Canon 7D - Meet the HMC40 in the Sreets, Where it Counts!!! Unless your scared!

But what has these tests shown us that we didn't already know.

I'm just curious.
It quantified what is and what isn't. That's all.

Look, people will shoot with what they've got, and they'll get good results, sure. But to some of us, it matters what the product actually does, and how, because that will influence whether it's the right choice. For us.

To use a broad allegory -- to many people, it simply does not matter whether the sun revolves around the earth, or the earth revolves around the sun. It's true -- think of a farmer, does he care whether the sun revolves around the earth, or the other way around? Doesn't make one lick of difference to him. Nor does it to the laborer, or the carpenter.

But to some of us, it matters. Because if you understand what something does, and how it does it, then you are prepared to predict and deal with the consequences, accurately.

To many people it doesn't matter whether the earth is flat or round -- again, to the farmer, the call center operator, the house painter, it doesn't matter, does it? But to the travel industry it mattered a lot, and the world wouldn't be what it was if we said "who cares if it's round or flat?"

Whenever you see any substandard result, or less than expected, people start asking questions like "what lens, what aperture, etc.," trying to find any possible explanation for why the reality didn't match the expectation. I have now attempted to quantify what the expectations should be, based on the reality that exists.

On this forum I've seen threads from people asking "should I sell my EX1 to get a 7D?" or "Should I sell my HVX to get a 7D?" or "should I buy a 35mm adapter, or a 7D?" or "why on earth would anyone buy a video camera instead of a DSLR?" or "Will the 7D put the video cameras out of business?" or "Who needs a Scarlet when we have a 7D?"

We've seen threads talking about how the DSLR is the way forward.

I've seen people posting proclamations about how the 7D has greater dynamic range and sharper images than video cameras.

Whenever people get all decided like that, it's an automatic trigger in me to start asking "really?" What do we really know? What does the camera actually do? Has it really advanced the state of the art? How is it better than what we already had (if, indeed, at all?)

Now we know some answers. Those proclamations are simply not true. The hype is hype. It is not sharper than a $2,000 video camera. It does not extend dynamic range beyond what we already had. There are many, many areas open for improvement, primarily in aliasing and moire and sharpness. It does some things well, some incredibly well, it does other things not so well, and some it's just not good at. In some ways it is a step forward, in other ways it is a step backwards. But now we know what ways it is a step forward, and what ways it is not. Now we know what ways it is a step backward, and what ways it is not.

It is not the end-all and be-all, in fact, in some ways it's not even very good. In other ways it's extremely good. And yes, there is certainly still very much room for Scarlet (or others) to improve significantly on what we have here.

Where it has improved the art is in access to a shallow-DOF, interchangeable-lens, low-light camera. It is not sharper than what we had, in fact it's about as sharp as a good 720p camera. And the dynamic range is more limited. And the usability is limited. But in terms of its ability to deliver an incredibly filmlike beautiful image when the shallow DOF is fully taken advantage of (such as an interview shot or MCU), it delivers in spades, at a very low price point. And we also know that the 720p mode is not good at all, not much higher res than standard-def. These are now known quantities, not speculations or suppositions.

You guys will, I'm sure continue to bicker, while i go out and shoot, around these limitations.
At least now we've quantified what the limitations actually are.

If that is not of interest to you, then go right ahead and go out and shoot.

If the examination of the hype and doing a little bit of "mythbusters" bothers you, don't read it. Everyone is free to believe whatever they want to. As for me, I prefer to believe what actually exists and what actually happens, and so I set out to discover what those things are.
 
Last edited:
the problem here in this board is that BARRY GREEN is such a BIG NAME that everything he says seems to be a biblical truth. well actually it is because noone can disprove all his statements and tests because it's all legit.

i am not a technical guy. my decisions rely mostly on reviews of the experts (eg Mr Barry Green). during the time when he was lambasting the EX1 for its shortcomings (ei rolling shutter), i believed him, though i haven't really seen this effect on the said cam (but i only knew two people who own ex1 personally). when Mr. Green said that the color reproduction of the panasonic cams are more important to most people than the resolution of the sony EX, i believed him. that's why i own a panasonic not a sony. when he said that AVCHD is more efficient codec than HDV, i believed him. that's why i skip the HDV technology and jump into the AVCHD ship. now that he seems to like both HMC40 and 7D, that's why he's testing them, maybe i'll get both.

Barry Green is indeed my patron saint, my guru, my messiah, the way, the truth and the life ...

and i am judas.
 
(The following is not a response to JC's postings…)

Um, just out of curiosity…

Why can't one do both? Why can't we view Barry's tests, discuss how they were done and what they mean, AND THEN go out and shoot? Just because people get their knickers in a twist over stuff like this doesn't mean you have to.

And nothing is forcing anyone to read any thread labeled "Canon 7D - Meet the…" whatever. If it doesn't interest you, move along. But it does interest some, maybe even many, which means these tests do have value.

You may know what the limitations of these cameras are, but some certainly do not, and Barry's or anyone else's tests might help keep someone from finding themselves in a completely avoidable situation with a camera.

And keep in mind that, while people do post their work here, it is largely a forum about the technical side of making these cameras do what we want them to do, and how to support our "creative" visions with lighting, sound, acting and all the other elements that make good film.

I'm not a "head-in-the-sand" kind of guy. But I also don't tie my personal happiness and well-being into how well my cameras shoot res charts. After all, I can't remember the last time I had to interview a res chart.

Wow so much in there to respond to, because I feel you are completely missing my context, but I'll keep it simple.
I never said you can't do both. I stated what I have an issue with specifically. I ALSO SAID THAT I AM THANKFUL FOR THE PEOPLE WHO BRING UP THE ISSUES BECAUSE THEY DRIVE THE INDUSTRY FURTHER!!!! ESPECIALLY WITH PEOPLE LIKE BARRY WHO PULL A LOT OF WEIGHT WITH THIER OPINIONS NO MATTER HOW SUBJECTIVE, OBJECTIVE, IMPLICITE, EXPLICIT, ETC.
In MY opinion, there was a great loss in objectivity, not by everyone, not by many, only a few; but I saw it steamrolling and felt I needed to speak up. Also an important function of ANY forum.
 
But I also don't tie my personal happiness and well-being into how well my cameras shoot res charts. After all, I can't remember the last time I had to interview a res chart.
I think I used a similar line in defense of the HVX200, when the XLH1's res charts first hit. I said something like "If you want to shoot res charts, the XLH1 is the best camera for that. If you want to shoot everything else, you might just prefer the HVX."

I think going through this process, and seeing people struggle with the results, I will probably do another article, maybe that will help folks understand why this matters, or why it doesn't. Aliasing is kind of like plastic surgery -- on the one hand you might have a lovely 22-year-old beauty with a great figure and perfect teeth and great skin, on the other hand you have someone who's equally lovely, but got there by having a face lift, dermabrasion, chemical peels, varicose vein surgery, a tummy tuck, breast implants, liposuction, dentures, botox, and a hair transplant. Some folks will say "I don't care how it got there, they both look great." Some won't, they'll foresee problems with the manufactured look that won't be there in the natural.

The res chart reveals whether it's natural beauty or plastic surgery. It helps us see where the problems may come into play. If someone doesn't care, and thinks that both beauties are perfectly fine and beautiful as they are, then there's no reason to worry about what a res chart says, is there? But for those who might run into situations where there is a difference, the res chart helps us foresee and then project those potential complications into real-world scenarios.
 
Wow so much in there to respond to, because I feel you are completely missing my context, but I'll keep it simple.
I never said you can't do both. I stated what I have an issue with specifically. I ALSO SAID THAT I AM THANKFUL FOR THE PEOPLE WHO BRING UP THE ISSUES BECAUSE THEY DRIVE THE INDUSTRY FURTHER!!!! ESPECIALLY WITH PEOPLE LIKE BARRY WHO PULL A LOT OF WEIGHT WITH THIER OPINIONS NO MATTER HOW SUBJECTIVE, OBJECTIVE, IMPLICITE, EXPLICIT, ETC.
In MY opinion, there was a great loss in objectivity, not by everyone, not by many, only a few; but I saw it steamrolling and felt I needed to speak up. Also an important function of ANY forum.


JC, you missed the first line of my post. I completely get what you're saying, but clearly others do not. Tests are only a waste of time for those who don't value them and aren't interested in the results. I'm interested in the results, but don't let them determine how or what I shoot.
 
Somebody in another forum recently said something along the lines of
if you get too deep into the tech talk, it limits creativity.

I think that is a very wise assessment.

When you start to create definitions for the "limits" of things, then you ultimately limit yourself by believing in those things.
 
I didn't take it as Johnny Cola making fun of Barry's tests but making fun of the "Suddenly this camera sucks because it has some limitations. How fast can I sell it" reaction to those tests.

I also think that's what he meant, I mean watch the guy's vimeo videos, he's shot music with a Rebel T1i, I really doubt he'd have much reason to personally hate on the 7D.

The right tool for the right job.
 
JC, you missed the first line of my post. I completely get what you're saying, but clearly others do not. Tests are only a waste of time for those who don't value them and aren't interested in the results. I'm interested in the results, but don't let them determine how or what I shoot.

LOL
I'm sorry man, I thought u were charging me up.
 
I thought you were just drunk, man.

LOL actually I don't drink, I just type like I do.
I'm gonna be the only guy at the strip club tonight drinking a diet coke :grin::thumbup:
It's strictly business anyways, the artist has a friend who owns a strip club, he told us to stop by and pick out couple girls for tomorrows shoot. I'm living in a 12yo boys wet dream. WTF? I really don't know how I got here sometimes but...:beer:
 
Thanks a bloody lot!

Thanks a bloody lot!

I've been researching HD cameras for the past few weeks and I was considering an HMC40. Then I started to read about the D7, Magic Lantern, Mr Bloom etc ..... $1600 + a lens, supposedly as sharper than the EX1 etc ........ Now along comes this charlie and tells me the 7D is no good!!!

I need something for run and gun (Storm Chasing / Documentary shi*e) so the DVCPro codec seemed better for this type of stuff than AVCHD, fast pans, running around like a loon, dodging bullets etc but those bloody P2 cards $$$. Thanks mate, I'm even more confused now!!
 
So wait, Imma confused. Am I still supposed to love my 7D according to the internet people? Forget tests, make up my mind for me!


(My 7D had already paid for itself 6 times over since the beginning of the month, This alone shows how much I love--as well as my clients love-- the 7D)
 
I for one will be selling my 7d, maybe even going back to a camcorder. I want something for nature footage and since the camera claims to be full 1920 x 1080 hd it was not unreasonable for me to expect it to deliver sharp detailed results. I think it is sort of false advertising by Canon. The camera seems great for filmmakers though.

Maybe the gh2 will deliver the quality I am looking for, I can only hope and pray.
 
I've been researching HD cameras for the past few weeks and I was considering an HMC40. Then I started to read about the D7, Magic Lantern, Mr Bloom etc ..... $1600 + a lens, supposedly as sharper than the EX1 etc ........ Now along comes this charlie and tells me the 7D is no good!!!

I need something for run and gun (Storm Chasing / Documentary shi*e) so the DVCPro codec seemed better for this type of stuff than AVCHD, fast pans, running around like a loon, dodging bullets etc but those bloody P2 cards $$$. Thanks mate, I'm even more confused now!!

I don't think the 7d is the answer for you at all, it is pretty useless for filming my kid running around and playing since it does not have continous autofocus. I personally wish i had bought the gh1 but its lackluster ability to film deep focus shots of outdoor scenery makes that less than ideal for me as well.
 
Last edited:
The first posts on this thread were about buyer's remorse regarding the 7D. When I first saw the resolution tests I was hit by that. Further testing has relieved some of that. Now I just view the camera as more limited than I originally expected.

I sat down and was trying to categorize the type of shots I might need to do. There is more than one problem with any decent HD video camera, but its not resolution. It's:

a) the lack of DOF control. (That's why we all bought or built 35mm adapters.)

b) at best so-so low light ability.


The problem with adapters is you solve one problem and create four more problems when you lose the ability to check focus with auto focus, auto exposure, you add grain and you lose light.

So what happens when you want to shoot a common scene like a romantic couple sitting at a table with candle light. You can do it with a DOF adapter, but its likely to be a struggle or fail entirely.
Adapters eat light and when placed on top of a video camera really sux in low light.

In that instance the 7D and 5D really shine. We get the DOF control, but can still adjust exposure and focus both manually and automatically, with great low light abilities.

The next common shot for me is the medium shot. With my A1 I can get decent DOF control off of the zoom, with pretty decent resolution. Now I'm worried that if I blow up 7D footage to big screen size I'll have aliasing. I don't know enough about it yet.

For infinity focus and motion its got to be the A1 or HMC150 all the way. I'm back to my original statement that the 7D is just a tool. Now its just a supplement to my other cameras. No more remorse, just less elation.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top