OFFICIAL/NO LEAK: Canon 7D Official US Press Release

Johnny Cola said:
Raw image quality goes to the 5D no doubt, but we have yet to see this in the hands of cinematographers we know and love... eachother, yay! After all this clips are mostly from still photographers and web masters :)
Click to expand...

But is the image quality better than the HVX200/Letus Extreme? I would say absolutely, positively hell yes. :grin:

Couple that with all the lighting headaches I encounter it really seems like a no-brainer BUT My trusted HVX IS a full-on Video camera.
Yet I'm still a little scared to get rid of it since I know it, but that this was also the same feeling I had jumping from Tape to P2 cards.

Man I am so torn right now.:huh:
 
Richard J. Johnson said:
But is the image quality better than the HVX200/Letus Extreme? I would say absolutely, positively hell yes. :grin:

Couple that with all the lighting headaches I encounter it really seems like a no-brainer BUT My trusted HVX IS a full-on Video camera.
Yet I'm still a little scared to get rid of it since I know it, but that this was also the same feeling I had jumping from Tape to P2 cards.

Man I am so torn right now.:huh:
Click to expand...

I just had the same convo with my biz partner. I DON'T WANT TO GET RID OF MY HVX200a!!! I still have 2 DVX100as 1 is still unused in a box, I'm such an OCD pack rat! But if dont find money I told him I would sell the HVX but what if no one wants the HVX and I can't get squat for it, I just bought it 14 months ago!
 
Johnny Cola said:
Just geometry, basically the sensor is smaller and uses less of the lenses output compared to full frame sensors. In the case of APS-C the size is 63% of full frame 35mm still so you multiply by 1.6 to get the equivelant focal lenght. There's arguments about what that really means and if it actually works that way but that's the overwhelming consensus
Click to expand...

Does that affect the dynamic range ? (smaller sensor compared to full frame sensor)
 
Johnny Cola said:
The 7D thread that Jannard started at Reduser.net just got deleted...hmmmmmm?
I think it was the right thing to do personaly, it was stupid to knock a camera that is 0.10 the cost of your only product. Creates a really sketchy vibe.
Click to expand...

Canon is doing to the Scarlet market what RED did to digital cinematography.

It hurts to be on the receiving end.
 
Yea, I need a workflow thread. Nothing I have will play the demo mov smoothly and PPro thinks it's 2.99 fps. I've got some workflow homework to do before my 7D ships and I sure hope it doesn't include a new computer and a load of new SW.
 
Thats nice but gh1 has 24p too and ive yet to see some filmic examples with it,so much entusiasm but no effects.:huh:
 
Barry_Green said:
Not necessarily, because the 7D has fewer pixels on the chip. It's individual pixel size, not overall chip size, that contributes to the dynamic range.
Click to expand...
So it’s possible, even with a lower pixel count, if the pixels were larger than the Mark ll it could still match its low light ability? I always understood it as ....the more pixels crammed into a sensor the lower its sensitivity to light and the bigger the pixels the higher the sensitivity.
 
mcgeedigital said:
Canon is doing to the Scarlet market what RED did to digital cinematography.

It hurts to be on the receiving end.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily; Canon (and Panasonic and Nikon) are doing to the *announced* Scarlet specifications. But since Red's "gone quiet" we don't know what the actual intended Scarlet will be.

I put up a big post here a couple weeks ago saying that IMO the 2/3" scarlet is DBA (dead before arrival), but a full-frame or S35 scarlet, priced competitively (i.e., not $8,000 for a brain alone, but maybe $3,000) might still be very much alive, especially with any wonders that they may have devised or implemented between then and now.

But yeah, a fixed-lens 2/3" scarlet at $3750 has lost pretty much all of its appeal in the face of a $1500 (with lens) GH1 or $1700 body-only 7D, each with a sensor at least 4x as large as 2/3".

Clearly the ball is back in Red's court. They would have to do something phenomenal to recapture the momentum. The landscape is very different now than it was back at NAB 2008. I think they've got it within themselves to deliver something phenomenal; they are, after all, exclusively a digital cinema company, and Canon and Nikon are almost exclusively still-camera companies with video "grafted on", so there's still quite a bit of room for Red to really appeal.

But no doubt the rules have changed. It's no longer a case of "forget anything else, just wait for the Scarlet", it's now a case of "I can't wait to see how the Scarlet's going to be competitive, in light of the new options out there."

Funny thing is, everyone was so jazzed initially about Red because they were a small company that could react quickly, but now it's the behemoths (Nikon/Canon/Panasonic) who are innovating and changing things at a furious pace!
 
Last edited:
Ian-T said:
So it’s possible, even with a lower pixel count, if the pixels were larger than the Mark ll it could still match its low light ability? I always understood it as ....the more pixels crammed into a sensor the lower its sensitivity to light and the bigger the pixels the higher the sensitivity.
Click to expand...
It's possible specifically BECAUSE of the lower pixel count, that they could match the sensitivity.

More pixels = worse imagery, except for in terms of resolution. The more pixels you cram onto a sensor, the smaller they must be, and the smaller the pixels are, the less sensitive the sensor will be, the less latitude the sensor will have, and the noisier the images will be.

So it is possible that with fewer pixels, the 7D may indeed match the Mark II for sensitivity and dynamic range, but won't be able to match it for ultimate resolution. In video that shouldn't matter, since 14 megapixels is a whole lot more than the 2mpix video frame. In still photography, yes that'll make a difference and the 5D should be significantly sharper than the 7D.
 
I have to say, that was kind of a ***** move on Jannard's part. Not that I care, I will gladly purchase a S35 scarlet in a couple of years :grin:
 
Barry_Green said:
Funny thing is, everyone was so jazzed initially about Red because they were a small company that could react quickly, but now it's the behemoths (Nikon/Canon/Panasonic) who are innovating and changing things at a furious pace!
Click to expand...

And the scariest part is that we don't have to see brochures and wonder when they're coming out. The press release says end of September and guess what we can expect from Canon?

End of September before they're in DVXuser hands. They have the power to do this every single time, and now that they're willing to play then everyone else has to relearn how to step it up in the face of major corporation domination.

I do not discount Scarlet, though. If only for the fact that Jim doesn't play nice when he's mad, which means he plays REALLY nice for what we want. For anyone to think that Scarlet is dead in the water is silly, as there are several major advantages that an S35 Scarlet would have out of box that these cameras still have a little ways to go before we see.

Or, well... crap... at the rate that they're changing, if the rumors of a RAW video format in DSLRs smack of truth then...

Oi...
 
Am I correct in assuming that with a relatively inexpensive adaptor, I can mount Nikkor lenses to the 7D?
 
RAW video with multiple rates, on a small (fully video intended) camera!
Yeah, the Scarlet can still be very relevant, but as Barry put it the ball is on Mr. Jannard's court.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top