Canon 70d Has Aliasing Moire

Samuel H said:
My NEX-5N cost me a third as much a year ago. Assuming the image from the 70D image is similar to that from the 60D, as all info so far seems to indicate, my NEX has less aliasing/moire, similar DR and similar colors
Click to expand...

This is just hyperbole. I have the nex-5n too and it's quite similar to the 7d that I also have. Claiming that the nex-5n is somehow unbelievably better (or even slightly) than the image from the 7d is silly. In stills they are pretty much completely alike and in video I hold the 7d above the 5n. 7d has way less compression artifacts and the 5n is horrible with ISOs over 1600. I don't why the internet believes that the Sony sensors are "GREAT!!!!" and the Canon sensors "SUCK!!" as the 5n and the 7d are so extremely alike.

5dmarkIII is heads and shoulders above both
 
Of course 5D3 is head and shoulders above both. But I did compare them very thoroughly, and yes, 5N is a lot better: it still has aliasing/moire, but it is much less likely to show up, and it's not nearly as awful. That alone makes it better for me. But it is also noticeably sharper, so there's that too.
Plus: the codec is not great, but don't believe what you see in the editor, it's not nearly that bad (I think most of its bad press comes from the fact that premiere has a bad habit of degrading the 5N footage as you work with it; if it looks awfully blocky, close premiere, open it agan, and it will look fine again; or just export and look at that, since it is what actually matters).
 
There is a new world, camera price is not the main point This is with the Black Magic Pocket camera us $ 1000, better than the Canon C300 US $ 15.000, IN FACT 70D is a joke against this

 
lyrov said:
I dont know what you guys have in mind when you re talking about professionals and hobbyists but I sure know that people still make money with DVXs...and my 600D is bringing money at home!!!
Really...what are you talking about?
Click to expand...

I was speaking purely from a marketing perspective regarding customer segmentation and not getting into the esoteric debate of what makes someone or something "pro".
 
^ but one pocket cam over 1/15th of a C300. Say, the handle. Not much use if you only have that.
 
maranfilms said:
And I would still rather have one c300 over 15 pocket cams:)
Click to expand...

Well how about a Pocket cam and BMCC 2.5K, BMCC 4K, 5Dmk3 and a few nice lenses, or perhaps a battle tested $4,000 Red One with some Zeiss CPs Used of course.
 
Last edited:
Samuel H said:
and yes, 5N is a lot better: it still has aliasing/moire, but it is much less likely to show up, and it's not nearly as awful. That alone makes it better for me. But it is also noticeably sharper, so there's that too.
Plus: the codec is not great, but don't believe what you see in the editor, it's not nearly that bad.
Click to expand...

Let me tell you what is wrong with that shootout: Everything. The 5n codec is bad. I've done lots of color correction to all of my things and the 5n tends to break up quite quickly. Sometimes it breaks up without even any grading. 5n is great for b-roll and getting some quick behind the scenes stuff (internal mic is surprisingly good), plus for specialty shots (helishots, lens whacking). But I would never, ever exchange it for the 7d. Which I don't have to as I own them both. The colors are also consistently worse than on the 7d.

Maybe it's a little bit sharper. But very little, especially when sharpness is set to lowest. 5n actually has quite a lot of sharpening artifacts eventhough you take sharpness to minimum. 7d doesn't.. 1080p50 is also a hit and miss because the aliasing/moire doubles on the 5n. It also doesn't go to 60p (european model) as the 7d does. Here's a quick test:

7d (1250 ISO) http://www.hmcindie.com/5n_7d/7d_1250ISO_30mm.jpg

5n (1600 ISO no intermediate isos available so sorry about exposure difference) http://www.hmcindie.com/5n_7d/5n_1600ISO_30mm.jpg

Ok, the 7d looks softer. But the 5n looks a bit sharpened. What if I sharpen the 7d? http://www.hmcindie.com/5n_7d/7d_1250ISO_30mm_SHARPENED.jpg

Wow, it starts looking a bit like the 5n. Except for the whitebalance and exposure (slight difference there as I didn't match them)

Ok, what if I sharpen the 5n? http://www.hmcindie.com/5n_7d/5n_1600ISO_30mm_SHARPENED.jpg

Starts looking quite nasty. Halos everywhere. 5n is already sharpened before encoding.

Ok how about movement? 7d: http://www.hmcindie.com/5n_7d/7d_1250ISO_motion.jpg

Looks ok. 5n: http://www.hmcindie.com/5n_7d/5n_1600ISO_motion.jpg

ABSOLUTELY garbage. You don't even have to move the 5n that much to completely break the codec. Everything just turns to mush. And this was at 25p, if you crank it up to 50p the coding breaks 2x as fast.

So I just CANNOT agree with those tests that just shoot a fabric and claim a difference in sharpness. Well yes, but it's just oversharpened.
 
OK, the 5N has some sharpening even when you turn it all the way down. But it also has better detail, even compared with sharpened 7D/550D.
This is a center crop from a resolution chart:
nex_sharp_minus2.jpg
Now try that with a first-gen Canon. But I don't need a chart to tell me the 5N is sharper: I only started noticing that my clips were sharper in my PC than in vimeo when I switched to the 5N; with the Canon, it was so close I never noticed; with the 5N, it's obvious.

About the motion clips and the codec: yes, the codec is worse than that from the Canons, even first-gen Canons, but it's only THAT bad on very fast moving clips. Nothing I actually shot has that kind of issues, so the codec doesn't bother me a lot either. I'd love it to be 10-bit 422 at 200 Mbps, but I wouldn't go back to the aliasing/moire hell of the first-gen Canons just because the codec breaks down with very fast movement.
Also, as I've said before somewhere, a lot of the bad rep for the 5N codec comes from a Premiere issue: as you work with the files, they seem to degrade and degrade, but if you close Premiere and open it again, those issues go away (not the fast-motion ones, the ones that appear as you work with the footage).

Also notice how my resolution test looks A LOT better than, say, the one that eoshd posted some time ago:
5d-raw-iso-chart-resolution-test.jpg

I think most people don't ever find the right settings for the 5N...

In any case, to each their own. I know my 5N is giving me much better image quality than my 550D, that's why I recommend it. If you get better images with your 7D than with your 5N, well, I understand you'd recommend Canon instead. But I can't back down, sorry.
 
maarek said:
Let me tell you what is wrong with that shootout: Everything.
Click to expand...
And BTW I won't take that one, sorry: you'll have to be more specific. For example, show me a better aliasing/moire test than the one I did, checking several frequencies to see how common issues are on each camera.
 
Samuel H said:
I wouldn't go back to the aliasing/moire hell of the first-gen Canons just because the codec breaks down with very fast movement.
Click to expand...

You do realize the moire in your NEX 5N shot is the worst? Also there is the VAF filter for the 7D and the 550D that eliminates most moire and aliasing. 7D has RAW now for short clips. I don't know where it is going but it is evolving. The NEX 5N is what it is out of the box.

By the way I'm pretty sure most of us have no desire to pay $300 for a simple 50mm 1.8 prime when we can get the same thing from Canon for $100.

The NEX 5N looks nice but it is fundamentally a different camera than the DSLRs. In the long run it is not as cheap nor as versatile. These cameras are after all primarily still image cameras. If you need a small pocketable shooter then get an NEX 5N with a pancake lens. But for most other things get a system that will grow with you. I bought my primes and L glass years ago. They are still with me even though I am now shooting video. This is nothing against Sony. I looked at a Canon EOS M kit and ended up getting a 600D body for $50 more. With ML and all the other controls and features it is just a more versatile rig.
 
For a start, aliasing/moire is worlds better on the 5N than on the first-gen Canons. It hardly ever shows up, and when it does, it's monochrome, not a flying rainbow. That was the point of this test: http://www.vimeo.com/similaar/shootout2012

And then: how can you say the 5N is expensive? Long run, short run, it just doesn't make sense. It cost me $430, it's served me well for a year, and it will probably do so for another one, and I'll probably sell it for $250 or more. It doesn't get much cheaper than that.

Sony lenses? You'd have a point if I had bought any of those, but that's not the case. I did buy the Sigma 19mm f/2.8 and 30mm f/2.8, just because they are so cheap and they make the whole system nearly pocketable. Apart from that, all my lenses are vintage Leitz for the Leica-R mount, from the 60s and 70s: amazing glass that works on nearly every mount you can think of (canon, nikon, pentax, sony, basically anything except PL). It doesn't get any more future-proof than that.

The 600D is a very nice camera and ML makes it a whole lot better, but I've had a very similar Canon for two years and I sold it after a month with the NEX: I had no use for it anymore.
 
Everyone will have to figure out what trade offs work for them. I come from a photography background and that is what I use my camera for the most. DSLRs still rule the photography world for a reason. And most of us are not going to use a non autofocus lens on a sub $1,500 camera. I'm used to choosing from a variety of focusing screens on a big bright Rollei finder. So EVFs and LCD screens are a poor substitute. Some photographers have opted for mirrorless cameras but when you see a group of pros at an event you don't see any.


These are first and foremost photography cameras. And a lot of us simply are not willing to make the compromises you are discussing. I would never advise someone getting into photography to eschew the Canon or Nikon mount for a Sony E mount. If that is something someone wants to do that is their choice. But most people just want to show up pay $100 and get a 100% compatible OEM 50mm and get on with the business of creating art. What works for you is fine. I'm not into cobbling together a bunch of used lenses in lord knows what condition or dealing with rechipping third party lenses. If $100 buys me the OEM canon fast prime why bother even worrying about it? The EOS line is a complete deep line. So is Nikon.

If someone only cares about video then they may make a different set of trade offs. But no one in their right mind would insist the average photographer should just skip over the Nikon or Canon mount.
 
This is a video forum, and I'm talking about video. If you need fast AF for stills, the NEX is not a good option. I would say the same about the Rebels and the 60D, because they lack AFMA, but the 70D does have it (and of course the 7D). Also consider that the 5N replacement, the 5R, is a $500 body that weights 218g, whereas the 70D is a $1200 body that weights 755g, so, well, it depends on what you need and how much you want to spend.
Of course I know the NEX has drawbacks: I miss the hot shoe and the timelapse ability of my T2i, and the waveform and custom cropmarks that ML gave it. But I still think the 5N has a better video image, and that's what I care about the most.

And I know vintage lenses are risky, I've bought my fair share of lemons, and I've had to repair another few (http://www.similaar.com/foto/lenstests/lenstestsc.html). But don't even try to compare my Leicas with a $100 modern 50mm. Anything below $1K just can't compare (well, maybe the Samyangs and some Sigmas). You've bought L yourself, so it's not as if you don't care about image quality; please don't say things like "If $100 buys me the OEM canon fast prime why bother even worrying about it?", good glass gets sad when it hears that :(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top