DavidBeier
Veteran
TESTIFY!!! Seriously, I was getting tired of the super shallow DoF some time ago. People seemed to think that it was a holy grail of cinema largely because it was one of the more obvious limitations of HD cameras with 1/3 and 2/3 sensors. I thought that having cameras like the 5Dii and 7D available for cheap prices would get everyone to realize that DoF is just a tool like any other and not the end all/be all holy grail of cinema. Instead, it seems to have gotten worse as people see the shallower DoF of the 5Dii compared to traditional Super 35mm and say, "that looks every more film-like!" How can it be more film like than the actual FILMS you've seen?
Everyone is entitled to their opinion and their own way of shooting but I would MUCH rather shoot with the sensor size and lens choices of what movies have been shot with for the last 50 years or so. It's not just about the DoF (which takes into account aperture) but the lenses themselves. We've gotten used to how the human face looks with a certain focal length and how the perspective of a scene in compressed with certain lenses. I'm much more interested in working in those parameters as they are what cinematographers have done for years and what the pros still use as all the high-end HD cameras (Red, Alexa, Genisis, ect) are using sensors that size (because it's what DP's have been using for years).
I remember watching the extra features on the DVD for Ronin and they had an interview with John Frankenhiemer's DP who was describing how Frankenhiemer liked to work. He said, "John likes to be either very wide of very telaphoto. We start off using the 18mm or 28mm and then he like to just to the 85mm or 100mm." I had no freaking idea what that meant because I had been using the HVX200 which had a 4-55mm zoom. I like now that when i look up the lenses that were used on films that I find asthetically pleasing, I can keep that in mind for my own stuff.
Red dot? Pardon my ingoraunce but what is that?
well that makes me feel better about getting a 60D instead of a 7D.
Except the "general consensus" never seems to back this opinion up. I'm not trying to pick a fight or be condescending but I spent a lot of time talking to people who had worked with both cameras and looking at footage and I find this feeling that the 5Dii gives better image quality to never be supported with actual data. We know that it can achieve a shallower DoF (which doesn't matter to me) and we know that it's less noisy in low light (which is awesome and makes sense given the large sensor). When I'd ask, "is that the only difference?" I would usually be told "well, the 5Dii just looks a little better."
I would than say, "how so? Is it sharper?"
THEM: "No, they look about as sharp."
ME: "Is the codec better?"
THEM: "No, they both have about the same compression?"
ME: "Colors look any better?"
THEM: "No, about the same."
ME: "How about the form-factor?"
THEM: "No. Actually the LCD and extra frame-rates on the other cams are much nicer."
Finally, I would ask, "OK, not counting the shallower DoF and low light performance, HOW DOES THE 5DII LOOK BETTER THAN THE 7D?" They would then pause and say something like, "it just looks more FILMMLIKE." I would then ask again, "HOW SO?" Then they would say something like, "well, it's really cool how just the actor's eyes might be in focus but his ears are totally out of focus. More filmmlike to me."
Now, I'm not trying to pretend to be an expert on DSLRs. I've been shooting HD for years but I'm fairly knew to the DSLR game so I may be speaking out of my butt. I just grew surprised how many kept saying, "the 5Dii has better image quality" and then, when asked for how it was better aside from the DoF and low light, they kept responding "I don't know, it just is. I like the DoF!!!" I really wanted to make sure I got the best bang for my buck but I also didn't feel the need for a full frame sensor when I was going to mainly shoot films and I wanted my stuff to be intercut with cameras like The Red, Alexa, or F3 (all APS sized sensors). After looking at the two "Great Camera Shoot-Outs" as well as other tests, I've come to believe that the 5Dii having better image quality is a myth that comes from it being the first DSLR that was widely used on productions and because of its shallower DoF which so many HD DPs are nuts over. If for some reason you can't deal with a 1.6 crop (which would make sense if you came from a still photography background) or if you can't handle noisier low light performance (which also makes sense if you want to shoot a lot in dark locations), then the 5Dii is a better choice. I just find that a lot of people are kidding themselves into thinking it produces and over all better image when nothing seems to indicate that.
That's true though that seemed to be the case based more off the internal processing as it seems that Canon, realizing that highlights were more of a problem in HD, pushed the lattitude towards the highlight end in order to compensate. What i found more revealing was how very similar the two looked. I couldn't tell ANY difference between them when the same lens was on except that the 7D was performing better in some of the latitude comparisons. Since blown out highlights can be a big deal for me, I found this pretty encouraging.
I believe the 7D overheats more because it has two processors for shooting faster burst stills but these are of no use in video. I know the 60D (and T3/2i) overheat much less than the 7D and I have been told they overheat less than the 5Dii as well.
