Canon 7D vs Pasonic AF100 - Skew, DR, etc..

PaPa

PaPa

Major Contributor
*Dammit, posted in the wrong forum section. Mods please! Sorry*

Some quick and dirty tests. Nothing very setup, just some real world tests letting the cameras show their weaknesses and strengths. Both cameras are always 5600k balanced (preset)

Canon 7D:
Neutral
Sharpness all the way down
Saturation two down

Panasonic AF100
CineD gamma
Detail -5
VDetail -5
Coring +1
Norm2 matrix

Skew Comparison:
(On Top) 7D: Matched field of view with EOS 18-135mm @f4 800ISO
(On Bottom) AF100: 35mm Nikon @ F4 800ISO
Both cameras are focused on the white bricked wall.




Walking around my house, letting things blow out, come in and out of focus, fine details (moire) . Both cameras are focus around 5 feet. Can't really use this for sharpness or color as two completely different lenses have been used as well as other factors.
AF100: 16mm Tokina @ F4 400ISO
7D: Matched field of view with EOS 18-135mm @f4 400ISO


Notice at 1:27, top left frame outside we see some detail in the 7D that we don't see in the AF100. But the AF100 seems to give us more information in the shadows and darks with less contrasty lows.

AF100 10.5 Stops vs 7D 8.5 Stops? I know tests were done, however, I really don't see it. I still see all of the blinds on the 7D. There seems to be a slight gain on the shadow end of the image for the AF100, but is this 2 stops difference?
 
Last edited:
I am more and more incline to think that the af100 dynamic range is not very good. I might be crucified for it, but the highlight handling is not very good. It contributes to a very videoish look to my eye until now. There are some test on provideocoalition that shows the Canons more into the 10+ stop dynamic range and I more and more inclined to believe them, more so that they have a full details and test of other camera like the Alexa and different Reds.
 
Danielvilliers said:
I am more and more incline to think that the af100 dynamic range is not very good. I might be crucified for it, but the highlight handling is not very good. It contributes to a very videoish look to my eye until now.
Click to expand...

I thought the same thing too, however, it is still a bit early, as not a lot of people have had their AF100's for long. I think it is possible we could see some different settings and more comparisons/tests that might show the AF100 to handle the highlights a bit better than we've seen so far. At least, I hope that will be the case.

Actually, I'm seeing the sharpness of the AF100's image, as compared to DSLR footage, to be the primary factor in causing the footage to seem more video-like. Of course, that might be the price we pay for getting rid of moire, aliasing, and other artifacts of the DSLRs.
 
I dunno, i've done quite a bit of testing and there are definitely Gamma curves that give you better highlight handling, but then you start to loose shadow detail.
 
PaPa said:
I dunno, i've done quite a bit of testing and there are definitely Gamma curves that give you better highlight handling, but then you start to loose shadow detail.
Click to expand...

But wouldn't that put it in a similar realm of performance with the DSLRs, at least when it comes to dynamic range? I've noticed that my Canon DSLR likes to crush the blacks a bit, even on the more neutral or flat scene settings that I manually program in. So maybe for getting the highlights not being blown out/smoother roll off, we might have to loose some shadow detail, whether we are shooting on a DSLR or an AF100?
 
Danielvilliers said:
I am more and more incline to think that the af100 dynamic range is not very good. I might be crucified for it, but the highlight handling is not very good. It contributes to a very videoish look to my eye until now.
Click to expand...

I have to agree in general. For example, check the yellowish extreme clipping on the couch in the second video or the curtains in the reflection in the coffee table. Nicely done test.
 
Thanks for the comparison, the second video was even better. Why not 1080p though? I agree with Daniel that the 7D does handel clipping a little more gracefully, for what ever reason. In this comparison the 7D seems to gracefully dissolve detail when clipping, while the AF100 goes from detail to being clipped drastically. On the other hand though, the AF100's color seemed more accurate, as the 7D seems to have the common yellow cast at its daylight preset.

Great comparison, would watch it again for a 1080 version though. :)
 
It seems as if the Af100 blue channel clips before and you always have a yellowish tint before the blow. Where it is really annoying is on skin tone and that started to be seen on the first Japan trip videos.
 
artforme said:
Great comparison, would watch it again for a 1080 version though. :)
Click to expand...

+1

Also, if anyone lives in the LA area I'd love to get together to do a 5D/7D/AF100 shoot-out with some staged scenes and lighting. I've got the 5D and 7D, a set of L-series lenses, cool lights 600, crane/dolly, slider, but no AF-100...
 
the only conclusion I would draw about the 2 cameras is skew ---- forget DR. I am not sure when youtube became the go to source for making critical image evaluations regarding noise, DR or colorimetry.

I think the 7D certainly has more skew, looks more unsettled in transition, and certainly more jello like overall.

Interesting. Have you driven past any picket fences with each camera pointed out the side window? Photographed any brick buildings with shingled roofs as a comparison?

Pan induced skew and DR are only two parameters out of many that might possibly separate these two cameras.
 
No argument there. The tests were what they were, nothing more nor am i implying that these tests give the best assessment of their strengths and weaknesses. Just simple run around tests.

Shot something a little more interesting that's uploading now. And i'm beginning to see where we gain the dynamic range..

Regarding using youtube to judge image, we aren't judging the sharpness or detail or anything, but white clipping looks almost identical when i click back and forth from premiere to youtube, so i think it's a fair assessment, plus much work made with the AF100 will most likely be straight to web so it is an important test. Doing a new web series soon so this is very relative.

Anywho, new video coming soon. Youtube is taking it's time.
 
Mark Smith said:
the only conclusion I would draw about the 2 cameras is skew ---- forget DR. I am not sure when youtube became the go to source for making critical image evaluations regarding noise, DR or colorimetry.
Click to expand...

It's fine in side-by-side comparisons like this. Any degradation one camera would suffer in DR and color from youtube compression, the other one would surely suffer as well. Sure we can't see the initial DR of the cameras, but it's very clear that the 7D is performing better here. The AF-100 footage is not going to magically have non-blown highlights just because it's not on youtube or something.

I don't know why people have such a hard time with the possibility of DSLR's still having better DR. DSLR sensors have always performed better. The market for digital still shooting is 1000x that of pro video... therefore, the tech is more advanced and the price is lower due to the market size. The AF-100 definitely has the better recording technology (not by much.. 4:2:0 is still 4:2:0), but I'd bet that the 7D's sensor, and even the GH2, are higher on the tech scale than the AF-100's.

Think about it...
Sensor X costs more, but is manufactured better and has more advanced/expensive tech (gapless micro lensing, blah blah... ect.)
Sensor Y costs less, but takes a hit in manufacturing quality and the latest more advanced sensor tech.

A camera like a GH2 or 7D would have sensor X. Whereas a purpose-built video camera like the AF-100 MIGHT only have sensor Y... since Panasonic sees the number of video to stills sales (something like 100 to 1) and can only afford to put so much tech into a purpose built video system sensor to hit a pro-sumer price point. The price to tech ratio of DSLR's is so low because of the simple fact that the pro stills market dwarfs pro video. If pro stills saw the same sales numbers as video, the 7D or GH2 could easily be in the ballpark of $10,00.
 
Last edited:
Interesting little test. Just to underscore what has been said. If YouTube 720P delivery is your goal, than NEITHER of these two cameras are legitimate capture contenders. As a general heuristic, deliver a test in the intended delivery parameters. So in all honesty, 1080p is the minimum benchmark
 
You are right about how much material winds up on the web these days, but I still don't take youtube as my delivery standard.....
However if you are doing something specifically for the web I can see how you would want a test drive .
 
Alright, to please you guys ;)

Here is 1080


They have both had a little grading, but what I could tell from this is that when i pointed both cameras at a light source, and made them clip at the same parts, the AF100 gives more details in the darks. So where i think we really gain is just never exposing, and by stopping down to avoid the over exposure we may get a darker image, but we get detail :), where as the 7D clips to black faster.

also, you'll enjoy the moire shot on the curtains.
 
I'm trying to figure out why the FOV doesn't look that different between the two?

Anyways...honestly both don't look that far off from each other. I think though YouTube is not a good place to evaluate something like this. Also...the Canon seems to lose its color the darker you go. Or at least it seemed like it later on in the video.
 
Ian-T said:
I'm trying to figure out why the FOV doesn't look that different between the two?

Anyways...honestly both don't look that far off from each other. I think though YouTube is not a good place to evaluate something like this. Also...the Canon seems to lose its color the darker you go. Or at least it seemed like it later on in the video.
Click to expand...

Ya, it does. The youtube stuff just makes things look blockier and muddier, but it's sitll good enough to assess the range. It's really not far off of what i see in premiere, just better resolution.

Stills to come.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top