Canon 70d Has Aliasing Moire

I have a NEX 5N and I have an EOS M, among many other shooters. I shoot videos, not line charts. The NEX 5N autofocus is absolutely terrible, almost unusable. Its videos are visibly soft. Its standard colors are pleasing, organic, but odd. Here is a comparison video of the NEX 5N and The EOS M (there is a comparative shot missing from the 5N because I could not get it to focus on the subject, while I could using the EOS M):
And here are two videos of the same place, but at different times, one shot with the NEX 5N and the other with the EOSM:
 
Last edited:
I see what you mean. But my results are completely different, and, unlike you, I tested with the same lens in both cameras, using manual focus with 10x zoom-in aid, and shooting exactly the same shot with both cameras.
Either your lens is bad, or you're not setting the 5N correctly.

Please click here. Or here.
 
Samuel H said:
I see what you mean. But my results are completely different, and, unlike you, I tested with the same lens in both cameras, using manual focus with 10x zoom-in aid, and shooting exactly the same shot with both cameras.
Either your lens is bad, or you're not setting the 5N correctly.

Please click here. Or here.
Click to expand...
In the first video I shoot exactly the same shot back to back within seconds with the two cameras and the lenses they come with. The 5N is a system, the EOS M is a system, each with its own lenses (though the EOS M can take Canon EF lenses with no crippling, unlike alphas on NEX 5N). So the lens+body is what matters. Most people agree that E-lenses are inferior to Canon M-lenses, let alone most (not all) Canon EF lenses. It's the same lens used as in the garden video, which looks perfectly ok, until you compare. I know how to set cameras correctly. I have the GH2, the GH3 and the NEX 5N and the EOS M. The GH3 has the best video, based on real world experience; I like the Canon colors a lot, but wish it had less moire and higher resolution. The NEX 5N is inferior to both (or maybe only with that camera I don't know how to set it up?). I have no axe to grind, since I can use any camera. I have plenty of experience with NEX. This is a video I took with the 5N that is decent: https://vimeo.com/35550839 and one with the NEX 5, that got over 14,000 plays on Vimeo: https://vimeo.com/14564281. And, oh, I forgot, the 5N overheated terribly while shooting the garden video (hot day, bright sun). I had to constantly turn off the camera to get it to cool down so I could shoot. It is the worst camera I have ever used for video. Under exactly the same circumstances, the EOS M never overheated. This is exactly the real world video experience that matters, and shots of shirts in a studio are mostly irrelevant to.
 
Last edited:
markr041 said:
The 5N is a system, the EOS M is a system,
Click to expand...
Going to stop you right there. They are adaptable to the users needs, and if you can get more out of a camera by mixing and matching, then you can get more. Your altruistic notions about "use canon with canon lenses, and sony with sony lenses", have some merit, but do not apply or make any sense in debating 5n potential. Also, you are not arguing the same issue that Samuel is talking about: the 70d is not a worthy upgrade for most video users who already own a video/stills camera. I believe even you agree with that.

You both agree that while usable, both the NEX 5n and Canon 1st gen video sucks, so right now you are both arguing about which outdated and cheap camera sucks more. Sheesh.
 
But... but he said my camera sucks! :angry:

:)

My point is that my camera is cheap but not outdated: there's nothing better in its price range yet. The Canons are outdated, except for the 5D3: it makes no sense to buy them, except if you need them for a very particular reason (like: "I already have $10K of L glass lying around"). The cameras I would buy or recommend today would be: 5N/5R, D5200/D7100, BMC-m43, 5D3, anything above that is probably a rental.

But anyway, let's leave it at "the 5N lacks lots of features and overheats like crazy, and with kit lens it is really soft, much softer than EOS-M with kit lens; but if you use both with a really good lens then the 5N looks great, it is sharper and has less moire". I'd be happy with that. I have no Sony lenses, and I don't intend to buy any.
(man, all this talking about how bad the 5N is, and you're using a 18-200 kit lens; jeez... I wouldn't touch that with a thick leather glove at the end of a 10' pole held by an RC robot)
 
Samuel H said:
The cameras I would buy or recommend today would be: 5N/5R, D5200/D7100, BMC-m43, 5D3, anything above that is probably a rental.
Click to expand...

Don't forget the GH3. What it lacks in DR against the extreme flattest profiles (not my style given 8bit codec) it makes up in other great video features.
 
James0b57 said:
Going to stop you right there. They are adaptable to the users needs, and if you can get more out of a camera by mixing and matching, then you can get more. Your altruistic notions about "use canon with canon lenses, and sony with sony lenses", have some merit, but do not apply or make any sense in debating 5n potential. Also, you are not arguing the same issue that Samuel is talking about: the 70d is not a worthy upgrade for most video users who already own a video/stills camera. I believe even you agree with that.

You both agree that while usable, both the NEX 5n and Canon 1st gen video sucks, so right now you are both arguing about which outdated and cheap camera sucks more. Sheesh.
Click to expand...

Leaving aside your gratuitous "sheesh" and in the interest of providing information rather than using terms like "sucks" to describe video from any camera: You can use all Canon lenses on the EOS M, with full electronic control and all apertures, so you can mix and match easily with many choices sacrificing nothing. On the NEX, you cannot go below f3.5 on any alpha lens if you use the best adaptor (that gives you better AF). So forget low-light for the most part - it is less adaptable to users needs. And, if someone is interested in small cameras for run and gun video, in principle the small mirrorless cameras like NEX, EOS M and others with relatively big sensors are interesting options, especially if one already has bought into the manufacturer's lenses. Oh, and Magic Lantern for Canon gives some intriguing options too, including almost moire-free RAW video even on the EOS M. The 70D is a big camera, so it competes with everything, and there may indeed be better alternatives.
 
markr041 said:
Leaving aside your gratuitous "sheesh" and in the interest of providing information rather than using terms like "sucks" to describe video from any camera: You can use all Canon lenses on the EOS M, with full electronic control and all apertures, so you can mix and match easily with many choices sacrificing nothing. On the NEX, you cannot go below f3.5 on any alpha lens if you use the best adaptor (that gives you better AF). So forget low-light for the most part - it is less adaptable to users needs. And, if someone is interested in small cameras for run and gun video, in principle the small mirrorless cameras like NEX, EOS M and others with relatively big sensors are interesting options, especially if one already has bought into the manufacturer's lenses. Oh, and Magic Lantern for Canon gives some intriguing options too, including almost moire-free RAW video even on the EOS M. The 70D is a big camera, so it competes with everything, and there may indeed be better alternatives.
Click to expand...

With the metabones adapter you can use EF lenses on Nex. So that really isn't an issue. For Video which is what this forum and discussion is about is AF speed really something most users care about? Canon is betting big that it is but I don't know anyone who shoots video on AF if they can help it (unmanned event cams aside).
 
markr041 said:
...and there may indeed be better alternatives.
Click to expand...
Agreed.

markr041 said:
Leaving aside your gratuitous "sheesh" and in the interest of providing information rather than using terms like "sucks" to describe video from any camera:
Click to expand...
Does not change the fact that you are arguing about what camera is worse.

markr041 said:
You can use all Canon lenses on the EOS M, with full electronic control and all apertures, so you can mix and match easily with many choices sacrificing nothing. On the NEX, you cannot go below f3.5 on any alpha lens if you use the best adaptor (that gives you better AF).
Click to expand...
When talking about getting the most out of a camera, there are plenty of excellent manual lenses that work fast and well with an NEX camera. While it is nice to have those features, it is no deal breaker, I have used canon bodies but do not regularly use Canon lenses.

markr041 said:
So forget low-light for the most part -
Click to expand...
Why? Especially if we are taking "everything' into account like a lens system.

markr041 said:
it is less adaptable to users needs.
Click to expand...
Which users? The ones that can only afford a cheap camera and would have to update their lens set to go for a Canon system, if they decide to go down your route?

markr041 said:
And, if someone is interested in small cameras for run and gun video, in principle the small mirrorless cameras like NEX, EOS M and others with relatively big sensors are interesting options, especially if one already has bought into the manufacturer's lenses. Oh, and Magic Lantern for Canon gives some intriguing options too, including almost moire-free RAW video even on the EOS M.
Click to expand...
Yes, and NEX with 1080p and better low light and less moire with also better sharpness and more DR is certainly an interesting option...

....But of course, it's sucky compression is worse than Canon's sucky compression, which may or may not be noticed through the sucky web compression when the video is uploaded and finally viewed, but not necessarily in 480p.



ML raw is one of the more exciting things available in the low price bracket recently. Samuel H and I are some of the most excited about that. Samuel H has been involved with it before you even knew about it most likely.

Canon M is cool, and so is the NEX (with some over heating issues?) Neither is pro, but both can be used to great effect. I still have and use a 60D, love it to bits. But they are all outdated, and seems like the 70d is in that same club.

What were we talking about? Oh yeah, the 70d being a replacement for your current camera. Is it worth it? Have you used it?
 
Some great information and comments all around, but let's try to keep it on topic. Mark, feel free to start a new thread regarding the EOS-M vs video quality of other bodies.
 
Check out this moire test of the 70D. This looks pretty good to me viewing on You Tube. Not sure I notice much of a difference between this and GH3 footage.

 
Did you watch it carefully? If you watch it in 1080p you ll see its full of moire...! Of course I cant think of many cameras that would not moire even a little in a place like that but its far from clean...
Dont get me wrong...I would love the 70D to be my next camera (I ve already sold my 60D) but except the amazing new AF system all the indications we have so far showing that there is no other improvement over the existing models..
But Im still waiting...and hoping...:)
 
lyrov said:
Did you watch it carefully? If you watch it in 1080p you ll see its full of moire...! Of course I cant think of many cameras that would not moire even a little in a place like that but its far from clean...
Dont get me wrong...I would love the 70D to be my next camera (I ve already sold my 60D) but except the amazing new AF system all the indications we have so far showing that there is no other improvement over the existing models..
But Im still waiting...and hoping...:)
Click to expand...

Watch it in 1080P FULL screen.....zero moire on my display. Yeah on the little screen - of course.
 
Better than I would expect from, say, a 60D. Interesting. Could be that the background (where the patterns are fine enough to cause moire) is dark and out of focus, though: the worst part is the one at the end, on the left, where the sun shines.
 
lyrov said:
Did you watch it carefully? If you watch it in 1080p you ll see its full of moire...! Of course I cant think of many cameras that would not moire even a little in a place like that but its far from clean...
Dont get me wrong...I would love the 70D to be my next camera (I ve already sold my 60D) but except the amazing new AF system all the indications we have so far showing that there is no other improvement over the existing models..
But Im still waiting...and hoping...:)
Click to expand...


Thanks! I can't watch it in 1080p as it chokes the computer I'm using right now. I'm just watching it as most of my viewers would be watching my material which I imagine would be probably no greater than 480p. I wonder how many users are consuming You Tube at 1080p or just take the default 360p. It still seems like an improvement even at 480p on you tube. I need to keep in mind the canvas I'm generating content for and the 70D might be the right paint brush for that. Hell, Like Crazy was done a 7D. Right now I'm looking at the Canon XA25 and the 70D.
 
Samuel H said:
Better than I would expect from, say, a 60D. Interesting. Could be that the background (where the patterns are fine enough to cause moire) is dark and out of focus, though: the worst part is the one at the end, on the left, where the sun shines.
Click to expand...

Exactly....So my eyes are fine...:)
 
I see some aliasing in the very fine lines at the end of the tunnel, but none of that colored moire rainbow stuff that I would expect to see from a Canon. Someone needs to shoot a chart.

Off topic but sort of on topic, while doing a t5i/t4i comparison David Dougdale who is normally pretty reserved rants about Canon and their unwillingness to innovate:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=7P7ZgC5HokI

Also if you are going to buy a 70D for video over the 60D don't -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=MTo7PxCC41o

At the end of the ^^^^ video is the classic rooftop ugly moire. In the opening shots it's aliasing hell off in the distance.

The one below it's right on the walkway to the left, a horrid mess.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=_JLLxsBStPY

Guess you guys were right, in that one video it just seemed a bit better to me.
 
Last edited:
pulpfiction007 said:
Off topic but sort of on topic, while doing a t5i/t4i comparison David Dougdale who is normally pretty reserved rants about Canon and their unwillingness to innovate:
.
Click to expand...

I agree with a lot of what he said especially about how other brands are going to eat canon's lunch if they don't get off this "We gotta protect our C300, C100 by crippling our lower DSLR line." BS. But they have innovated pretty radically with this new DPAF sensor design. Not that that makes it okay they didn't include a frigg'in headphone jack. It's just a shame. A codec equal to the GH3 combined with their DPAF and the 70D would rule the segment. I'm still looking forward to more footage coming from this cam.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top