Is the EX1 Image Quality any better than the best DSLRs?
- Thread starter Chadfish
- Start date
lightimages
New member
Yes, f1.4 vs f2.8, or 100 vs 400 minimum ISO. That's about the most noticeable difference on a small image. On a 60" screen the T2i is obviously 1/2 to 2/3 the resolution of the EX1r. Of course, these shots were about ideal for the DSLR. Sometimes the other "issues" can put the DSLR back in it's bag.
I'm an ex pro stills photographer who graduated to video about six years ago.
I love my EX1 and EX1r (especially the latter) but I can tell you DSLRs must give really terrible results if their footage is worse than that shot on a ProSumer at any aperture (iris) setting smaller than (bigger number than) f5.6.
I've yet to find a ProSumer video camera that's is useable at smaller iris settings.
Why does nobody kick up about this?
Or is everyone (apart from me) so desperate to get the so-called 'film look' that they only ever use large (small number) iris settings?
The subjects I shoot require maximum depth of field (most of the time) but the results are so bad with small iris settings, that image quality is far better if you use large iris settings.
Why do we accept cameras with lenses on which half the iris range is unusable?
I love my EX1 and EX1r (especially the latter) but I can tell you DSLRs must give really terrible results if their footage is worse than that shot on a ProSumer at any aperture (iris) setting smaller than (bigger number than) f5.6.
I've yet to find a ProSumer video camera that's is useable at smaller iris settings.
Why does nobody kick up about this?
Or is everyone (apart from me) so desperate to get the so-called 'film look' that they only ever use large (small number) iris settings?
The subjects I shoot require maximum depth of field (most of the time) but the results are so bad with small iris settings, that image quality is far better if you use large iris settings.
Why do we accept cameras with lenses on which half the iris range is unusable?
Andy, I too moved into video a few years ago after a lifelong career in still photo, but I've NEVER wanted to use my Nikkor glass at the extreme ends of the f-stop scale unless I was willing to give up some sharpness due to diffraction issues. I don't see this as being any different on my EX1 (wish I had a EX1r!), but I will agree with you in that the EX1 looks far worse at small apertures than any of my Nikkor glass ever did. However, I'm very happy to avoid using anything smaller than f8 on the Sony. Anything past that and things really do start to look "video-y", if you know what I mean. I'm hoping to get an FS100 to get even more use out of my old Nikkors.
Yes - for ME the resolution is terrible at anything smaller than f5.6 (and it's not great at that).
F4 to f 2.8 is pretty good - but the extremes I have to go to in order to restrict the cameras to these settings mean I juggle the shutter speed from 1/125th to 1/500th on a regular basis (with the resulting flickering issues).
I use gain settings from minus 3 to plus 3 (never any more because the grain's so bad) so I spend rather more time changing ND and shutter than I ought.
Don't get me wrong, the EX1 is a superb bit of kit and the EX1r is simply unbelievably good (except for a few awful features like the lens quality).
I was taught that if you wanted to be absolutely certain everything was pin sharp and in focus, you use a wide angle lens set on f8 (stills camera) and when I graduated to video, it took me years to realise it wasn't actually my fault that the footage was fuzzy, it was the terrible lenses you get on ProSumer cameras.
Re: Lens quality.
I think a lot of it depends on what you use the footage for - if you boil it down to DVD, you can get away with murder - and I guess Sony and the other manufacturers are depending on that - but time's fast running out for DVDs.
Blu Ray's going to show up the ProSumers from the proper Pro cameras.
I'm very tempted to get an EX3 - but I simply cannot afford the quality lenses I would need - they cost twice the price of the camera (each)!
I think a lot of it depends on what you use the footage for - if you boil it down to DVD, you can get away with murder - and I guess Sony and the other manufacturers are depending on that - but time's fast running out for DVDs.
Blu Ray's going to show up the ProSumers from the proper Pro cameras.
I'm very tempted to get an EX3 - but I simply cannot afford the quality lenses I would need - they cost twice the price of the camera (each)!
Chadfish
Veteran
I'm not setting up for an argument with that last question. I just don't even have a DSLR to get acquainted with all the lens theory. Maybe I just naturally adjust the camera to be sharp, and use the ND filters and a little gain to keep the iris in the most usable range. I am more of an audio person, but I make my living with my EX1s. I heard that the camera is most sharp at F2.8 (from vortex media) and I try not to go to the extreme ends of the iris settings. But I'm admittedly not well versed in all the numbers with all this lens talk. I just turn the dials until it looks good! I know, shameful... I figure when I get a dslr I'll have something concrete I can train with. Overall I find my camera to be very sharp, and with decent color - unless the far red is contaminating everything... I ha have a Filter for far red though.
vidmanners
New member
Far be it for me to attempt a to argue with Barry on this Forum. I'm sure he's technically correct, but there is a move to DSLR because of price.
Pro cameras are hugely expensive and use funny memory cards, batteries and so on. Sure this doesn't matter if it's a Movie and the budget is strong, but for new film-makers a DSLR is affordable and they can use terrific lenses, with large apertures, getting sequences that pro's might - but at a fraction of the investment.
Here in the UK the Wedding-shoot is all but given over to Canon DSLR.
The point I heard in the Movie (THAT movie posted here) is that the EX1 has good balance, and audio connectors plus extra ouptuts for monitors, zebra, etc. - - - these things will become standard with video-DSLR's IMHO, as the market matures. Canon will have to merge their Cine-group and DSLR group.
In the UK Sony and the BBC are working on super definition, reported as beiing 32x the best HiDef.....grief, the Bandwidth!
+Let's not forget the video-DSLR is only a child . . . it lacks maturity, but with the development of sensors it will soon be there. What consumer sensors lack is SloMo - but someone may crack that soon enough.
I always favoured Nikon, because they supported their Retail customers, by keeping to a single mount. That has changed somewhat and IMHO, Nikon needs to find a new position, if it's to become a player in the video-DSLR market.
Meanwhile the DSLR-arguement rages . . . . .
BTW, if anyone is interested, I have a lowly NEX5 with extra Nikon lenses - er, I'll get my coat . . .
Pro cameras are hugely expensive and use funny memory cards, batteries and so on. Sure this doesn't matter if it's a Movie and the budget is strong, but for new film-makers a DSLR is affordable and they can use terrific lenses, with large apertures, getting sequences that pro's might - but at a fraction of the investment.
Here in the UK the Wedding-shoot is all but given over to Canon DSLR.
The point I heard in the Movie (THAT movie posted here) is that the EX1 has good balance, and audio connectors plus extra ouptuts for monitors, zebra, etc. - - - these things will become standard with video-DSLR's IMHO, as the market matures. Canon will have to merge their Cine-group and DSLR group.
In the UK Sony and the BBC are working on super definition, reported as beiing 32x the best HiDef.....grief, the Bandwidth!
+Let's not forget the video-DSLR is only a child . . . it lacks maturity, but with the development of sensors it will soon be there. What consumer sensors lack is SloMo - but someone may crack that soon enough.
I always favoured Nikon, because they supported their Retail customers, by keeping to a single mount. That has changed somewhat and IMHO, Nikon needs to find a new position, if it's to become a player in the video-DSLR market.
Meanwhile the DSLR-arguement rages . . . . .
BTW, if anyone is interested, I have a lowly NEX5 with extra Nikon lenses - er, I'll get my coat . . .
Last edited:
The point being made here, as Barry stated in the first page, is that the resolution on the EX-1 is better than any DSLR which again, I'll reiterate, the DSLRs got laughed at at the Zacuto shootout/SCCE because of their resolution (or lack of it).
Nothing to do with audio outputs, etc, and all those other options that DSLRs lack that make it a pain to use one.
it's not as if the EX-1 is a new camera, its almost 4 years old and even the best and newest DSLR (the GH2 which often is praised) still lack the resolution of the 4 year old EX-1!!
And let me be clear I think DSLRs are awesome to practice with for narrative! Get yourself some cheap lenses and you can set up your shots and do a lot of prepoduction. But when it comes time for filming, I would rent an F3 or RED package with great leneses, etc...
It doesn't matter what camera is the sharper, what matters is your choice of picking the camera that best suits your shooting situation. To say a 5DM2 on a big screen looks terrible is ridiculous. Tell that to George Lucas, tell that to Shane Hurlbut, tell that to Rodney Charters. Why would Shane Hurlbut choose the 5DM2 to make a Navy Seal theatrical release? I'll tell you why, form factor number one, and the cameras ability to deliver the image for the big screen, end of story.
basspig
Veteran
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?
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?
One word - VALUE. I just picked up a GH2 not because it's the "best", but because for the money ($900), it's a pretty good value. That, and I needed the "look like a tourist taking photos" effect of the DSLR. However, if I had a $50k budget, I wouldn't be getting any DSLR.
It just seems foolish for anyone to think that a DSLR is going to have a better picture than a professional "video" camera. It's a compromise and for the money, it's a very good value. 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.
If you don't need "stealth" and you have the budget, buy the proper tool for the job. If you don't have the budget, make due with a pretty amazing little tool in the DSLR.
It just seems foolish for anyone to think that a DSLR is going to have a better picture than a professional "video" camera. It's a compromise and for the money, it's a very good value. 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.
If you don't need "stealth" and you have the budget, buy the proper tool for the job. If you don't have the budget, make due with a pretty amazing little tool in the DSLR.
I'm 99.9% you're being rhetorical there Chad, and this is mostly for the benefit of R.Towne. The 5D Mark II was used to film cockpit scenes in a cramped space where a full-sized camera would require modifications to the set in order to fit. Hurlbut and Charters has have likewise used 5D Mark IIs to supplement proper film/HD cameras for similar type shots. For personal projects, web video and so on, they have used the 5D as the A-cam, but definitely not for projects that will be on the big screen. Take Black Swan for example. Aronofsky shot the movie on 16mm except for the subway scenes which he didn't want to get a permit for. Bringing a 16mm on-board the subway would have garnered attention, but not a DSLR, so it's used for that one scene.
DSLRs can and do look great, but there are much better options available when you are solely taking a look at image quality. Try grading some Red RAW footage...you'll never want to go back!
Chadfish
Veteran
"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.
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.