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

Chadfish said:
It's like the DSLR guys are so invested in making other people believe that their 1,000.00 cameras are not only just as good as real video cameras, but better! It's like a short man complex, where the little guy gets in fights over nothing if he perceives his wee stature is being made fun of. That's not the case. I say if you have a positive claim, show positive proof.
Click to expand...

Oh, and I am not particularly tall, but what's THAT got to do with this???
 
Cosimo Bullo said:
This is a flatly ridiculous and really very strange statement. What exactly are we talking about here? A type/shape of a camera? A brand? There is little in common between the 5d and the GH2, and yet, you Barry, and so many others here seem obsessed with lumping them together? Why?
Click to expand...
When did I 'lump them together'?

The GH2 has MUCH more in common with the AF100 than with the 5d/7d.
Click to expand...
Yes, it does. The GH2 is a hybrid video/stills camera, whereas the 5D/7D are stills cameras that have a video feature on them.

No, I'm not talking about XLR inputs, etc. I'm talking about image.
Click to expand...
Well, the difference is primarily in the features. As far as the image goes, the GH2 has a definitely much more robust image than the Canons.


Get over this, guys. The term DSLR has little meaning now as a description of the capability of a camera, and will have less and less meaning as we move forward.
Click to expand...
DSLR means exactly what it means. Just because you don't like the term, or you feel like you're being discriminated against, doesn't mean that the term has lost its meaning. I was referring specifically to the DSLRs in my statement -- the Canons and the Nikons. I used the term exactly as I meant it to be used.

Honestly, why so much emotion and seeming fear on this subject?
Click to expand...
I don't see any of us exhibiting any emotion or fear. I see us trying to elucidate and spell out the differences. There are those who are threatened by those differences, specifically those who are trying to convince themselves that a $600 product is every bit as good as a $6,000 product, and that simply and categorically is not the case.
 
Barry_Green said:
When did I 'lump them together'?


Yes, it does. The GH2 is a hybrid video/stills camera, whereas the 5D/7D are stills cameras that have a video feature on them.


Well, the difference is primarily in the features. As far as the image goes, the GH2 has a definitely much more robust image than the Canons.



DSLR means exactly what it means. Just because you don't like the term, or you feel like you're being discriminated against, doesn't mean that the term has lost its meaning. I was referring specifically to the DSLRs in my statement -- the Canons and the Nikons. I used the term exactly as I meant it to be used.


I don't see any of us exhibiting any emotion or fear. I see us trying to elucidate and spell out the differences. There are those who are threatened by those differences, specifically those who are trying to convince themselves that a $600 product is every bit as good as a $6,000 product, and that simply and categorically is not the case.
Click to expand...

Well, good. I don't feel discriminated against at all. We're mostly using the 5d for timelapse now and using the red and gh2 for work. Moving forward, maybe we can - when we're talking about DSLRs - make an effort not to lump the GH series in with that. And with that in mind, with so few filmmakers -that I can tell - using Nikons for professional work. Why don't we just say Canon, rather than DSLR?
 
My question at the start of this thread asks if any DSLRs have better IQ than an EX1 as far ad video goes, and though I did not say it, I include the GH2 in that. I already know that the GH2 is the best, how should we refer to this, "Still camera that shoots video". Does the GH2 have better IQ than the EX1? I know it beats the 5D on video. So which DSLR-ish camera has better IQ than the EX1? And why?
 
Well, at the moment, I'd say the GH2 should almost be in its own little category, or lumped in the the AF100-type category. So then the question would be can the GH2/AF100/FS100 compete on IQ with the EX1? I think the answer is yes, but others may not. The EX series is REALLY sharp and really does do well in post. I do miss our EX1r and will likely buy another in the future, for what it's worth.

I am in fact, at this very moment cutting a corporate piece with GH and EX footage together (and some 5d and some RED - the interviews) and the GH2 cuts, in this case, much more happily than the 5d.
 
Barry_Green said:
If you shot an SLR at F/16, then no, you didn't know how to use it correctly. SLRs and any tiny-pixel camera are quite susceptible to diffraction. F/11 is about the lowest you can go on an SLR before you start compromising image sharpness. F/16 will make the DSLR image look softer than it actually is. F/22 is so soft that it can actually be used to fight moire problems.
Click to expand...
j

I would like to challenge you on this statement about the 7D. If that were the case taking a photo at F16 would be softer than F11 or F8, but thats not true. The line skipping does not cause diffraction, there for I do not see any footage or tests to prove this from the 7D. And by the way i could have shot it at F11, this was months ago, and I just remember knowing I wanted to stop it down further for more dof.
 
Subhadip said:
Yes, charts are not everything, but this is an interesting comparison: http://provideocoalition.com/index.php/awilt/story/ag-af100_and_pmw-f3_on_the_charts/P1/

EX1 produces the cleanest images, hands down, short of the Alexa or the RED. In fact, one could even make an argument that the EX1 chart is more accurate than the Alexa recording 1080p ProRes. Remarkable results.
Click to expand...
I remember this test. Yes...on the charts...the EX-1 looks great. The F3 looked pretty bad in comparison (and I mean unbelievably bad). I couldn't believe the Alexa has chroma moire like it does (though obviously not anything like the Canons). The Red also displayed some chroma moire. But the AF-100 showed no chroma moire. Now it would have been great to see the GH-2 on that test. I believe we would have been suprised.

It's funny how resolution varies among these cameras. The Alexa is not as detailed as the Red or even EX-1 it seems. But as far as image is concerned...it (IMO) trumps them all. It goes to show...resolution isn't everything.
 
Last edited:
Giuseppe Pugliese said:
jI would like to challenge you on this statement about the 7D.
Click to expand...
Really? Come on. And you think diffraction is or could be caused by line skipping? I thiink you need to do some research. Here, I'll even supply a link. http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htmDiffraction is extremely obvious and easy to observe in the 7D. I used to own one. I tested the heck out of it. F/11 is the limit. I actually would use f/22 to control the horrible aliasing because it would soften the image so much through diffraction.
 
I really find this thread interesting. Obviously the EX1 will give you a better image since the far better codec, not to mention that the EX1 was made to shoot video with. The DSLR video function is more of an extra thing to use on the holidays.

But this makes me think about two things...

Is the ex1 image still better and sharper even with an 35mm adapter on? The powerfull codec and color spectrum stays the same, but otherwise?

I own a HMC150, is the tiny 1/3 sensors standing a change against a DSLR image, or is the DSLR winner in this case?
 
Ian-T said:
It's funny how resolution varies among these cameras. The Alexa is not as detailed as the Red or even EX-1 it seems. But as far as image is concerned...it (IMO) trumps them all. It goes to show...resolution isn't everything.
Click to expand...

Exactly. The charts test resolution as a sole, technical factor, but there's a lot that goes into what we perceive with our eyes as resolution.
 
Admir said:
I own a HMC150, is the tiny 1/3 sensors standing a change against a DSLR image, or is the DSLR winner in this case?
Click to expand...
This was shot on an HPX170, which has the same tiny 1/3" sensors as the HMC150. Used a Letus Ultimate adapter.

This was shot on an HVX200, with an older/inferior version of th etiny 1/3" sensors in your HMC150. Using a prototype Letus Extreme adapter.

So, yeah, you can get some pretty impressive results out of a 1/3" camera, but you need a 35mm adapter and more light.
 
What an incredibly pathetic twelve pages. Unfortunately, it seems many threads on this and similar forums always end up devolving into the same pixel counting and penis waving contests. This sort of technical bullying serves no purpose other than to drive people away from the site.

The notion that any one camera is more "cinema proven" than another, especially for narrative work, is beyond ridiculous. There are numerous examples of both what some like to call "real" cameras and dSLRs being used successfully in and for major theatrical productions. As was pointed out earlier, the 7D shot feature "Like Crazy" not only won awards at the latest Sundance Film festival but was also picked up by Paramount to the tune of $4 million after a major studio bidding war. Apparently no one told them it was shot on a camera that is not "cinema proven" or of a high enough resolution and sharpness to play in major cinemas across the globe. That's just one of tons of examples where dSLRs have been used with major success.

I'd suggest reading some trade publications for an example of what's happening in the real world outside internet forums right now. You'll find numerous articles about how dSLRs are being used in a professional setting, their limitations and successes. The professionals aren't out there arguing with each other about which camera has a sharper image, they are producing actual work... using both "real" cameras and dSLRs.

And, for the record, I agree that the EX-1 has better resolution. That doesn't mean you can make a better production with it than a dSLR.

And, btw, Zacuto fears GH2. Can I make that my sig? ;)
 
Last edited:
"Pathetic" is a relative term. I'd suggest keep the last sentence of that post and edit out the rest if you want to keep the stink off of you.
 
I don't need any advice on editing my threads, nor do I care about any "stink" associated with voicing my opinion. We've already seen well-respected professionals driven away from forum posting by the same type of ridiculous "my camera is better than your camera" arguments that permeate this thread. I don't have a reputation to worry about.
 
See, this forum is where well respected pros break off a hunk and offer advice to noobs, even when the noobs come off as immature know-it-alls. We're not being driven away, we're here for you. We take in all the vapid assaults and still offer knowledge with a smile. I'll just kindly ask to tone down the insults and maybe try to get along with people. It's really the best way to learn IMO.
 
I don't think my post was insulting to any particular individual at all, and certinaly much less offensive than some of what's been posted previously. I just think it's pathetic that some users chose to turn discussions such as this one from whether dSLR footage looks better than EX-1 footage (an admittedly ridiculous notion) into a diatribe against anyone who shoots with a dSLR. That's totally uncalled for. The simple fact of the matter is that people are producing professional, cinema quality results with both types of cameras. Saying things like one camera is "cinema proven" over another is what makes some people come off as immature know-it-alls. I suspect most people, like myself, come here seeking advice from professionals such as yourself and Barry Green, not to be talked down to by random forum members about how much better their camera supposedly is.

On the subject of the original post, I think it boils down to what sort of image you prefer. Some people obviously like the sharp resolution of cameras like the EX1 and others prefer the look of dSLR. That doesn't mean one camera is more suitable for narrative work over the other, as some were trying to argue here. When your audience is sitting there watching your production, I doubt if they are thinking how much better it would be if it had a bit more resolution.

As for the EX1 vs. dSLR comparison I do find it interesting that Noah Kadner, a well-known and respected EX1 user, has two tutorial DVDs for sale via his site. One is for the EX1 and the other is for the GH2. Could be it that they are both good cameras? Hmm. :P
 
Hey I love the GH2, and want one for sure. I started this thread to fact check the guy in the video who seemed so sure that "DSLR" video was better, and probably so. When I ask which has a better image I mean as far as reproducing the image that the lens hands it. The rest is aesthetics and can't be argued objectively. But yeah, some came on here accusing the EX1 users, or "pros" of somehow lying, and fighting against the rise of the dslr to keep pro video in the hands of the rich. I think that was just pulled out of the air. I'll say again that I think any pro would love to be able to buy a cheaper, smaller camera that gets the same awesome footage as more expensive cameras can get.
 
I've put the EX-1 on 2 cam shoots with a T2i on music live shoots and the Canon wasn't in the same league and didn't have as much color correction lattitude, as much DR or resolution as the EX. Head to head the EX-1 even with an SG Blade adapter still had noticeably more resolution and DR than an AF100 as well. The AF100 is a huge improvement over a Canon but it is still a compromised method of getting video off the chip.
Nevertheless either the T2i or the AF100 may be prettier if you want a low DOF look.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top