General 7D Vs. 5D for filmaking, please sove my doubts

7D Vs. 5D for filmaking, please sove my doubts

  • 5D

    Votes: 7 46.7%

  • 7D

    Votes: 8 53.3%
  • Total voters
    15
paul31003 said:
The big benefit of a full-frame sensor is the extra light sensitivity. Shooters are misled into believing that higher apertures are the answer to the bokeh-look. Although this isn't untrue, they fail to hear how difficult it is to maintain a good focus on moving subjects when shooting at such high apertures. Then you get a lot of questionable product involving subjects frequently coming in and out of focus. With extra light sensitivity and better ISO performance, shooters can set apertures to more manageable settings. They'll still get the desirable bokeh-look, clean imagery (even at higher ISO's), and will have extra room for their subjects to move around in without having to worry about them repeatedly falling out of focus.
Click to expand...

This doesn't make sense. For the same field of view at the same aperture a m4/3 sensor will have a considerably deeper depth of field than a full frame sensor, resulting in it being more manageable.

By the time you have stopped down to equal the depth of field you have no real gains at all based on sensor size alone.
 
paul31003 said:
The big benefit of a full-frame sensor is the extra light sensitivity. Shooters are misled into believing that higher apertures are the answer to the bokeh-look. Although this isn't untrue, they fail to hear how difficult it is to maintain a good focus on moving subjects when shooting at such high apertures. Then you get a lot of questionable product involving subjects frequently coming in and out of focus. With extra light sensitivity and better ISO performance, shooters can set apertures to more manageable settings. They'll still get the desirable bokeh-look, clean imagery (even at higher ISO's), and will have extra room for their subjects to move around in without having to worry about them repeatedly falling out of focus.
Click to expand...

Without scientific accuracy in terminology, roughly speaking:

- Sensitivity to light is solely measured by ISO, not by sensor size at all. At identical ISO, all cameras or their sensors (no matter how they are made or who made them) have identical sensitivity to light. And at different ISO, their sensitivity to light is always different.

- Apertures cannot be measured using words like "high" (low). What do you mean by "higher" apertures? Do you think f16 is higher than f13? How about f1.0? Is it high or low?

- Additionally, there are no such things as "more manageable" aperture settings. DoF is not determined by aperture alone, and given any real shooting scenario, there exists a hyper focal point with each of today's popular lenses. As a result, both f1.2 and f22 can produce either greatest (infinite) DoF or shallow (or extremely shallow) DoF. All depends on how the lens is used. Big or small, the sensor size does not directly determine the actual DoF. Given a real shooting scenario, imagine that you could simply enlarge (or shrink) the sensor in a DSLR while keeping everything else absolutely unchanged. Would you get a different DoF?
 
henryqiu said:
Without scientific accuracy in terminology, roughly speaking:

- Sensitivity to light is solely measured by ISO, not by sensor size at all. At identical ISO, all cameras or their sensors (no matter how they are made or who made them) have identical sensitivity to light. And at different ISO, their sensitivity to light is always different.

- Apertures cannot be measured using words like "high" (low). What do you mean by "higher" apertures? Do you think f16 is higher than f13? How about f1.0? Is it high or low?

- Additionally, there are no such things as "more manageable" aperture settings. DoF is not determined by aperture alone, and given any real shooting scenario, there exists a hyper focal point with each of today's popular lenses. As a result, both f1.2 and f22 can produce either greatest (infinite) DoF or shallow (or extremely shallow) DoF. All depends on how the lens is used. Big or small, the sensor size does not directly determine the actual DoF. Given a real shooting scenario, imagine that you could simply enlarge (or shrink) the sensor in a DSLR while keeping everything else absolutely unchanged. Would you get a different DoF?
Click to expand...


Don't know what you just posted but I will say the 5d is more sensitive to light. I was on a shoot today with the same lens, to achieve the same brightness as the 5d with an f/1.4 lens I needed to put the iso on 320 on my canon 60d, the 5d was at 160. So yeah the 5d lets in more light and iso is NOT the same for each camera.
 
Thanks for your answers.

So the 7D has HDMI output to a Monitor, while the 5D hasn't? This is very important!

Does the 5D MKIII have HDMI output?
 
it has HDMI output, and it's 1080... but when you hit record it goes down to 480, and with nasty black bars above and below the image (this is the case with every canon DSLR of the old crop, except the 7D and the 1D4, which remain 1080 thanks to their dual digic4 processors)
 
The biggest difference I've noticed while shooting aps-c and coming from full frame is my distance from the subject. I've never had to use such wide lenses before on an SLR. It does my head in sometimes doing the calculations.

I got my 7D before all of the Rebel APS-C cameras came out. Now, I might opt for a T2i with Magic Lantern if I was spending the money again.

There is also the romantic connection between APS-C and Super 35mm. They are roughly the same size and your FOV will be what the "pros" have been using for years.

In the end, having shot with the 7D for three years now, I wouldn't spend the extra money on a 5D. The filmmaking features aren't there and it's really the glass that makes the image. Both the 7D and 5D resolve around 700 lines of resolution.
 
tarr said:
Thanks for your answers.

So the 7D has HDMI output to a Monitor, while the 5D hasn't? This is very important!

Does the 5D MKIII have HDMI output?
Click to expand...

They both have HDMI out to the monitor the only difference is the 7D (Only) has full 1080 out. The 5D (and the t2i, and the t3i, and the 60D, etc...) are all 480. You'll have a cropped image on the monitor unless you get a monitor that compensates for it (like the DP-6).
 
It makes perfect sense. He's not talking about keeping the same aperature. He's saying there are instances where a smaller aperature can be used because of the higher light sensitivity of the sensor in the 5d II. In low light situations aperture gets larger DOF becomes shallower and moving subjects become harder to keep in the focal plane.
 
Depends on what you're doing. 5D guys love to say "Full Frame" but full frame what? As a stills camera, yes, it's full frame. But in the motion picture world, an APS-C sensor (7D, T2i) is closer to full frame for motion picture film. The 5D is closer to vista vision. So depends on the look you like most. Personally I hate the 5D look, hence why I went T2i
 
gonzo_entertainment said:
They both have HDMI out to the monitor the only difference is the 7D (Only) has full 1080 out. The 5D (and the t2i, and the t3i, and the 60D, etc...) are all 480. You'll have a cropped image on the monitor unless you get a monitor that compensates for it (like the DP-6).
Click to expand...
I think the Lilliput 5Dii/o/p Does it as well. I seen some guys at cimema5D buying and testing them. I could be wrong though
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top