5D/7D comparison

[Kholi]

Chart to chart you may be right - but you cant take out the glass from your real world uses

S

You're not incorrect. My personal experience, though, I can safely eliminate glass as an issue. Was using Contax Zeiss and now added Zeiss ZF/ZE's to the mix. I use the same glass on both cameras, so sort-of moots the glass arguement for me.

I say that because you also have to factor in the FOV or CROP between the cameras. It can get tricky. The 21/2.8 is incredible on both cameras, but of course the edge performance may "seem" better on the 7D because of the smaller coverage area. Using more of the center versus the Full Frame using much more. So the edges could seem bad, soft, etc etc.

ALl I know is I'm quite okay using that sucker wide open~

 

[morgan_moore]

I believe your 21mm ziess may look good, even fantastic on your 7 even wide open

That lists at $1500 dollars

Probably as good as my 35-70 F3.5 nikkor at 5.6 which I got for $80 and not a lot wider (on my 5)

Want wider than 21mm ? - dig very deep into your pockets

S

 

[Kholi]

Not a lot wider? the 21/2.8 covers Full Frame... It works just as fantastic on the 5D. Edges and all.

Only reason I didn't get the 18/3.5 is because, well, it's a 3.5. 3mm wider than the 21 and the 21's a heap better on distortion.

Only lens I wish I had that's wider (and will get in January or February) is the 14-24/2.8 Nikon, but have to wait to find a very good adapter for it.

 

[morgan_moore]

Here we costs of zeiss..

http://www.dalephotoanddigital.com/mfg_dept.aspx?mfg_id=1209745626

And comparison to a nikkor 14-24 which gives most of them in one go..

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/distagon-18mm.shtml

S

 

[morgan_moore]

Not a lot wider? the 21/2.8 covers Full Frame... It works just as fantastic on the 5D. .

a 21 on a 7d is not a lot wider than a 35 on a 5d - that is waht I meant

and certainly similar to a 28 on a 5d - and a decent 28mm prime that works at 4/5.6 is 1/10th of the cost of your Z

 

[Kholi]

a 21 on a 7d is not a lot wider than a 35 on a 5d - that is waht I meant

and certainly similar to a 28 on a 5d - and a decent 28mm prime that works at 4/5.6 is 1/10th of the cost of your Z

Of course not. I'm talking about the 21 on the 5D and the 7D, both of which I still have and use. Tested 21 on the 5D as well for a slow mo test insert and it rocks pretty hard. Is it worth it? I absolutely think so.

Just as much as it's worth it to purchase the 14-24/2.8. Again, gonna grab that one asap for run-n-gun application. I STILL prefer the focus throw and operation of prime lenses over zooms in a production/video environment.

But, that's why I said glass aside, because if you have really nice glass and you're using it on both cameras, the differences are minute OR, and I still stand by it, the 7D looks slightly better.

 

[morgan_moore]

You are not wrong - but I believe the purpose/value of the thread is about choosing the 7 or the 5

Owning both cameras and a set of Z primes is a nice option if you have the cash

IMO

Given a lens budget of say $1000 for the 5d and $1500 for the 7d I feel that one can get better results (not chart but real world) with a 5

Given my personal desire to go more RnG and operate with a couple of zooms (at the expense of some performance compared to the primes I own too) I think the gap opens even more in favour of the 5

S

 

[RKW914]

Bought the 7D. Makes for the most accurate S35 director's viewfinder!

 

[Kholi]

You are not wrong - but I believe the purpose/value of the thread is about choosing the 7 or the 5

Owning both cameras and a set of Z primes is a nice option

IMO

Given a lens budget of say $1000 for the 5d and $1500 for the 7d I feel that one can get better results (not chart but real world) with a 5

S

Hmmmm.... I dunno. That would take a lot more than just factoring cost. You would have to shoot with both of your camera setups under the same scenario to come to a solid conclusion.

It's hard to say, and will just come down to shooting situation and preference. =(

 

[morgan_moore]

Well I do shoot a lot and that is my personal conclusion - which pains me because I cant flog my 5 and 24-105, keeping the 7 and 16-55, which is the financially attractive option

I cant get a decent 'master' - a wide complex shot off my 7d

I can make my 5d look IMO cinematic by shooting at F4 5.6 or 8

S

 

[morgan_moore]

IMO the 5d looks cinematic with cheap primes used stopped down a little.. ( from what I can remember of the settings)

Compared to the $1500nikkor G 80-200 2.8 at 2.8 which is not 'cinematic' with the crazy OOF bacground.. (5d)

And the 7d with tokina 16-55 - which IMO just looks poop

But the 7d looks ok with a 50mm 1.4 at 2.8 and sharpening at +3

 

[RKW914]

What about when you need to shoot interiors?...at night.

 

[morgan_moore]

You put your 5d into 'turbo mode' shoot at F2 and forget looking cinematic - cinema has never seen unlit interiors at night so there is no visual expectation !

 

[Kholi]

You put your 5d into 'turbo mode' shoot at F2 and forget looking cinematic - cinema has never seen unlit interiors at night so there is no visual expectation !

LoL Wut?

In defense of the MKii, although it's a very different aesthetic, you CAN shoot wide open and adjust your choice of focal lengths.

Instead of using a 35 as your primary, you use a 50. You could shoot with a 50ish and just bare the unconventional aesthetic? But, it should be close enough @ 2.8~4 split.

Err, I think; it's late.

 

[yoclay]

Excuse me I must jump in here again (though I am breaking a rule for myself). There is an assumption here which in my opinon is largely unaddressed for whatever it's worth.


Just because the sensor of the 7D is closer in size to an Academy frame doesn't mean it will necessarily yield a more cinematic look.

Why?


1st) ASPECT RATIO

An academy size frame has an aspect ratio of 1.375:1

Both Canon sensors have virtually the same aspect ratio.

7D: 22.3 x 14.9 = 1.4966:1
5D: 36 x 24 = 1.5:1

Thus their aspect ratio more closely resembles each other than an Academy frame.

Further, they both shoot 16:9 in HD movie mode, essentially yielding the same format with an aspect ratio of 1.77:1 (even further away from an Academy ratio).

Thus they will more closely resemble each other than a cinema frame. Don't forget the aspect ratio also has a bearing on the relationship between a subject and it's background or the "overall look". Or to put it more brutally, in terms of their video output they will both probably more closely resemble the image on a nice 16:9 television set than the standard cinema screen.

2nd) PHOTOGRAPHIC LENSES NOT CINEMA ONES
Don't forget whichever Canon camera you choose, we are talking photography lenses here, not cinema ones. Two photographic lenses with an equivalent horizontal field of view respective of their different sensor sizes and given the similarity of their aspect ratios will essentially behave in a more similar way (notwithstanding the individual characteristics of every respective lens) than their counterparts in the world of cinema.

Cinema lenses are designed with a long throw and for minimal breathing in order to more easily pull focus. In order to maintain sharpness through the entire range of stops they often have more lens elements. Correspondingly, they generally compress the image in a different way than their photographic counterparts.

It is for this reason that a still photography 24mm lens on a 7D will not necesarily look any more cinematic in terms of image compression than a still photography 35mm lens on a 5D. On the contrary, it may be just the opposite. As lenses become wider in the world of photography the throw narrows beyond 1.5 meters to the point where a subject is not easily separated from the background and it is virtually impossible to pull focus or isolate it. In being forced to use a wider lens for a normal 50mm lens for instance, it means that a 7D user will have less throw than their 5D counterpart. Thus less capacity to isolate the subject. This is going in the opposite direction of cinema lenses or a "cinematic look" if you will.

Now if you were to put PL mount Cinema lenses on one of these cameras the 7D would obviously be the better choice in terms of focal plane coverage and the "look" which comes from Cookes, Masterprimes etc.

But that is not the case (yet).

A 7D user will probably be using photographic lenses just like his counterparts with the 5D. A 24mm on a 7D will not necessarily look any more like a 14mm/16mm cinema lens on 35mm film camera than a 35mm lens on a 5D.

Further, a 7D user will probably be working with zooms at the wider end of the spectrum instead of primes. A step away from the cinematic tradition and look of more commonly using primes in the majority of circumstances than zooms. Additionally, photographic zooms are generally slower and have less contrast than their prime equivalents. A f1.4 prime closed down to f2.8 does not look like a f2.8 zoom shot wide open at the same focal length.

Even if you were to reject the differences between zooms and primes or all the issues related to the throw where the 7D loses, given the greater similarity of the lenses between the 7D and the 5D than with their cinematic equivalents, and the similar aspect ratios of both cameras, my argument is simply that neither is more cinematic than the other.

Which is why having a sensor which is closer to "academy size" is just academic.

At this point what matters then is having the speed and range of the lenses available to you to match the equivalent palette of 35mm filmmakers as well as the solidity of the image information (especially in the shadows) in more closely matching a cinematic look.

Which is why is why I felt the 5D was a better choice for me.

I leave you to draw your own conclusions in terms of these last criteria.

Now I just need a good script, several million dollars, a distribution deal and a lot of caffeine.

 

[Kholi]

Excuse me I must jump in here again (though I am breaking a rule for myself). There is an assumption here which in my opinon is largely unaddressed for whatever it's worth.

All info's good info!

Just because the sensor of the 7D is closer in size to an Academy frame doesn't mean it will necessarily yield a more cinematic look.

Why?


1st) ASPECT RATIO

An academy size frame has an aspect ratio of 1.375:1

Both Canon sensors have virtually the same aspect ratio.

7D: 22.3 x 14.9 = 1.4966:1
5D: 36 x 24 = 1.5:1

Thus their aspect ratio more closely resembles each other than an Academy frame.

Further, they both shoot 16:9 in HD movie mode, essentially yielding the same format with an aspect ratio of 1.77:1 (even further away from an Academy ratio).

Thus they will more closely resemble each other than a cinema frame. Don't forget the aspect ratio also has a bearing on the relationship between a subject and it's background or the "overall look". Or to put it more brutally, in terms of their video output they will both probably more closely resemble the image on a nice 16:9 television set than the standard cinema screen.

Actually...

The MKii's Video image is 36 x 20.25. Horizontal crop to fit the 16:9, remember? 7d? 22.3 X 12.4. In addition, while they both are contained in A 16:9 frame, the actual recorded images are quite different.

The 7D exhibiting closer characteristics to what we're used to "seeing".

2nd) PHOTOGRAPHIC LENSES NOT CINEMA ONES

Don't forget whichever Canon camera you choose, we are talking photography lenses here, not cinema ones. Two photographic lenses with an equivalent horizontal field of view respective of their different sensor sizes and given the similarity of their aspect ratios will essentially behave in a more similar way (notwithstanding the individual characteristics of every respective lens) than their counterparts in the world of cinema.

A 7D user will probably be using photographic lenses just like his counterparts with the 5D. A 24mm on a 7D will not necessarily look any more like a 14mm/16mm cinema lens on 35mm film camera than a 35mm lens on a 5D.

Mechanics aside, they'll both exhibit near-to-the-same characteristics. FOV being one primary. A 24mm on an S35 Film Camera will look near-identical-to a 24mm on a RED camera looks near-identical-to a 24mm on a 7D. That all fits into the recorded image still. Baked into 16:9 as it is.

Further, a 7D user will probably be working with zooms at the wider end of the spectrum instead of primes. A step away from the cinematic tradition and look of more commonly using primes in the majority of circumstances than zooms.

Neither are a step outside of cinematic tradition. There are several productions that employ Optimos. Not an Optimo example, however, one of the Bourne Films used a 17-35 Zoom which is a rehoused 17-35/2.8 Nikon ED. =] Same lens, same awesome quality.

Additionally, photographic zooms are generally slower and have less contrast than their prime equivalents. A f1.4 prime closed down to f2.8 does not look like a f2.8 zoom shot wide open at the same focal length.

If all things are equal and the frames are matched, the prime being a 2.8 as well (my C/Y collections are half 2.8s) then you can compare still. Cheap zooms are generally slower, there are a handful that are at least 2.8 and begin at 16mm and 17mm. Even an infamous 14-24/2.8 (mentioned several times already). That's faster than most ultra-wide primes.

Now I just need a good script, several million dollars, a distribution deal and a lot of caffeine.

Indeed.

 

[Martti Ekstrand]

An academy size frame has an aspect ratio of 1.375:1

Both Canon sensors have virtually the same aspect ratio.

7D: 22.3 x 14.9 = 1.4966:1
5D: 36 x 24 = 1.5:1

Thus their aspect ratio more closely resembles each other than an Academy frame.

Further, they both shoot 16:9 in HD movie mode, essentially yielding the same format with an aspect ratio of 1.77:1 (even further away from an Academy ratio).

Umm... the classic academy 1.37:1 format hasn't really been used for decades. Today movies are shot and composed for 1.85:1 - North America / 1.66:1 - Europe or 2.37:1 - modern anamorphic.

 

[yoclay]

A 35mm lens on a 5D will yield virtually the same look as a 24mm on a 7D as long as you use stills lenses. Because they are built for the same purpose.

Mechanics cannot be put aside. The long throw is what more aptly defines a cinema look. The ability to separate a subject from the background at certain distances to the camera is often attributed (mistakenly) solely to the importance of shallow depth of field, creating an obsession in DSLR's. But it is the long throw that makes the difference. A photographic lens will not yield the same result. This is why these two cameras are more similar when they share equivalent FOV's and less like their cinema counterpart. Additionally, since the wider photographic lenses have a shorter throw, the ability to do this on the 7D is more impaired than on a 5D.

The 7D only looks more cinema-like if you believe that a film is mostly composed of medium to longer focal lengths shots. I don't happen to believe that. Most of the videos I see from the 7D have a slightly compressed look. It doesn't feel more cinema like to me. Personally to me it feels more video-like. But if one wanted that they could easily have it with the 5D. I prefer to have the choice.

All of this of course would change the moment a Pl mount is available for the 7D. Then I will be the first in line for one. Hot Rod Cameras are you listening?

 

[ROCKMORE]

If the 5D and 7D can provide similar cinematic look which I believe they can, by simple techniques to adjust the DoF such as moving the camera closer or farther away from the subject being focused on, than the ability to shoot at 50 or 60fps gives the 7D the next level of cinematic quality. With my budget, I think I would start with a 7D to build on, (lenses, monitor, audio etc) then bring in the 5D body after the firmware updates are in as a second big gun. They would be great together.

 

[yoclay]

I agree the frame rate issue is super-important, but the difficulty is Canon is not being transparent (as usual) as to whether they will match all the frame rates on the 7D for the 5D. People are saying it's out in January, not far away. Of course if/when RED ever puts out an S35 scarlet all of this is history. Much better sensor reading capacity and the PL mount thing is tantamount. The Gh1 owners at least have that going for them.