Is the EX1 Image Quality any better than the best DSLRs?

[tirapell]

"On that same note, it also seems foolish that people would compare the cameras at two completely different price levels as if they were equal."

Well the kid I mentioned at the beginning wasn't comparing these cameras as if they were equal. He claimed DSLR footage has a better image quality, and can prove it. I invited him to come here and do just that, but it appears he hasn't.

Obviously not the case. I think this has been proven in the Zacuto Shootout. It's all about tradeoffs. Even if you can afford the latest, greatest, and most expensive imaging equipment (Red or Arri or whatever), you still won't have the stealth ability that DSLR's provide and is sometimes needed on various projects, depending on where you work and what kind of work you do.

I'll be interested to see how my next project goes with a DSLR, my first without a true video camera. By the way, another reason I went with the DSLR was to spend some real money on sound equipment so the project comes off right, contrary to a mistake I've made in the past (ie on camera shotgun running into pathetic camera pre-amps).

 

[Ian-T]

I'm not typically this blunt on these boards but I'll just say this..."If you suck at making movies.....then I don't give a flying foot fungus what camera you shot it on."

With that said I believe the OP was asking about the IQ of the "best" DSLR (its IQ) out there. IMO the GH-2 has the "best" technical overall IQ out of all the DSLRs (for more reasons than one). Will it make the most pleasantly aesthetic image out of all the DSLRs???...maybe...maybe not. Depends on the shooter. So..back to the OP's question... in this case it should probably read "Is the EX1 Image Quality any better than the GH-2's?" Well, my version of "better" will be different from the next guys. So...my answer is "NO" for many reasons (especially now with the hack).

Sure, no one expects a $1,000 camera to be better than a $6,000 (or whatever) camera. But for me....it is.

 

[Ian-T]

....plus you guys know in your heart of hearts that if the GH-2 (with or without the current hack) were to be projected in that Zacuto setting there would'nt have been any laughter. I just love how folks lump this camera into all of those disparaging remarks when it comes to DSLRs as a whole. lol

No...it's not the second coming...but it's certainly a viable tool. It only gets better from here (IMO) no matter what brand (at least I hope so).

 

[Gary Huff]

....plus you guys know in your heart of hearts that if the GH-2 (with or without the current hack) were to be projected in that Zacuto setting there would'nt have been any laughter.

Actually, I don't know that.

 

[Ian-T]

...yeah....but i'd like to think so.

I wonder....did they laugh at the AF100?

 

[Madp]

With that said I believe the OP was asking about the IQ of the "best" DSLR (its IQ) out there.

Not at all... If you go back to the OPs original post and click on the relevant video that he referenced, you would see that the person speaking makes the claim that "the image quality on DSLRs are "Faaaar superior" than this (points to the EX-1)."

That statement in itself is completely ridiculous and false. He is referring to DSLRs in general which makes his claim just dumb, I don't know any other way to put it since, all the DSLRs compared in the Zacuto shootout have proven this not to be true.

If you believe the 1 DSLR camera, the GH-2 has better resolution than the EX-1 (which I don't think it does), or brings other things to the table which makes the image quality better (shallow dept of field), that's fine. But what I think we all want to be clear about, the quote listed above
is obviously made from someone who doesn't know what they're talking about.

 

[Cosimo Bullo]

I only have my Nikon D7000 (both 14-bit RAW still and video) to compare against my EX cameras, as well as other people's 7D footage. That anyone can ask this question means that they're either blind or watching on a 17" black plastic Daewoo TV through the RF modulator. There is no comparison, not even close between the two.

Just my own observations:

Much to my surprise, even Nikon D7000 14-bit RAW doesn't approach the dynamic range shooting the same night scene as my EX1. (comparing still frame from the XDCam video to a still 16MP image in 14-bit RAW from the D7000, of the same group of buildings at night.)

Forget Nikon in movie mode. Yuck.

Single-chip cameras have moire, rainbow color artifacts and poor resolution.

I've never felt that the color on the DSLR was all that good. Every time I come back to a piece of EX footage, I always like it better. It's somehow warmer, more organic looking. The DSLR footage is like watching a Youtube video instead.

All the DSLR gives you is stealth and a little of that blurry background effect. But I can get that by using the ND filter and a longer focal length on the XDCam, so where is the benefit, other than you can make video in public without attracting too much attention?

I don't think anyone here is arguing that Nikon has a camera that can go up against the EX series. In my mind, for resolution, neither can the Canons. The elephant in the room is the GH2, a camera with remarkable resolution, high bitrate (now with the hack), and various modes (tele, MJPEG) not included in the EX line, the AF100, or the FS100. The Head to Head test needs to be against the GH2, not the canons, and certainly not with anything Nikon has yet offered.

 

[Chadfish]

I did mention "The best DSLRs" just so we are considering the best that DSLR cameras have to offer, including the GH2, even though it's not SLR - but you know what I mean. Can these little single sensor cameras stand up the the mighty EX1? I just watched the Zaccuto shootouts, and it seems that many experts are loving the DSLRs, ad are creaming their jeans over the 5DmII. The GH2 was not included in the shootout. Anyway, I'm just interested in IO, not what a lens can do with bokeh. I like to think that my EX1 money bought me an image quality that beats a 1,000.00 camera.

 

[Cosimo Bullo]

I think the GH2 - other than lack of XLR and other functional stuff - has much more in common with the AF100/FS100 ilk than Canon's DSLRs for example. I've never enjoyed seeing 5d footage next to our RED... this little 1000 dollar GH2 though, it's a giant killer, for sure. Perfect? Certainly no. Amazing? Yes.

 

[Cosimo Bullo]

Of all the DSLRs, the GH2 is the one I'll be getting when funds allow. But still, Adam, when I shoot progressive on the EX1 it looks filmic to me. It just doesn't have such a shallow DOF, but to me it dies not look like "video". To me the "video" look is that of interlaced frames, with that glassy appearance.

I think this is a great call. We were using the EX1r (EX1 is 'nearly' as good, so no worries) with a hacked GH1 last year for a number of interviews (so rolling both cameras). They matched fine. The EX1 is the standby workhorse. the GH? is the specialist. Good mix, and good call. Get one as soon as you can, buy a couple of old nikkor lenses, and you're off to the races.

 

[Ian-T]

Not at all... If you go back to the OPs original post and click on the relevant video that he referenced, you would see that the person speaking makes the claim that "the image quality on DSLRs are "Faaaar superior" than this (points to the EX-1)."

That statement in itself is completely ridiculous and false. He is referring to DSLRs in general which makes his claim just dumb, I don't know any other way to put it since, all the DSLRs compared in the Zacuto shootout have proven this not to be true.

If you believe the 1 DSLR camera, the GH-2 has better resolution than the EX-1 (which I don't think it does), or brings other things to the table which makes the image quality better (shallow dept of field), that's fine. But what I think we all want to be clear about, the quote listed above
is obviously made from someone who doesn't know what they're talking about.

But that there lies the problem. You refer to resolution when you talk about "best image" when in reality there is much more to an image than resolution. If it were all about price/resolution when determining the "best" image then the $20,000 Red MX/Epic etc. SPANKS the $80,000 Alexa. But...we both know that isn't the case. Heck...the GH-2 resolves more detail than the AF100. But is it a better camera...heck no. Can one tweak their clips more to get an overall better image with the AF100...heck yeah (well...at least you have more control). In the end however I think they work well together.

I admit I didn't watch the posted video but in my previous responses I was referring to Chadfish's thread title when he asked about the "best" DSLR vs the EX-1's IQ. He's not the one in the video. As I mentioned I think the GH-2 has the best image out of all the DSLRs. For a camera in that price range producing the images that it does...that's amazing. It only gets better from here.

How would you compare the AF100's image to and EX-1? << Especially since this is more like an apples to apples thingy

 

[DCunderground]

Yea, in order to really answer the question you really have to define it better. "Image Quality" is just to vague these days. If you're talking about broadcast-like image quality... then yea, the EX series are some of the best. But, if you're talking about "film-like" image quality then no... because the EX series don't look like film at all. It just depends on the context of what you're shooting. That "Freddy" old west video looked good, but it didn't look like film... and I wouldn't pay to see it in theaters. However, a 5D or 7D may be soft, but they produce an image that most people would be comfortable with, including myself, with in a theatrical setting.

In terms of straight up comparison of DSLR vs EX1 though, people are leaving a few things out... dynamic range, dynamic range, and oh yea, dynamic range. The latitude and light control of a EX1 are no where near the league of even a T2i. That's a big +1 right there. ...then there's the noisiness of small 1/2" sensors too.

It dumb to compare them straight-up though. Completely different systems for different things. DSLR's look like crap for recording events... and "proper video cameras" like the ex1 look like crap when you're trying to make a narrative film. Professional camcorders are for videographers and DSLRs are for the aspiring cinematographer (and even some professionals)... Choose your path!

Heck...the GH-2 resolves more detail than the AF100. But is it a better camera...heck no. Can one tweak their clips more to get an overall better image with the AF100...heck yeah (well...at least you have more control).

Honestly, I'd still say the GH2 is better. For me (because I work on narrative projects) the first question is... "Does said camera produce a 'filmic' image?" The AF-100? Nope. Still video-like. The though GH2 though? Very much so. With the hack, it even looks like down-scaled Red footage.

 

[Duke M.]

Or you can get the best of both worlds with an F3. The DOF control, the dynamic range, the ND filters, the XLR jacks, the picture profiles, the ability to change to almost any lens, HD-SDI and HDMI out. usable with a variety of recorders.

It takes some coin, but it delivers without the handicaps that I'd rather avoid.

 

[Gary Huff]

But can you take still pictures with it too? :grin:

 

[Duke M.]

Sure, a filmic vision of the truth at 24fps. LOL

 

[Moseph]

In terms of straight up comparison of DSLR vs EX1 though, people are leaving a few things out... dynamic range, dynamic range, and oh yea, dynamic range. The latitude and light control of a EX1 are no where near the league of even a T2i.

You sure about that? This review claims that the EX1 gets 10 stops - http://provideocoalition.com/index.php/awilt/story/review_sony_pmw_ex1_1_2_3_cmos_hd_camcorder/P3/
Our won Barry Green claims the 7D gets at most, around 8 1/3 stops (I think). Are you talking about using some sort of picture style as well? Are those really effective enough to give an extra 2 stops of DR?

 

[basspig]

In terms of straight up comparison of DSLR vs EX1 though, people are leaving a few things out... dynamic range, dynamic range, and oh yea, dynamic range. The latitude and light control of a EX1 are no where near the league of even a T2i. That's a big +1 right there. ...then there's the noisiness of small 1/2" sensors too.

It dumb to compare them straight-up though. Completely different systems for different things. DSLR's look like crap for recording events... and "proper video cameras" like the ex1 look like crap when you're trying to make a narrative film. Professional camcorders are for videographers and DSLRs are for the aspiring cinematographer (and even some professionals)... Choose your path!

I doubt this. My friend has a T2i and we shot video with it. It's terrible. Washed out colors, blown highlights and crushed blacks. Shot the same scene with the EX1, looked like a movie. Rich colors, detail from dark to light, a pleasing look.

Even my Nikon D7000 in still mode shooting 14-bit RAW doesn't equal the EX series (at least with my CINE gamma and picture profile settings). I was sure that I could pull out more dynamic range from a 14-bit RAW image from the renowned Nikon sensor. But this street scene I shot at night had noise, poor color fidelity, blown highlights and banding--yet, banding. The frame I took off the EX1 which was shooting the same scene in video, was like a shot from a movie. Rich colors, almost no noise at all, no blown highlights, no visible banding. It was like that right out of the camera, just spitting out a BMP file from Sony Clip Browser to compare. Even scaled down to 2mp, the Nikon image was still noisy and banded.

Forget the Nikon in video mode. I'm comparing stills in RAW format, which I honestly thought would make the EX look like a joke. Boy, was I shocked when I compared the results!


Top: Nikon RAW 14-bit image, pushed dynamic range


Bottom: Sony EX3 with CINE2 gamma and other PP settings of my choice.

 

[R.Towne]

First, the post regarding the pathetic performance of DSLR's in the latest Zacuto test, keep in mind, those tests, as with any test, are relative. They even mention before the tests that any of these cameras can be made to look great with the proper lighting and skill. In fact, in one test, the film stock tested looked terrible, does that mean Hollywood should **** can film altogether. Don't get caught up in the numbers and charts game, what looks good, looks good. And for the record, Shane Hurlbut's Navy Seal movie, shot on the 5DM2, is a theatrical release, coming to a theatre near you this fall.

 

[Ian-T]

Or you can get the best of both worlds with an F3. The DOF control, the dynamic range, the ND filters, the XLR jacks, the picture profiles, the ability to change to almost any lens, HD-SDI and HDMI out. usable with a variety of recorders.

It takes some coin, but it delivers without the handicaps that I'd rather avoid.

Dang Duke...you just busted some bubbles up in here. Lucky Bas.....!!!

 

[Barry_Green]

You sure about that? This review claims that the EX1 gets 10 stops - http://provideocoalition.com/index.php/awilt/story/review_sony_pmw_ex1_1_2_3_cmos_hd_camcorder/P3/
Our won Barry Green claims the 7D gets at most, around 8 1/3 stops (I think).

My test was based on using the Stouffer wedge chart. Since then I've abandoned that and moved to a backlit DR chart, which is more finely calibrated and does show more. The SCCE got something like 11 stops out of the DSLRs and that's more accurate. I posted the results of the Stouffer test, which is the same result that dpreview.com got, but frankly it's the wrong chart for that job, it is designed for print, not video.