anyone compared the xha1 footage IQ with any of canons' dlsrs for backup?

W

william boehm

Member
i am in a quandry. my background is still photography, with a nikon system and the best lenses. i also had a canon xha1 hdv and love the images, very little artifacts with minimally slow panning, wave action along the coast or animal movement. i was going to migrate to the canon 5d, 7d or rebel having saw great vimeo footage. michael fletcher, philip bloom etc. then i read several articles after googling on dslr aliasing, moire and artifacts in movement. i went back to vimeo..and sure enough, picked up immediately the papua new guinea short on vimeo by fletcher..very noticeable aliasing on waves, and movement.

so i am throwing this out there....filming ocean surf coming in, streams..harlequin ducks in streams, sea otters in wave motion from a kayak, are all going to be heavily laced with artifacts and unusable stock footage using a back up of a dslr on 1080 video. what i saw on several websites were awful once they pointed out the color artifacts on a slow receding wave wash in a sunset, and many other examples. then the shot the typical brick house with shingled roof and again moire was overpowering the images. so what do you recommend? dslrs are not doing what they are purpoted to do? or limited with shallow dof and close ups ...what about landscapes, sea scapes, wind blowing through waves, grass...? they will all be heavily interlaced with artifacts that will ruin the images.

i am considering waiting for the newer canon xha1 tapless system to be announced? maybe the weight and wait will be worth it? those of you who have used both..what is your input? i am a nature photgrapher and videographer, where movement is a given. thanks in advance for your thoughts. bill
 
william boehm said:
dslrs are not doing what they are purpoted to do? or limited with shallow dof and close ups ...what about landscapes, sea scapes, wind blowing through waves, grass...? they will all be heavily interlaced with artifacts that will ruin the images.
Click to expand...

DSLR do exactly what they are supposed to do. They take wonderful still images.

They are not video cameras. They were not designed with this in mind. A hammer will always be better at driving in nails then a wrench, even though on some occasions the wrench will in fact work.

If you have looked at the footage out there and are not pleased, buying one of your own will not make the problem go away. You will have the same issues everyone of us deals with.
 
Let's go back to why HD-DSLRs exist...

With the advent of blogging and popularity of YouTube and other online video sites, photojournalists wanted the ability to shoot quick video clips at events instead of carrying two cameras. Plus most photojournalists didn't know how to run a camcorder. So Nikon and Canon obliged by adding basic video function to their latest DSLR models. But it so happened that they video quality was quite nice since the cameras were using big DSLR sensors. Indy filmmakers started setting aside their DOF adapters for something smaller and easier.

At no point were DSLRs designed to replace video cameras. Canon is just starting to discover the huge market for HD-DSLRs and they will probably in the future release video cameras with DSLR sensors. In the mean time, you have to make your own decision if the limitations of DSLR video keep you from purchasing one or not.
 
i agree, but they are being touted as the new wave with great detail, and no mention of aliasing and artifacts created by moving waves, wind on grass etc etc. any other comments?
 
Actually, under many objective criteria for IQ, the DSLRs are inferior to prosumer camcorders such as the XH-A1 and the EX1. Resolution is lower; rolling shutter is much worse; dynamic range is slightly worse; aliasing is omnipresent.

The reason why DSLRs have enjoyed a meteoric rise in popularity is because they tend to be less expensive than prosumer camcorders while offering interchangeable lenses, cinema-style shallow depth of field, and supposedly better low light performance. All of these make the shortcomings and flaws tolerable or forgivable in the eyes of many users. For my purposes, I doubt that I will use a traditional camcorder very much ever again.

But for your purposes, a DSLR might not be suitable. One man's trash is another man's treasure, as they say. (Not the best analogy, but you get the point.) They're really only being touted as a boon for independent filmmakers; that's all.
 
@William

Everywhere I've looked, people talk about the limitations with DSLRs.

If you were interested in getting a camera with a DOF adapter, people would talk to you about the limitations of that: poor light performance, softer image, large rigs, limited shutter speeds, etc. DSLRs aren't the perfect camera but they have their place. I and many others have used them for professional projects without problems. But just like with a DOF rig, it has limitations that don't make it ideal for every situation.
 
Yes I understand that. I just don't want someone to buy a camera they already know has problems and then expect those problems to not also bite them.

I shoot the lights out on my 7D, don't get me wrong. I think it is a great tool. But it does have its problems and for me they are a big deal. I express that in my opinion.
 
william boehm said:
i agree, but they are being touted as the new wave with great detail, and no mention of aliasing and artifacts created by moving waves, wind on grass etc etc. any other comments?
Click to expand...
All those issues exist, and they are inherent to the DSLR technology. They are not going away. All the cameras do it, and they will continue to do it until the day a full-raster full-chip sensor is developed, which is likely years (or thousands of dollars) away.

There are people who deny the DSLRs have any issues, but those folks are either a) misinformed, or b) trying to pretend that their particular shooting circumstances will extend to everyone else's shooting circumstances.

The simple facts are that the issues are there, and it's up to you to evaluate your intended usage to see if the SLR is appropriate.

For landscapes etc., a conventional video camera will deliver a better, more detailed image than any of the SLRs will. The DSLR's strength is in shallow-DOF cinematography, and its weakness is in deep-focus shots.
 
William_Robinette said:
Yes I understand that. I just don't want someone to buy a camera they already know has problems and then expect those problems to not also bite them.

I shoot the lights out on my 7D, don't get me wrong. I think it is a great tool. But it does have its problems and for me they are a big deal. I express that in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Sorry, wrong William. I was talking to the OP.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top