20 is not very fair, it has tiny pixels and dark fixed lens at a fraction of the cost.

I just want to present the DOF issue so that everyone coming from smaller sensors will be aware of it.

I like the TS lenses. I have shot architecture and commercial photography with it. Very powerful in the DOF department.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top