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

If only the F3 were a 3-chip camera.. it's like going back to a consumer camera. I never liked the color reproduction of the one-chip cameras. Though the F3 is almost acceptable in that regard, but it's picture suffers from the same monochromistic look as the RED camera. I can't see dropping 20 grand on a glorified handycam.
 
basspig said:
If only the F3 were a 3-chip camera.. it's like going back to a consumer camera. I never liked the color reproduction of the one-chip cameras. Though the F3 is almost acceptable in that regard, but it's picture suffers from the same monochromistic look as the RED camera. I can't see dropping 20 grand on a glorified handycam.
Click to expand...

Hey, I'm all for subjectivity... but this is kind of nutty. Most any large CMOS sensor designed in the last few years deliverers much better color than those tiny noise-ridden 1/3" 3-chip cameras. Especially with something like a 5D where it's down-sampling (as poorly as it may be) from a large color bucket. There's a reason the DSLRs started the large-CMOS sensor craze... and let me tell you... it's not because they have bad color reproduction. We all know the pitfalls of working with DSLRs, and if the color and latitude wasn't WORLDS better than the current 1/2" and 1/3" cameras... the 5D/7D would have been dropped like a ton of bricks. If you think the Red and F3 have a "monochromatic" look... then you're either just trolling, or you may actually have a color deficiency that limits your preception as the saturation falls off with the luminance. Since small-chip cameras produce color that pretty much stays saturated through the entire luminance curve (very unnatural BTW), it may be more pleasing to you.

Before anyone else chimes in, please take this test... http://www.xrite.com/custom_page.aspx?PageID=77&Lang=en

If you don't score at least below 20, I would have to say that you're not technically fit to partake in an objective color analysis. Not to blow my own horn, but I've scored from 0 to 4 in the few times I've taken it. Try it out... it's pretty fun actually.

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.
Click to expand...

Ok, obviously, people are getting good results with the DSLRs. Look at some of the work by Shane Hurlbut, Philp Bloom, Vincet Laforet, and countless amazing looking videos on Vimeo. As mentioned a few posts back, the 7D (same sensor as the t2i) can hit 11 stops of DR if the color profile is set up properly prior to shooting. If you got poor results, I'm sorry to say, it was probably user-error.
 
Last edited:
DCunderground said:
Ok, obviously, people are getting good results with the DSLRs. Look at some of the work by Shane Hurlbut, Philp Bloom, Vincet Laforet, and countless amazing looking videos on Vimeo. As mentioned a few posts back, the 7D (same sensor as the t2i) can hit 11 stops of DR if the color profile is set up properly prior to shooting. If you got poor results, I'm sorry to say, it was probably user-error.
Click to expand...
So you're saying the Zacuto shootout test was performed incorrectly or there was user error?!?! LOL!!!!
GH2 aside, because it wasn't compared. Look no further than the Zacuto shootout to see how bad DSLRs perform VS real cameras that were compared.
So either:
1. Your opinion is the test was performed incorrectly.
or
2. The results from the DSLRs on the Zacuto shootout = "Good results"

DCunderground said:
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...
Click to expand...

Completely false, you're wrong there... The EX-1 is already a narrative film proven camera.
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?228533-Productions-using-the-EX1-or-EX3...
 
Last edited:
DCunderground said:
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.
Click to expand...
Well...if you ask me... I prefer the GH-1's image over the AF-100. There's no question about that. But as far as which is a better camera...that goes without saying also (the AF-100). Though i like the GH-2's image more it would be a lot easier to get the image and audio you want (in most situations) with the AF-100. That's why it is the better camera. That's the point I was really making. It's not at all about resolution....though...well...you know.. :)
 
Madp said:
Completely false, you're wrong there... The EX-1 is already a narrative film proven camera.
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?228533-Productions-using-the-EX1-or-EX3...
Click to expand...

Nope. Standard narrative cameras are between 2/3" and 35mm sized sensors... the EX1 is only 1/2". Therefore, it is not a "proper" narrative cinema camera. :cheesy:

see... anyone can play the technical BS game!

Madp said:
So you're saying the Zacuto shootout test was performed incorrectly or there was user error?!?! LOL!!!!
GH2 aside, because it wasn't compared. Look no further than the Zacuto shootout to see how bad DSLRs perform VS real cameras that were compared.
So either:
1. Your opinion is the test was performed incorrectly.
or
2. The results from the DSLRs on the Zacuto shootout = "Good results"
Click to expand...

What? No... I think you misread my post. The person I was responding too said that the image he was getting had crushed blacks and blown-out highlights... I said it was probably user-error, because the Zacuto test rated the camera at 11 stops... plus countless other example of people getting good images.

BTW, DSLRs are REAL CAMERAS. They take VIDEO IMAGES, THEREFORE, THEY ARE REAL CAMERAS!!! The whole "real camera" talk is the dumbest crap I have ever heard. Are you implying that they are "fake" or something? Seriously...
 
Last edited:
DCunderground said:
Nope. Standard narrative cameras are between 2/3" and 35mm sized sensors... the EX1 is only 1/2". Therefore, it is not a "proper" narrative cinema camera. :cheesy:
see... anyone can play the technical BS game!
Click to expand...
All you did was dodge the facts... You're simply wrong here but are one of those people that hate it when they're wrong. Many of the films listed were quality cinema movies. Again, it is already proven that the EX-1 is a cinema capable camera. A simple "Nope" and referencing chips is a horrible argument. People here aren't stupid and can see right through the BS you're bringing.
DCunderground said:
What? No... I think you misread my post. The person I was responding too said that the image he was getting had crushed blacks and blown-out highlights... I said it was probably user-error, because the Zacuto test rated the camera at 11 stops... plus countless other example of people getting good images.
BTW, DSLRs are REAL CAMERAS. They take VIDEO IMAGES, THEREFORE, THEY ARE REAL CAMERAS!!! The whole "real camera" talk is the dumbest crap I have ever heard. Are you implying that they are "fake" or something? Seriously...
Click to expand...
I didn't misread anything... Maybe you weren't familiar with the fact that at the Zacuto shootout (that was referenced by Barry Green at the start of this post) when the DSLR footage was presented, everyone laughed at the footage because it looked so bad.
Let me be clear here... Now that we have capable cinema cameras such as the Sony PMW-F3, they are only needed here and there when in some confined space. For ultra low budgets, fine, but yeah, anyone who wants to make a serious film should look elsewhere.
 
Last edited:
Cool color test! I got a 4. But I was distracted because UPS just showed up with my Norbert Sport and Tadpole from K-Tek!
 
Madp said:
All you did was dodge the facts... You're simply wrong here but are one of those people that hate it when they're wrong. Many of the films listed were quality cinema movies. Again, it is already proven that the EX-1 is a cinema capable camera. A simple "Nope" and referencing chips is a horrible argument. People here aren't stupid and can see right through the BS you're bringing.

I didn't misread anything... Maybe you weren't familiar with the fact that at the Zacuto shootout (that was referenced by Barry Green at the start of this post) when the DSLR footage was presented, everyone laughed at the footage because it looked so bad.
Let me be clear here... Now that we have capable cinema cameras such as the Sony PMW-F3, they are only needed here and there when in some confined space. For ultra low budgets, fine, but yeah, anyone who wants to make a serious film should look elsewhere.
Click to expand...

This all feels pretty hyperbolic. Use the camera that gets you the shot you like, by why attempt to tarnish - across the board - a camera type that really only has in common with itself a shape. Yes, the early DSLRs had real problems. So did the first iterations of the RED. So in fact did the first small 3chip HD cameras. They've ALL moved the right direction. Lumping the GH2 in with the earlier Canons - just because it has a similar shape at the Canons - is just silly. It's not even a DSLR. It's a big, capable chip in a little body. What is the EPIC? A big, capable chip in a little body. What is the F3? A big, capable chip in a med size body. Let's stop this needless hatin.
 
Madp said:
I didn't misread anything... Maybe you weren't familiar with the fact that at the Zacuto shootout (that was referenced by Barry Green at the start of this post) when the DSLR footage was presented, everyone laughed at the footage because it looked so bad.
Click to expand...

They only laughed because most of the audience were a bunch of insecure pros on the edge of a industry-wide paradigm shift. The DSLRs compared to Red and Alexa footage gave them a little sliver of relief and laughter for a moment. But it will only be brief. Had the GH2 been in the shootout, they may not have been so quick to crack a smile. BTW, both winning films at Sundance this year (docu. and drama) were shot on DSLRs... 5D and 7D. And last year Tiny Furniture won at SXSW. The laughter of disgruntled elitist pros at 8x enlarged DSLR footage is nothing compared to real results and exhibitions. I wouldn't take it to heart. Also, I bet you wouldn't see actual TALENTED DP's like Shane Hurlbut or Rodney Charters laughing. They're aren't insecure and they don't have to "buy a look" like some people in the industry. DSLRs pose no threat to them like they obviously do to others.

BTW, I was kind of being sarcastic earlier... but seriously now, 1/3" and 1/2" sensors are not cinema. The Ex1 may have a track record of narrative film making... but I think it looks better for commercials and such. Standard cinema is 35mm format. Commercials, TV, and lower-budget films is 16mm or 2/3". 1/2" and lower is broadcast, events, and "videography".
 
Last edited:
I think there's a difference between a camera with one 1/2" chip, and three 1/2" chips.

And I think all of us are fine with DSLRs. I plan on getting one, many EX1 users also use DSLR and vice versa. I'm feeling some DSLR chauvinism here as I felt in the video I posted at the start of the thread. "They only laughed because most of the audience were a bunch of insecure pros on the edge of a industry-wide paradigm shift." Really? You think those guys were somehow hoping that they would have to keep buying big expensive cameras? Everyone wants a cheaper-smaller-better camera bra... We're pros, so we can buy more than one camera like a painter buys more colors. Guitarists buy many different guitars. As far as the vibe of insecurity goes, I think more-so it's the student/amateur who just has his one wee Canon DSLR, and doesn't want to admit that they'll need to buy more gear. Just read the audio forum here and you will see much wailing and gnashing of teeth about buying a basic audio kit. I'm about the truth on the matter. Are there studies that show any DSLR's IQ beating the EX1? And by IQ I mean color or tone reproduction, dynamic range, artifacts & noise. Not how out of focus you can make the background. That's a lens thing that you can change. Deep DOF is a real thing too you know. People use it. Its totally legit to NOT copy every other film student with gratuitous shallow DOF. Christ, Orson Wells is rolling in his grave.
 
DCunderground said:
They only laughed because most of the audience were a bunch of insecure pros on the edge of a industry-wide paradigm shift.
Click to expand...
Wrong... The audience laughed because the DSLR footage looked bad. Your "insecure pros" hypothesis is ridiculous. I viewed the footage myself, it looks terrible compared to the other cameras shown.
DCunderground said:
BTW, I was kind of being sarcastic earlier... but seriously now, 1/3" and 1/2" sensors are not cinema.
Click to expand...
Wrong, just because you say it, doesn't make it's true... There is a DVX user here who made a very nice looking feature called Kerberos on a "Naked Ex-1". Are you saying he did not make a narrative film and that it's not cinema!??! I think he would be glad to discuss your claim.
DCunderground said:
The Ex1 may have a track record of narrative film making... but I think it looks better for commercials and such.
Click to expand...
It doesn't matter what you think, the fact is the Sony EX-1 has already been a proven cinema camera. You are wrong on this point so just let it go.
Chadfish said:
As far as the vibe of insecurity goes, I think more-so it's the student/amateur who just has his one wee Canon DSLR, and doesn't want to admit that they'll need to buy more gear.
Click to expand...
Well said...
 
Last edited:
Chadfish said:
"They only laughed because most of the audience were a bunch of insecure pros on the edge of a industry-wide paradigm shift." Really? You think those guys were somehow hoping that they would have to keep buying big expensive cameras?
Click to expand...

YES!!! FOR THE LOVE OF GOD YES!!! The pros LOVE the elitistism of more expensive cameras! Do you guys really not see this? It's so obvious! Having affordable 35mm cameras available to teenagers and twenty-somethings is a HUGE blow to their business and egos. Pre-DSLR area, if you plunked down something like $50 grand for a Red One or a Varicam... even if you didn't have any talent, your projects would still look professional simply for the fact that they were on a more expensive looking format that is out of the reach of most people. The DSLRs killed the ablility to "buy a look".

I thought that everyone was aware of this? I mean, where else does all the DSLR hostility come from? If they are really just crappy toy cameras with sub-par video quality then they would have just been ignored... The fact that everybody is constantly bashing on them and picking them apart for every fault is PROOF of the jelousy and insecurity that they have caused. Sheesh, take a friggen psychology class...

Madp said:
Wrong, just because you say it, doesn't make it's true... There is a DVX user here who made a very nice looking feature called Kerberos on a "Naked Ex-1". Are you saying he did not make a narrative film and that it's not cinema!??! I think he would be glad to discuss your claim.
Click to expand...

Yea, I'm sure it was nice. I've even shot stuff that I love on the EX1 and EX3 myself... but we're talking about cinema IN GENERAL and STANDARDS. People love using "industry standards" to prove that DSLRs are not proper cameras... so by the same logic anything smaller than 35mm is not a proper cinema camera, regardless of the quality. End of story.

Again, the Zacuto test did crazy stuff to the footage like enlarging it and purposefully exposing the faults. Are you not aware of the films Like Crazy, Tiny Furniture, and To Hell and Back? People most definitly did not laugh durring those THEATRICAL presentations... in fact the gave them awards. The Zacuto test was nice and all, but it was mostlry just a self-gratification pleasure fest of "proper camera" fanboys.

Hell, I laughed at 35mm film compared to EVERYTHING in the shootout when it came to low-light. It was terrible. But 35mm is still obviously a great format... and THE STANDARD for narrative film-making.
 
Last edited:
DCunderground said:
YES!!! FOR THE LOVE OF GOD YES!!! The pros LOVE the elitistism of more expensive cameras! Do you guys really not see this? It's so obvious! Having affordable 35mm cameras available to teenagers and twenty-somethings is a HUGE blow to their business and egos.
Click to expand...
And still you're ignoring the fact that the DSLRs looked terrible compared to all other cameras shown. That's why people laughed. That's why I was stunned to see the horrible quality. This has nothing to do with egos, or anything of the like.

Bottom line, had the footage looked "GOOD" no one would have laughed. Do you understand the fact that had the footage looked GOOD instead of BAD we wouldn't be having this conversation right now? Because if you don't then you need to take a friggen ENGLISH class.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top