7D or Mysterium X
- Thread starter Perry Wilson
- Start date
Man, when I read the first post in this thread it reminded me of a post you made a few months back and I almost died laughing.
I think I said "Digital will NEVER be Film!" or something like that.
And then someone else commented..."Well, my veggie burger tastes just like a real burger."
Rakesh: Vegetables will never BE meat!
Barry_Green
Moderator
Word.
The clear differences would be in resolved detail or how "sharp" the image looked versus the "crunchy" image of the 7D and color fidelity.
If you view the Walk_1K footage from OffHollywood, which is only a 1K file heavily compressed for viewing, you'll notice how absolutely sharp it is and how the detail in the image is being resolved without becoming mush when very fine. It's not something you have to even "pixel peep", you see it automatically.
The 7D or 5D would be nowhere near that fine.
Barry_Green
Moderator
Depends on what you're shooting. If it's a headshot of an interview, I bet they will look very, very similar.
If it's a wide shot of buildings, panning past, the Red will blow the 7D into the weeds.
It all depends on whether the shot reveals the 7D's shortcomings. Many shots don't. Some do. The Red doesn't have the same shortcomings.
I guarantee you this: when the Scarlet comes out, there will be people posting "shootouts" where they show that their camera looks just as good. And it's like a Hollywood set -- sure, it looks great, as long as you look at it from a certain angle. Just don't go around back, and you'll be fine. Same with the DSLR -- from a certain angle, on a certain type of shot, it's fantastic and phenomenal. Just don't try to shoot a wide shot of a house with a tile roof, and you'll be fine.
The Scarlet will let you shoot that tile roof. Or the chain-link fence. Or the brick building, or ... anything. Therein lies some of its appeal.
And to many, they simply will not care, and will be happy as clams to save the thousands of dollars and get a 7D.
Perry Wilson
Well-known member
Kholi please do I really would love to see the new mx footage right next to 7D footage. Please do a split screen. Congrats on getting one of the first mx reds.
RieniO
Well-known member
I watched "Psycho" again the other day, on my old widescreen Philips TV (not even a flat screen), for the 30th time or so. In black and white, poor resolution, lot of film scratches, and again I enjoyed every second of it and again I discovered new things that I had not noticed before. I can't wait for "Once Upon A Time In The West" to be broadcasted again.
I also think that Sergeant Pepper's Lonely Heart Club Band sounds better than the newest Guns 'N Roses. SPLHCB was recorded on 4 track analog tape, mixed down to mono. Later it was remixed to stereo.
I also think that Sergeant Pepper's Lonely Heart Club Band sounds better than the newest Guns 'N Roses. SPLHCB was recorded on 4 track analog tape, mixed down to mono. Later it was remixed to stereo.
Vince K
Well-known member
I'm totally looking forward to that and you setting the record str8.
I own a 7D and work regularly with it. I also regularly AC a RED One, and they are not even close to the same animal. Like....R U SERIOUS?
Don't get me wrong..I love my 7D to friggin' death and pretty much have it with me everywhere I go - literally attached at my hip.... but really....the 7D is nothing more than the poor man's RedOne . Sure, 7D is absolutely the perfect practice tool for indie filmakers to get their shorts made, festival entries in, and most of all, get their shi* together before they make the leap into features, but for a feature theatrical release? Not a chance. Not yet, anyway.
7D images are pretty friggin' sweeeet, but RED's are much friggin' sweeeeeter .
....and a RED with MX just simply destroys.
Never mind comparing a 7D to a Red One...
....but a Red with MX????? :nads:...my 2 canadian pennies ( 1.36 cents U.S )
Number 8X isn't my cam, but work with it and put it out there when I can. But definitely going to be shooting everything I can etc on RED M-X, regardless of the conveniences of the 7D's size.
Last edited:
steventimothy
Well-known member
I think the 7D is also excellent for local/regional commercials, corporate video work, event videography, or as a B-cam for broadcast or even some B-Cam feature work.
Hell, it revolutionizes the wedding video market; a lot of wedding photographers can do stills and video with the same camera. And they would have spent probably the same money anyway, just for the still camera.
Just because of those things only, it's probably a pain in the a** for companies trying to sell (or rent) HVX's, even XD-cams, Canon's own XL's, etc.
It's great if you're an aspiring director and doing a short, etc. In some ways gives similar control to a film or higher end camera, which is good practice for the future. The director can plan and think about which lenses he might want (the 400 mm super telephoto "hero" shot is not an option with an HVX!), he can stop up or down and see the frame, can adjust f-stop as required, shoot 60 fps, etc. As a training tool it's a hell of a lot better than a simpler video cam.
Hell, it revolutionizes the wedding video market; a lot of wedding photographers can do stills and video with the same camera. And they would have spent probably the same money anyway, just for the still camera.
Just because of those things only, it's probably a pain in the a** for companies trying to sell (or rent) HVX's, even XD-cams, Canon's own XL's, etc.
It's great if you're an aspiring director and doing a short, etc. In some ways gives similar control to a film or higher end camera, which is good practice for the future. The director can plan and think about which lenses he might want (the 400 mm super telephoto "hero" shot is not an option with an HVX!), he can stop up or down and see the frame, can adjust f-stop as required, shoot 60 fps, etc. As a training tool it's a hell of a lot better than a simpler video cam.
Jester2138
Well-known member
And my whole point is sure you can do that... but nobody does...
Maybe post a short 2k/1080p vs. 1080p comparison, maybe also to be pragmatic a 540p vs 540p comparison.
5 seconds is all it will take to end this once and for all. I'll host it for you if you do get around to doing it.
And, please, let me know if you are openly screening any of your M-X tests. I would love to see it big.
Last edited:
I dont think that 7d is some kind of opponent of RED but what other cam withiin 7D price range can come as close to RED ?
Its not really about RAW here or resolving detail and true 1080p, its about having camera with DOF characteristics of film cameras for much much lower price.This is what excites people.
I admire 7D but i dont disrespect RED because of that,and its sad that some people have to bash something to praise something else.RED is in different category with its RAW recording and 100% manual settings unlike 7D which is manual but not true manual where you can set any number.
Its not really about RAW here or resolving detail and true 1080p, its about having camera with DOF characteristics of film cameras for much much lower price.This is what excites people.
I admire 7D but i dont disrespect RED because of that,and its sad that some people have to bash something to praise something else.RED is in different category with its RAW recording and 100% manual settings unlike 7D which is manual but not true manual where you can set any number.
Ian-T
Veteran
Exactly.
Also, why is it that all of a sudden people think a camera like the 7D can't make a theatrical release? I mean....I don't get that. It's most certainly not a Red or a film camera....but neither are (______,______,_____ etc.) <<<fill in the blank >> and yet most people won't argue the fact that these DSLRs make better looking images than some of those cams. It's like all of a sudden when we are talking about a Red camera...these DSLRs don't cut it anymore. Sure ...to some they never did....but tell that to those who have already put them to the test. Face it...it might not work for you....but it does/did for someone else....which to me totally contradicts what some others are saying.
Thread was destined to go to hades.
This all doesn't spawn from a RED user saying the RED looks just as good as the 7D, it spawns from a 7D user (noone in particular) claiming the 7D kooks as good as RED. Putting aside how very incorrect that is, why are dslr owners so adamant about comparing their camera to one that's clearly superior in every aspect concerning image?
When bandwidth goes up and this hokey web distribution thing gets better and faster you'll start to see the differnce in web video as well. Then what's the next arguement when "it looks close enough on a 15" screen and 5" web browser plugin window to me" becomes broken?
If the tools are so vastly ready and comparable to something that costs 20x more to own then why isn't there more content to prove that?
This all doesn't spawn from a RED user saying the RED looks just as good as the 7D, it spawns from a 7D user (noone in particular) claiming the 7D kooks as good as RED. Putting aside how very incorrect that is, why are dslr owners so adamant about comparing their camera to one that's clearly superior in every aspect concerning image?
When bandwidth goes up and this hokey web distribution thing gets better and faster you'll start to see the differnce in web video as well. Then what's the next arguement when "it looks close enough on a 15" screen and 5" web browser plugin window to me" becomes broken?
If the tools are so vastly ready and comparable to something that costs 20x more to own then why isn't there more content to prove that?
Barry_Green
Moderator
There's a world of difference between perception and reality. The perception is that the 7D is just as good as the Red, and theatrical quality, and all that.
The reality is that any video professional can tell you, the quality of the DSLRs is nowhere near what the other cameras can do.
Can you make a theatrical feature film with a 7D? Sure... they made Blair Witch on a consumer Hi-8 camera, so why not? Does the 7D produce an image that can hold up on theatrical-size screens? Sure, depending on what you shoot -- but there are some things you could shoot that would look sucktacular on a theatrical-sized screen.
Simple fact of the matter is: the 7D is $1699 for many very good reasons. It can deliver images that are sometimes way above its price class, and sometimes well below its price class.
I wish people could just accept it for what it is, instead of always having to try to turn it into something it's not.
In fact, you know what it's like? It's like the NCAA basketball tournament, March Madness. The 7D is a #15 seed, and the Red is Kentucky. And yeah, every once in a blue moon, a #15 upsets a #2. So maybe this year somebody like Rider or UNCW or Coastal Carolina will pull off a March Miracle and beat a Kansas or Kentucky in the first round. But does anyone, anywhere, seriously think that if they rematched those teams for another 30 games, that the UNCW or Rider would beat the Kentucky EVER again? No possible way. No. Doesn't happen. Kentucky would mop the floor with 'em, 30 times in a row.
Just because Rider gets lucky once a decade, does not mean that they are in the same class, league, or stratosphere as Kentucky. And so it is with the Red and the 7D. You have a bunch of people rooting hard for the underdog, but that doesn't put the underdog in the same class, not by a long shot.
Well I own a 7D, but it doesn't even touch what an HVX or EX1 can do imagewise.
Will I pickup a Scarlet when it's ready? Yes. Will I get a GH2 if it delivers on a better codec and reduces the nasty aliasing issues? Hell yeah. This is the best time to be a filmmaker. The tools are changing so fast and we're already to that point where the weak link in the chain is our abilities as storytellers.
Will I pickup a Scarlet when it's ready? Yes. Will I get a GH2 if it delivers on a better codec and reduces the nasty aliasing issues? Hell yeah. This is the best time to be a filmmaker. The tools are changing so fast and we're already to that point where the weak link in the chain is our abilities as storytellers.