7D vs 5D vs 1D vs 16mm

I

Ilinpelin

Member
Hi everyone,

As others, I am very interested in purchasing a 7D canon. Unfortunately, I haven't had the chance to try it out for myself yet. I am concerned about the rolling shutter issue. A few questions:

- Is the issue similarly strong as with other photo cameras, i.e. the 5D or new 1D. ( are there other cameras from other brands with superior features?)

- Does the rolling shutter issue resemble the look of 16mm film by any chance? How natural or artificial does it look? ( I know this is a pretty subjective question )

- Does it make a difference if material is shot on 720p instead of 1080p?

Many thanks for any input!

Best wishes,

Ilin
 
dont worry about rolling shutter if you follow your subject in a cinematic manner

worry about pulling focus

720p is worse for sharpness than 1080, 1080 is more like 720

IMO

S
 
Ilinpelin said:
Is the issue similarly strong as with other photo cameras, i.e. the 5D or new 1D. ( are there other cameras from other brands with superior features?)
Click to expand...
The rolling shutter artifacts are similar to (though ever so slightly less severe than) the 5D's. The 1D apparently has almost no noticeable rolling shutter artifacts at all.

Does the rolling shutter issue resemble the look of 16mm film by any chance?
Click to expand...
No. Rolling shutter on motion picture film cameras should not be noticeable at all. The image is exposed on celluloid much, much more quickly than on the CMOS sensor.

How natural or artificial does it look?
Click to expand...
It does not look good at all. When it's bad, the image looks like it has turned into jello (in terms of the wobble and skew).

Does it make a difference if material is shot on 720p instead of 1080p?
Click to expand...
In 720p mode, it's FAR less noticeable. But the 720p mode has much more severe aliasing and moire artifacts, as well as significantly lower resolution (i.e. it'll look softer).

As long as there is very little camera movement, or steady subject movement, rolling shutter artifacts will not be an issue. Don't do fast pans or tilts, and avoid shaky hand-held shooting.
 
Thanks for the helpful comments. Is there any other camera, which could be seen as a d7 competitor? From Nikon? I am curious about the Scarlet, but looks like they will take quite some time to bring it out. So, I've been potentially thinking about getting a D7, some lenses and replace the body, when something better comes out. Would you say that is a good way to go?

I am about to start a fairly formal observational doc and need something with good glass, not too big (EX or HVX+lense adapter is too much weight) and reasonable in low light. It should also feel good on the big screen... Price can be higher...

Thanks.
 
Ilinpelin said:
Thanks for the helpful comments. Is there any other camera, which could be seen as a d7 competitor? From Nikon? I am curious about the Scarlet, but looks like they will take quite some time to bring it out. So, I've been potentially thinking about getting a D7, some lenses and replace the body, when something better comes out. Would you say that is a good way to go?

I am about to start a fairly formal observational doc and need something with good glass, not too big (EX or HVX+lense adapter is too much weight) and reasonable in low light. It should also feel good on the big screen... Price can be higher...

Thanks.
Click to expand...
If you're concerned about rolling shutter, then get the 1D Mark IV, which will be $4999 for the body only and will ship in December. The low-light capability on it is unprecedented; it actually sees in the dark better than your eyes can. For most situations though, the 7D will be fine, and its rolling shutter issue is very manageable.

Forget Nikons. Their DSLRs can't compare in video functionality.
 
Thanks for your advice ydgmdlu! Are there actually any tests/reviews about the 1Ds - from what you said the camera sounds appealing. Where can I learn more about it? How different are the codec and cmos chip compared to the 7d? Many thanks! Ilin
 
Ian-T said:
....you do know that it's $5,000.00 for just the body right?
Click to expand...
I think 5k sounds reasonable if you consider that this camera seems to do stuff other cameras can't and if you consider the price of other professional filming equipment with changable optics. Take a look at Vincent Laforet "Nocturne" if you haven't... It all depends on your needs...
 
Ilinpelin said:
I think 5k sounds reasonable if you consider that this camera seems to do stuff other cameras can't and if you consider the price of other professional filming equipment with changable optics. Take a look at Vincent Laforet "Nocturne" if you haven't... It all depends on your needs...
Click to expand...
I see that you're already finding the information that you need. Best of luck to you with your future camera purchase!
 
Jean Dantes said:
Is the $5000 the price set by Canon (RRP), or what it is most likely to be sold at?
Click to expand...

I think it's $5000 rrp, so if we're lucky maybe $5000-$5500 AUD street price.

I've watched the 1080p nocturne footage and 6400 ISO is as good or cleaner than 1250 ISO on the MKII, that coupled with almost no rolling shutter is worth the upgrade. Plus the 1.3x crop allows you to open lenses up a stop to get comparable DOF to the MKII while letting in more light. It also helps with some vignetting issues shooting with anamorphic lenses. It's well worth a kidney.
 
squig said:
I think it's $5000 rrp, so if we're lucky maybe $5000-$5500 AUD street price.

I've watched the 1080p nocturne footage and 6400 ISO is as good or cleaner than 1250 ISO on the MKII, that coupled with almost no rolling shutter is worth the upgrade. Plus the 1.3x crop allows you to open lenses up a stop to get comparable DOF to the MKII while letting in more light. It also helps with some vignetting issues shooting with anamorphic lenses. It's well worth a kidney.
Click to expand...

That sounds pretty good. I have to go 7D regardless (it's all I can afford at the moment). Hopefully I'll be able to make some cash over the next six months from it and grab myself a 1D MK4 (or whatever is "king of the hill" six months from now). However, something tells me that in six months time, 7D will still be enough for my needs anyways.

What I wanna know is - is the 1D MK4's 1080 really 1080 (unlike the 7D's as exposed by Barry)...?
 
It has the same chips as the 7D and the same aliasing according to the nocture blogs, so I'd wager it's basically the same res (or lack of). And an improved res was not mentioned on those blogs, which you'd expect those guys to spot straight away, Stu has a 7D afterall. The physical size of the 1D is also a negative for me.
 
Considering it uses two Digic IV processors, like the 7D, I don't see how it would have less rolling-shutter then the 7D?

Or perhaps the Digic IV processors have nothing to do with rolling-shutter?
 
I agree. I think a lot of folks are just jumping to conclusions just as they did with the 7D when it came out. I think the only real benefit you’d get with this new cam is its low light ability. As far as sharpness and detail etc. it appears to be the same. But this is just pure speculation on my part.
 
It exhibited the same kind of moire patterns that the 5D/7D do, so I don't think there's any reason to expect it to deliver any difference in terms of resolution or performance than the others.

The Digic IV processors should have nothing to do with rolling shutter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top