Canon 7D major differences with HPX170+DOF adapter

Mj882

Mj882

Well-known member
I just viewed some imagery produced by the Canon 7D and I am in absolute shock and awe. It costs within the £1,200 - 1,800 ranges, it's an SLR and it from what I've seen, it almost looks equivalent to using a DOF adapter with a HVX200/HPX170.

What are the major differences, why would one go for a DOF adapter along with HVX/HPX which clearly costs a lot more, is more ergonomical and mobile.

I personally shoot my projects with HPX170+Letus Elite.
 
Yes, it does. And at $1700 it's much smaller, lighter, more affordable, easier to move around, and will deliver effectively more sensitivity (because of not having to go through the ground glass).

Which is why there's so much buzz about SLR's!

The main things you give up are all the videocamera conveniences, such as actually being able to plug in external audio sources, a headphone jack for monitoring the audio, multiple display outputs, variable frame rates, autofocus, smooth power zoom, all that kind of stuff.

If you wouldn't miss any of that, the SLRs can produce amazing imagery at unparalleled price points.

If you need a professional video camera for your work, and all that it entails, then just recognize a consumer digital stills camera (with a video feature tacked on) is going to obviously not offer all that a purpose-built professional video camera has.
 
Thats what I've been wondering. I've shot a lot with the HVX and lenses. and am wondering if I should shoot my next short with the D7 which i know some one who has both.

are the main issues with the D7 the audio monitoring, focus pulling, video monitors and things like that? it shoot all the same frame rates as the hvx right?
 
That really is incredible, the conveniences Barry suggested for the HPX170 don't even seem that major.

Frankly, I might be a tad disappointed in not being patient for a few months to purchase the 7D
 
I'm guess you didn't look at raw files from the camera on a large flat screen TV, if you did you would know that because of heavy compression the 5d / 7D still has some way to go. But when they fix that, it is the future.
 
Patryk_Rebisz said:
I'm guess you didn't look at raw files from the camera on a large flat screen TV, if you did you would know that because of heavy compression the 5d / 7D still has some way to go. But when they fix that, it is the future.
Click to expand...
I think you have a bad camera or something. I think I've downloaded just about everyone's 7D footage off Vimeo and find no problems with the codec or the image (at least nothing out of the ordinary). Video has come a long way in the last few years. Sure there are compromises but...I aint cryin....that's for sure.
 
If you are watching it on 46" screen and are fine with the compression, bless you, good luck and have fun! However i find it acceptable only if my delivery would be internet or SD DVD. If i had any hope of seeing the footage project theatrically the compression at this moment is not acceptable to my eyes.

I'd like to add that most of the project i shoot are not to be delivered to be seen on a big screen thus those DSLRs are more then fine for those purposes. That said thou recently i attended a premiere of a feature film that i shot with Panavision Genesis and projected out of HDCAM SR tape on a huge screen... In this situation you are kind of lying to yourself thinking that 5D or 7D would hold up on that screen (likewise on my 40" flat screen the footage falls apart too, then again maybe i'm just looking too closely).
 
Last edited:
Wow man. There are a number of folks within this forum and elsewhere who have projected 5D footage with basically the total opposite POV as yours. I'm not saying what you say isn't true but it's basically contradicting previous reports. These cameras are not a Panavision Genesis and I don't think anyone expects them to perform like that cam. The guys who shot Crank 2 on an HDV camera more than likely didn't think the A1 and HF10's would compete with a Genesis... But....from seeing the movie in theaters myself....I think those cams held up very well.....even after many years of professionals claiming the exact same thing you are saying about the 7D/5Dll. If it's just a personal preference...then that's one thing....you must have hated Crank 2 then (not the story...but aesthetically).

Edit: I mentioned this a while back...but when I was in college we had some folks that shot a movie on equipment that (IMO) was not quite as good as what these DSLRs can spit out...yet their footage held up well in theaters. Matter of fact....it made them millions of dollars. The movie was called "The Blair Witch Project." Love it or hate it...they did something that most of us here dream of doing with our little toys. So...I'm a believer that it can be done with this equipment....even with much lesser equipment.
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure your "scientific method" (i'm having a bit of fun...) is really holding up here. I saw Crank 2 in the theaters and was blown away how well it held up BUT... It was a film print out! And that will cover up TONS of imperfections. Hell, i had a film shot on DVX100 printed to 35mm and it looked better printed than when projected from tape. If you state that your film will be printed to 35mm for projection then many cameras will look wonderful.

Now second part of your response is a bit puzzling because it really doesn't have much to do with the image quality. Just because that film i shot was shot with Genesis doesn't mean it was a good movie. Just because the other film was printed to 35mm doesn't mean it was a good film either. What any film was shot on ultimately doesn't matter if the film is brilliant it's only when the film is mediocre (and lets get real, most of what we do here is mediocre) then the quality of the image adds that litttle extra that maybe makes it just a bit more watchable.
 
Patryk, I largely agree with your assessments. I think the 7D, 5D, and GH1 are amazing *at their price points*. But as per "ultimate quality", no, they're not there. But they don't have to be -- they're $1500 to $2700. They cost about as much as a 35mm adapter for another camera.

Patryk, by the way, is an absolutely amazing cinematographer. He did a short film which was the first one, I think, that showed what the DVX was capable of, it was absolutely jaw-dropping and it was a standard-def DVX. The man knows images inside and out.
 
Patryk_Rebisz said:
Now second part of your response is a bit puzzling because it really doesn't have much to do with the image quality. Just because that film i shot was shot with Genesis doesn't mean it was a good movie. Just because the other film was printed to 35mm doesn't mean it was a good film either. What any film was shot on ultimately doesn't matter if the film is brilliant it's only when the film is mediocre (and lets get real, most of what we do here is mediocre) then the quality of the image adds that litttle extra that maybe makes it just a bit more watchable.
Click to expand...
I'm confused here but aren't we discussing image quality? Doesn't the compression have a lot to do with image quality? I used TBWP as an example of how equipment that I think was equally or more compromised than a 5Dll/7D could tell a story while successfully being projected on the large screen. Personally I didn't like "TBWP" for a number of reasons (but plenty of others found it watchable....God bless them) but my response was really to this:

If you are watching it on 46" screen and are fine with the compression, bless you, good luck and have fun! However i find it acceptable only if my delivery would be internet or SD DVD. If i had any hope of seeing the footage project theatrically the compression at this moment is not acceptable to my eyes.

I see that's a personal preference for you. And I also agree with what you said about it not being there yet...but really....most cams under $10,000 (I'm just throwing that figure out there) are not there yet. But that has not stopped a David Lynch or that little fat girl from Ohio from doing what they can do with it. But I see that you are not necessarily saying that it's not possible only that you wouldn't because of personal preferences. That's cool.


Edit: I admit I don't know too much about film transfer etc., but in rereading your first response I have to say I didn't know that striping your footage to film will hide a lot of imperfections. That's a good thing. That's what I was talking about...film transfers (projected theatrically)...not necessarily digital projections. But I do understand your point better.

Edit2: I'm guessing it's similar to downsizing your artifact ridden 1080p footage to 720p which helps to hide those kind of issues?
 
Last edited:
Thanks a lot Barry, compliments are much appreciated!

I really want to love those cameras (5D/7D) because in theory it's a dream come true, a tiny compact form and superb images, but i also have to be realistic. The reality is that just like HVX200 was suppose to be a holly grail of indie filmmaking (and it felt a bit short) those 2 DSLRs are suppose to be that too (or rather we sooo want them to be).

If i was going to invest into a new camera, monitor and a few extra accessories i would totally buy 7D as it does fit into the type of work i tend to do (indie music videos) but since i already have a portable 35mm rig (that has its drawbacks too of course) buying this camera would be something of a step back as it doesn't offer image improvement (if anything it compresses the image even more) and forces me to spend about $3000 (camera, HDMI monitor, some accesories, tax) for something i already own.
 
Patryk_Rebisz said:
I'm guess you didn't look at raw files from the camera on a large flat screen TV.
Click to expand...
LOL, I wish people would stop talking about "large TVs".

I watch movies on a 7 foot DLP front projection from a distance of roughly 8 feet. But you know what? When I edit and grade, I sit less than 20 inches away from a 24 inch screen. So I can see MORE detail on the small screen than on the large screen.

It's called viewing angle. The bigger the viewing angle the more detail you will see. And viewing angle depends on TWO factors: screen size and viewing distance.
 
We are in the infancy of the HDSLR's, the companies will leapfrog each other to be the best so it is a matter of time as they get better and better. I think the "revolution" is that no one really saw this coming from the SLR form factor and that consumers would get this technology this cheaply. The 7D isn't the end, it just happens to be the best HDSLR right now and it was good enough that I had to grab one. The thing really is amazing to me though.
 
Patryk_Rebisz said:
I'm guess you didn't look at raw files from the camera on a large flat screen TV, if you did you would know that because of heavy compression the 5d / 7D still has some way to go. But when they fix that, it is the future.
Click to expand...

Well, when shot with good lenses (around 1.4) then the DOF gives us the illusion of a much sharper image than most videocams can produce. Compression is overrated; the look is all that counts (and even that is LOOONG after story and content)
 
alpi69 said:
Well, when shot with good lenses (around 1.4) then the DOF gives us the illusion of a much sharper image than most videocams can produce.
Click to expand...

From footage I've been seeing I agree, especially when you throw a DOF adapter in front of the video cam. There are higher end cams like the EX-1 + Letus combo that will compete with these DSLRs (and even look sharper and more detailed) but then I guess you'd run into other issues like low light and grain. I guess this is where it would be nice to have a DSLR for those shallow DOF shots.


alpi69 said:
Compression is overrated; the look is all that counts (and even that is LOOONG after story and content)
Click to expand...
I think it is too.... I've seen some nice work done on cams like the D90 that made me forget about its not-so-good compression. But then I could throw other issues in there like rolling shutter etc. that I think are also overrated.
 
I agree with Patrick here. However, I'm more of a critic of the 7D than the 5D. But I'll just stop posting now and will do an entire series of shooting tests- real scenery/ situation shoots to determine further. I Have a full range of L lenses loaned to experiment, so will try to get the best I can from this camera to determine if it works for what I need it right now. (or not)
 
Don't forget Lights

Don't forget Lights

There is another big cost savings to productions using the 7D vs video camera + adapter and that is the cost of lights. From my recollection adapters required more light. Has this been a cost saving factor in your productions?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top