Canon VDSLR's vs. Canon Consumer Camcorders

[Ripple]

I am wondering how good the video looks from Canon VDSLR’s compared to Canon consumer cameras, when not factoring in the out of focus blur that a VDSLR can provide. There are plenty of threads comparing the video of the Canon VDSLR’s to the prosumer cams and an article here, but I cannot find the article that seemed to conclude that an HV20 looked as good or better than a 7D, when out of focus blur was not of concern (IIRC).

I'll be buying a Nikon or Canon VDSLR to shoot still photos once the upgrade to the D90 and the 50D are out (or fall at the latest), as well as a decent zoom lens and a 50mm f/1.4. After too much “research,” am leaning toward Nikon (not because it’s “better” for stills in absolute terms, but because it is probably better for me).

I have also been shooting video with a Canon HF100 for the past two years, and editing with FCP 6. The 24P telecine removal is a pain, and it’s low light performance is about two stops less than many prosumer cams, but it still serves me well for the most part. I should note that I am a beginner with still photos and cannot manually focus fast enough to use a VDSLR with moving subjects. A lot of what I shoot is of subjects sitting relatively still, though. I understand Canon got the patent to a mirror that might allow autofocus with video (here), but I don't think I should bank on this being be added any time soon (though I hope I'm wrong).

Edit: By "out of focus blur," I'm referring to the effect one can get by either by using fast apertures to obtain shallow DOF, or by using longer zooms stopped down a little, or both -- e.g. a 50mm lens @ f/1.4 will produce the same amount of focus blur as a 200mm @ f/5.6, but the 50mm @ 1.4 will have far shallower DOF (provided that if both lenses have the same FOV at the focal plane). [end edit].

(BTW, I apologize for not resonding to a thread I made here a while back. I eventually found a notice that people had responded in my spam box, but I felt it was too late to reply.)

 

[dcloud]

ignoring the DOF?
everything else. audio recording, codec, sharpness, resolution

Its kinda funny. If zacuto tested a shoot out they might even probably perform well

 

[Jester2138]

The SLR's are better in low-light and have a greater dynamic range. It is also my personal belief that they capture more pleasing colors.

 

[deltoidjohn]

Probably the next biggest advantage after shallow DoF is the greater dynamic range. You'll get a greater range of tonal variations from the bigger sensor of the 550d so you'll be less likely to lose detail to blow-outs or underexposure. Couple this with amazing lowlight ability and it's a camera that will still capture good images in a some more challenging lighting scenarios. Physical controls on the body are another advantage as well as the wide selection of lenses.

The camcorder's strong points will be the codec, longer recording times, automatic settings, larger battery capacity, no shots ruined by moire or alaising, a viewfinder (on some models), better audio control and better ergonomics.

 

[Ripple]

ignoring the DOF?
everything else. audio recording, codec, sharpness, resolution...

I'm sorry I don't follow. Are you saying that, besides shallow DOF, consumer camcorders do "everything else" better than vDSLR's?

The SLR's are better in low-light and have a greater dynamic range... more pleasing colors.

Probably the next biggest advantage... is the greater dynamic range... Couple this with amazing lowlight ability...

This helps; thanks for your time. I do wonder, though. In the article here, the author says that the prosumer video cams give better dynamic range than a 7D. Of course I’m talking about consumer video cams here, but would you agree that prosumer video cams give greater dynamic range than Canon vDSLR's? Or is he just referring to prosumer cams ability to adjust gamma curves, etc., and not actual dynamic range.

[Edit:] As far as low light performance, the sensor of the the HV20/HF100 is said to be rated around ISO 100. With 18 db of gain (the max), this would be about ISO 800. Would you say this would look as noisy as a t2i or 7D at ISO 6400? 1280? [end edit].

The camcorder's strong points will be the codec...

According to my first google hit here, the 7D records video at “5.6 MB/s” (44.8 mb/s), though I believe it is still 4:2:0 and 8-bit. I do not know if this is an average or max bitrate, but it is nearly twice that of most consumer cams (AVCHD’s max is 24 bit/s.

I don’t know how much difference the higher bitrate would make, but it would seem this should translate in to a codec which is slightly/moderately more color correctable in post (though still not enough to make heavy color correction easy, according to a Pro Lost blog here). Is footage from Canon vDSLR’s easier to color correct/color grade than footage from AVCHD consumer cams?

...The camcorder's strong points will be... no shots ruined by moire or alaising.

So much more aliasing than even consumer cameras, hugh. It seems that, besides lack of out of focus blur and low dynamic range, aliasing is something that almost defines the look of video. I recently noticed it purposely injected in a feature film, during a section that was supposedly recorded with a video camera (as part of the story).

 

[deltoidjohn]

So much more aliasing than even consumer cameras, hugh. It seems that, besides lack of out of focus blur and low dynamic range, aliasing is something that almost defines the look of video. I recently noticed it purposely injected in a feature film, during a section that was supposedly recorded with a video camera (as part of the story).

All video cameras will have some kind of aliasing. What matters is how perceptible this aliasing is; this is based on a number of factors such as the sensor's read out pattern and the optical low pass filter. With videocameras, all these factors are designed to give the best looking, alias-free image at 1920x1080 (or whatever their native resolution is), whereas DSLR's are optimised for 18mp (or whatever their native resolution is). It's in the down-conversion from 18MP to ~2MP that the aliasing of DLSR's becomes more severe.

With videocameras, you usually have to look to find the aliasing (in raw footage, that is - Digital TV might have more atrifacts because it's been recompressed). With the DSLR's, the aliasing is glaringly obvious in many situations and in often ruins entire shots. However if you learn what situations moire is likely to appear in you can work around it by using shallower DoF, dressing the set or your talent differently, etc.

As for the dynamic range, in that article Barry states the DSLR's offer about 8-8.5 stops. From a quick google search the DVX100 seems to give about 5-6 stops of dynamic range, and 35mm film gives 12 stops. My experience with quick testing is that on a fairly sunny day, using my GH1, I can film a backlit person standing in front of a window, and set exposure so that I can see details on the persons face clearly, and still see some blue colour in the sky outside. With the Z1p in the same scenario, the sky would be blown out and completely white or there would be no detail at all on the persons face. In a proper shooting scenario for me, I found that when shooting surfing on a bright day, I can properly expose dark blue water and the surfers without blowing out the highlights in the sky or the whitewater. No camcorder I've used before could manage to do this under the same bright, contrasty lighting.

The codec in the Canon's does have a high bitrate but this is a result of inefficient implementation. Panasonic have proven that 24mbps h.264 can deliver stunning, rock solid results. The compression from the DSLR's still suffers from banding and macro-blocking (though the Canon's are nowhere near as bad as the GH1) at 44mb/s which would suggest that the codec as they have used it is not very strong.

 

[dcloud]

my bad... except for low light & DOF where consumer cams would suck. Everything else, the consumers would have a lot of advantage. Thats even why the sony interchangeable camcorder looks appealing (even though i dont like sony)

Im willing to bet that consumer cams like the hf-s20 or the tm700 would perform well in dynamic range and resolution. I would love to see chart comparisons though

which imagery would look better would be based on opinion but the dslrs would definitely look better due to DOF.

 

[NoahK]

The Canon consumer/prosumer cameras have better ergonomics and are generally much more appropriate for motion picture work. However, imho their prosumer cameras are outmatched by those of Panasonic and Sony. My ideal camera package would be a Canon 5D Mark II and Sony EX3 or Panasonic HPX170. That would give you the best of both worlds with good codecs and workflow across the board.

Noah

 

[Ripple]

Thanks for everyone's help. I think that's about what I need for now. I may be back later with another thread re: the noise of the t2i and 7D at high ISO vs. the consumer Canon camorders with 18 db.

All video cameras will have some kind of aliasing... With the DSLR's, the aliasing is glaringly obvious in many situations and in often ruins entire shots. However if you learn what situations moire is likely to appear in you can work around it by using shallower DoF, dressing the set or your talent differently, etc.

As for the dynamic range... using my GH1, I can film a backlit person standing in front of a window, and set exposure so that I can see details on the persons face clearly, and still see some blue colour in the sky outside. With the Z1p in the same scenario, the sky would be blown out and completely white or there would be no detail at all on the persons face.... No camcorder I've used before could manage to do this under the same bright, contrasty lighting.

The codec in the Canon's does have a high bitrate but this is a result of inefficient implementation. Panasonic have proven that 24mbps h.264 can deliver stunning, rock solid results....

Extremely helpful re: alaising, dynamic range, and codec. Edit: I saw RED's measurement of aliasing on the 7D here, but did not know how this translated into real world performance [end edit]. Thanks for your time.

...except for low light & DOF where consumer cams would suck. Everything else, the consumers would have a lot of advantage...

Thank you for the clarification.

The Canon consumer/prosumer cameras have better ergonomics and are generally much more appropriate for motion picture work. However, imho their prosumer cameras are outmatched by those of Panasonic and Sony. My ideal camera package would be a Canon 5D Mark II and Sony EX3 or Panasonic HPX170...

Based on what I have read, I would definitely prefer the Sony EX1R or HPX170 to any of the Canon prosumer or "professional" cams. It is personally interesting that Canon still makes a $9K HDV camcorder (though I bet it is the best HDV camcorder made). All of the new prosumer cams are presently out of my budget, however.

 

[Ripple]

Dynamic Range of the Panny HMC150 and Consumer Camcorders

Dynamic Range of the Panny HMC150 and Consumer Camcorders

...As for the dynamic range, in that article Barry states the DSLR's offer about 8-8.5 stops. From a quick google search the DVX100 seems to give about 5-6 stops of dynamic range, and 35mm film gives 12 stops...

...In a proper shooting scenario for me, I found that when shooting surfing on a bright day, I can properly expose dark blue water and the surfers without blowing out the highlights in the sky or the whitewater. No camcorder I've used before could manage to do this under the same bright, contrasty lighting...

...Panasonic have proven that 24mbps h.264 can deliver stunning, rock solid results....

Just used consumer Canon camcorders (HF100's) to record an indoor seminar. I am not happy with the dynamic range. :furious3:
I would have had to use a polarization filter to prevent blowout, but there was not nearly enough light (was already recording with a shutter of 1/30 to minimize gain).

Any idea what the dynamic range is on consumer camcorders?

It looks like you or other people in this section may have some experience with the HMC150. What is said to be its dynamic range? Is it near that of vDSLR's?

Thanks.

 

[Razz16mm]

Just used consumer Canon camcorders (HF100's) to record an indoor seminar. I am not happy with the dynamic range. :furious3:
I would have had to use a polarization filter to prevent blowout, but there was not nearly enough light (was already recording with a shutter of 1/30 to minimize gain).

Any idea what the dynamic range is on consumer camcorders?

It looks like you or other people in this section may have some experience with the HMC150. What is said to be its dynamic range? Is it near that of vDSLR's?

Thanks.

I don't know about current consumer HD camcorders, but DR on my 5 year old GL2 is about 7 stops at best. The DR of the DSLR's on video is much less than it is for stills due to the limitations of the codec. The consumer camcorders don't give you much in the way of manual adjustments to make best use of the available DR though.

 

[skital]

Just used consumer Canon camcorders (HF100's) to record an indoor seminar. I am not happy with the dynamic range. :furious3:
I would have had to use a polarization filter to prevent blowout, but there was not nearly enough light (was already recording with a shutter of 1/30 to minimize gain).

Any idea what the dynamic range is on consumer camcorders?

It looks like you or other people in this section may have some experience with the HMC150. What is said to be its dynamic range? Is it near that of vDSLR's?

Thanks.

Out of curiosity did you use "Cinemode"? If not, I can definitely see why you'd be disappointed. Big difference between on and off.

 

[deltoidjohn]

It looks like you or other people in this section may have some experience with the HMC150. What is said to be its dynamic range? Is it near that of vDSLR's?

I haven't used the HMC150 personally but I think it has a "dynamic range stretch" feature which might be just what you are looking for.

 

[maranfilms]

Based on what I have read, I would definitely prefer the Sony EX1R or HPX170 to any of the Canon prosumer or "professional" cams. It is personally interesting that Canon still makes a $9K HDV camcorder (though I bet it is the best HDV camcorder made). All of the new prosumer cams are presently out of my budget, however.

But remember, its full 1920 and at 50 mbps. The image quality and low light are better than the ex1, from the clips I have seen. Problem is it has small sensors. I was excited with the news of this cam until I found out the sensor size. It's like a Harley with no chrome.

 

[24Peter]

Maybe it's just me, but the video from my HV20 doesn't come close to what I get out of my T2i (and 5DII). I'm still very fond of the HV20 - all the IQ in world doesn't matter if the shot isn't in focus for instance. But in every aspect, video from my Canon DSLR's looks superior, starting with sheer resolution/sharpness, and moving on to dynamic range, color, compression artifacting, low light performance, etc. DOF (or lack thereof) is just a bonus...

 

[flinty]

Maybe it's just me, but the video from my HV20 doesn't come close to what I get out of my T2i (and 5DII). I'm still very fond of the HV20 - all the IQ in world doesn't matter if the shot isn't in focus for instance. But in every aspect, video from my Canon DSLR's looks superior, starting with sheer resolution/sharpness, and moving on to dynamic range, color, compression artifacting, low light performance, etc. DOF (or lack thereof) is just a bonus...

Have you done a resolution sharpness test, i have with my HV and 550D, i found my HV looked sharper and seemed to slightly resolve more detail,i still Think i like the overall 550 look but i am not sure , abviously for low light there can only be one winner, a bit surprised at my test though i epected the 550D to win noticably.

 

[Snapper123]

My personal review is that I don't think there's any camera out there for the price range that will give you perfect results; you'll always be 'working around' something (in my case, I find that the vertical lines in the T2i's footage in the blur are too visible, as well as the noise at ISO 100, so I tend to overexpose my stuff.) but I haven't owned another professional camera, so those two issues may be 'good' for the standard.

Overall, as soon as you pick up the T2i/7D, shoot something outside, and slap Superflat or another good preset on it that softens the image, you'll see that as long as these cameras have enough light, the things it picks up looks outstanding. Although it'd be easier, I couldn't imagine using a camcorder. You just have to be prepared that lenses are expensive (even to rent) unless you go vintage, the in-body settings are overwhelming, and it's basically like using a computer. Now, about the light thing, I judge my tests based on what I would put into a theater released film, or even a documentary, and I have to say that the camera is not great in average indoor lighting scenarios, a warning is that to keep the ISO on at least 200 in normal scenarios, you really do need either set lighting OR a 1.4~1.8 lens. Combine that with blockage and random noise, and you tend to get footage that honestly doesn't seem 'revolutional' to me. Natural indoor scenarios are where I'd say film vs. digital may indeed 100% hold it's weight, so don't be expecting something that looks just as great indoors as out. Just even the way the technology handles certain lighting types is really random, if you ask me.

Beyond that, though, even indoors if you're shooting with bright lights and expose a bit over, the footage is extremely clear and beautiful. Everyone will universally agree though, you really do gotta have light.

Here's some great, crystal clear (and I mean diamond clear) things I've taken with the T2i - the videos were so clear that Youtube didn't even mess them up: (All of these are overexposed by one whole stop, you'd be surprised at the noise if it wasn't.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QcpGnF3XtlA
http://www.youtube.com/user/Taotrac#p/u/6/vUauQ8_9rQI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDdvF74w6O8


Just keep in mind that in normal scenarios, you do have to overexpose a bit, noise shows up in the videos even when you don't think it possibly would. Long as you do that, the videos are excellent, and even if you don't overexpose, they're still good depending on the area. The main problem I've experienced is that like I've been stressing, I feel like noise issues with this camera at ISO 100 cause the videos to look flickery if you don't overexpose, it really bothers my vision to look at it (serious there), it always ends up looking painful to my eyesight, as it really is to the point it could cause side effects to the person watching (I want to say I've even felt a bit naucious while watching the noise in my footage, it really hurts my eyes....although that same feeling may be toward the fact this camera costs $800 just to look that ugly at ISO 100, waste of money.)

But who knows, I've been needing to send my camera to get it checked for awhile now, I hope it's just my specific model acting crazy.

 

[aituv]

My personal review is that I don't think there's any camera out there for the price range that will give you perfect results; you'll always be 'working around' something (in my case, I find that the vertical lines in the T2i's footage in the blur are too visible, as well as the noise at ISO 100, so I tend to overexpose my stuff.) but I haven't owned another professional camera, so those two issues may be 'good' for the standard.

Overall, as soon as you pick up the T2i/7D, shoot something outside, and slap Superflat or another good preset on it that softens the image, you'll see that as long as these cameras have enough light, the things it picks up looks outstanding. Although it'd be easier, I couldn't imagine using a camcorder. You just have to be prepared that lenses are expensive (even to rent) unless you go vintage, the in-body settings are overwhelming, and it's basically like using a computer. Now, about the light thing, I judge my tests based on what I would put into a theater released film, or even a documentary, and I have to say that the camera is not great in average indoor lighting scenarios, a warning is that to keep the ISO on at least 200 in normal scenarios, you really do need either set lighting OR a 1.4~1.8 lens. Combine that with blockage and random noise, and you tend to get footage that honestly doesn't seem 'revolutional' to me. Natural indoor scenarios are where I'd say film vs. digital may indeed 100% hold it's weight, so don't be expecting something that looks just as great indoors as out. Just even the way the technology handles certain lighting types is really random, if you ask me.

Beyond that, though, even indoors if you're shooting with bright lights and expose a bit over, the footage is extremely clear and beautiful. Everyone will universally agree though, you really do gotta have light.

Here's some great, crystal clear (and I mean diamond clear) things I've taken with the T2i - the videos were so clear that Youtube didn't even mess them up: (All of these are overexposed by one whole stop, you'd be surprised at the noise if it wasn't.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QcpGnF3XtlA
http://www.youtube.com/user/Taotrac#p/u/6/vUauQ8_9rQI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDdvF74w6O8


Just keep in mind that in normal scenarios, you do have to overexpose a bit, noise shows up in the videos even when you don't think it possibly would. Long as you do that, the videos are excellent, and even if you don't overexpose, they're still good depending on the area. The main problem I've experienced is that like I've been stressing, I feel like noise issues with this camera at ISO 100 cause the videos to look flickery if you don't overexpose, it really bothers my vision to look at it (serious there), it always ends up looking painful to my eyesight, as it really is to the point it could cause side effects to the person watching (I want to say I've even felt a bit naucious while watching the noise in my footage, it really hurts my eyes....although that same feeling may be toward the fact this camera costs $800 just to look that ugly at ISO 100, waste of money.)

But who knows, I've been needing to send my camera to get it checked for awhile now, I hope it's just my specific model acting crazy.

what you think you're "overexposing" is probably close to exposing properly. and noise at 100 ISO? what are you talking about? you can shoot the same scene at 100 iso and same scene at 800 iso - other factors apply. you can't just say there's noise at 100 iso, that means nothing.

 

[draven4]

, and slap Superflat or another good preset on it that softens the image, you'll see that as long as these cameras have enough light, the things it picks up looks outstanding.

My opinion, with all due respect... don't shoot superflat. Even though it boost your dynamic range it adds noise and you will see it in post. The image that the 7d and T2i shoots can only survive so much push and pull in color grading. If you don't believe me do a search for the threads about superflat and you will see that a great deal of people agree that superflat is bad. I am aware that you can color time images to great extent to get them to look great but starting with a well shot image with the correct dynamic range you were aiming for will help you by a large margin. Sorry to get off topic but when someone recommends superflat I just want to throw up a warning. Also not to plug another website but I found extensive talks about it on cinema5d.com

 

[draven4]

how good the video looks from Canon VDSLR’s compared to Canon consumer cameras

Getting back on topic of the original poster, to answer your question which was how good does it look... well it has many variables that make up that answer but I would simply said in terms of look the Canon VDSLR's look leaps and bounds better if shot correctly. But like I said there are many variables.

Because you can have very poorly shot footage on the a Canon VDSLR too.

Now there is kind of a problem with your question because as you can see most people just can't leave it alone at that. (I am including myself too) This is because there are many technical differences too. The alaising is king of a pain sometimes but in all reality it if you compare what you can get out of a Canon VDSLR and a consumer camera then you will quickly see after using a Canon VDSLR that it has a large advantage.

But then again it depends on what kind of stuff you want to use it for.

I find the advantages that stick out in my head are
1) tapeless
2) has a look extremely close to that of film. (Even against the Red it holds it own)
3) modular - you can endlessly invest in a new lens every so often to get a new look
4) picture styles - in my opinion on of the most important things often overlooked - it is literally how you make a film stock for you camera
5) you can use it as a photography camera too, great for vacations
6) form factor is great, also size it great if you are a guerilla filmmaker. Very low key shooting.
7) image quality is fantastic
8) as someone said above, recording time is great
9) camera has a fast ISO
10) ect ect