T2i or 5d --thoughts before buying?

gene_can_sing said:
Since the GH1 is a 2x crop, the 7D/T2i is a 1.6x crop when compared to the 5D, mathematically, wouldn't there be a bigger difference in the DOF between a GH1 and a 7D/550D; then between the 7D/550D and the 5D??
Click to expand...
No, you're doing the math wrong. You've got it backwards.

The 7D/550D has a slightly larger sensor than the GH1, and the 5D has a sensor that's twice as large as the 7D/550D. The gap between GH1 and 7D is very small, you can equalize them by just opening up 1/2 stop on the GH1 as compared to the 7D. But the gap between 7D/550D and 5D is pretty huge, you'd have to open up the iris a total of 1.5 stops on the 7D to get equivalent depth of field

From what I have seen on video, it seems the 7D/550d can achieve considerably shallower DOF than a GH1.
Click to expand...
Not sure what you're watching; try "Depth of Phil" or "Shady, Texas" or any of Vincent Pascoe's work.

The 7D/550d can get a half-stop shallower DOF than a GH1, but that's it.

EDIT: hah, hadn't seen THIS thread... http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?p=2001343#post2001343

If that's accurate, then the difference between the 7D and GH1 might just be a little over 10%...
 
Last edited:
Evan K Hustle said:
So does that mean in terms of DOF, if you're shooting at night the same scene, same lens, same fstop, with a T2i and 5D, it's better to shoot with a T2i because it will be capable of deeper focus? I know there are still a lot of variables there, but lets say you wanted to have as much in focus as possible with very limited lighting.
Click to expand...
Well, yeah, exactly. If you want the same DOF, you will have to be 1.5 stops more stopped-down on the 5D, which means you'd need 3x as much light for the same exposure.

If you want shallower DOF at any given light level, you'd want the 5D. If you want deeper DOF at any given light level, you'd want the T2i.

You used the word "better" -- my standard refrain is "there is no such thing as 'overall better', there's only 'better for any given purpose'."
 
Max Smith said:
You might want to breeze over the Philip Bloom's blog (sorry don't have the URL) and read his comparison to the 5D Mark II and 7D, since video wise the 7D and T2i are virtually identical.
Click to expand...


I think it's important to not overlook this fact:

just because the T2i has the ability to shoot the same footage as the 7d, doesnt mean the cameras are identical

I got to use the T2i the other day and just hated it. The manual controls and positioning of buttons is awful.......for $800 bucks thats great but to me the choice between a 5d and T2i doesn't make sense....if you can afford a 5d or 7d I'd say go with one of those two
 
Yeah, they can produce similar images but not necessarily under the same circumstances. I’m strictly referring to the added clean ISOs in the 7D. They are excellent especially for non-contrasty scenes. You get more light, cleaner image (at a higher ISO), but at the cost of some dynamic range.
 
opening fstop and crop its completely different thing,you cant compare that.You have to buy lenses for gh1 but there arent many fast lenses for it and all other lenses are cropped with adapters.So 50mm is like 100 mm FOV now.ITs too much.And even it has still 50mm focus distances so you will notice that its cropped too much.
In 550d you can swithc framerate and isos faster than in 7D ,i dont get this button layuot problem at all.In 7d you ahve tp rowse menus,in 550d everything is onscreen.
You could compare gh1 fstops and crop if there wuld be lenses for gh1 to makeup for 50mm in 3 perf academy and 4 perf academy for example.This talk about fstops and crop is misleading.28,35,50mm full frame lenses are too cropped on gh1.Replacemens to get similar FOV like on academy frames 50,35,25mm lenses by panasonic would be nice.But they dont exist.
 
Last edited:
bwwd said:
You could compare gh1 fstops and crop if there wuld be lenses for gh1 to makeup for 50mm in 3 perf academy and 4 perf academy for example.
Click to expand...
When compared to 1.85:1 Academy cinema film, the GH1 is an extremely mild 1.18 crop factor. It's pretty much a non-issue. I mean, it's there, but ... it's pretty darn mild.

Replacemens to get similar FOV like on academy frames 50,35,25mm lenses by panasonic would be nice.But they dont exist.
Click to expand...
Again, it's no big deal. For 25mm FOV on a cinema camera, you can use a 21mm lens (like the Zeiss ZF 21mm). For 35mm FOV on a cinema camera, you'd use a 30mm. For 50mm, you'd use a 43mm lens. It's not that big a deal. Heck, you could use the same lens, but just stand 18% further back. A 50mm on a 35mm cinema camera, at 10 feet, would look the same as a 50mm on a GH1, at 11.8 feet.

It's a little different, yes. But it ain't no big deal like it's being made out to be.
 
Last edited:
greymog said:
I just have to say full-frame baby when someone asks me and it's like that's all I have to say.
Click to expand...


Say it's VistaVision, baby. It sounds so much cooler.


'It's sexy.' 'you're getting the real one, the best one' 'that's hot' 'that's the house one'
Click to expand...

Ahh yes, it's the House one. It's good to be one of the cool kids. :-)
 
Barry but standing a couple steps back will get you closer and quicker to infinity and you will lose shallow dof faster,background wont be so out of focus,especially with wide lenses,or maybe there are certain lenses which still hold shallow depth of field at greater distances better than usual slr lenses ?Or cinema lenses and slr lenses have the same focus distance and you will fill frame with person from feet to head on dslr and 50mm lens and 3 perf frame with 50mm cinema lens and out of focus factor(blur amount) behind person will be the same (if f stops will be similar)?
Also you cant stand close and do closeups with 28mm expecting that with crop it would look like 50mm lens,perspective will be ugly and out of focus area not so blurred.
 
So I managed to swing by B.Buy 2day and put my hands on both 7d and T2i. (they have no t2i in stock in any stores locally, other than demo units, so i couldn't pull any triggers - g). Anyway, the difference in size of the 7d vs. t2i is astonishing. The t2i feels tiny in my hands, vs. the 7d. It feels like an old Leica viewfinder camera I could travel with everywhere. The 7d shouted, "PRO". But... I probably would have bought a T2i because it said, "take me with you everywhere".

I continue to debate the environmental sealing and realize that I'm probably stupid not to have it, considering that I don't shoot in a studio, and I'm usually hauling cameras around like they are cell phones. I'm not nice with them, never have been. Protecting the lens is the job of a UV filter. The notion that I don't need to care about whether I get the damn thing wet is pretty compelling. In the winter, the humidity in the NW will not necessarily kill cameras, but force you to be 'real' careful. I've traveled a lot with cameras under my gortex in the mountains. Never killed one, but if I could have not cared? That would have been nice.

That being said, the T2i seems like a fun *day shooter* thing to haul around, and have the ability to shoot fabulous DOF video when needed. I have a backpack pelican case I can use to throw everything into when I climb 4k feet into the mist. In the meantime, with the T2i I can achieve significant DOF and have my camera in any old crevice I have available to me when I travel.

Good point on shallow DOF vs. deep. On documentaries I usually use the wide angle of the 150 to achieve the overall POV. I was trained in the school of "get close, then closer" shooting.

I'm looking for that "70 to 105mm" look for deeper DOF in my documentaries. I have always shot with wide angle lens as my primary in 35mm. The ability to get DOF on any and all shots I take is important. When I'm done setting the establishing shots, I want to narrow in and get some close ups, and the look of dropping the background (without turning it to something like fog) is what I want. Many 5 videos looks too much like fog for my tastes. But is that the shooter not the camera?

Ultimately, Canon has done it's job. It's created three cameras, at unique price points, that make this choice real hard. Would I prefer to buy a weatherized 5 at the 7 price point? At this point, probably yes. Tomorrow.

Is a Lumix an option? Yes, but....I look at the actual sensor size that Barry points out (was it Barry?) and go, hmmm. The Canon line up probably gets better quality given the sensor size. But will I really need it? again...hmmm. And having spent months transcoding AVCHD, and watching friends with MOV cameras drop and edit, the notion of MOV files to dump into FCP (if I stay with it) is nice. However, if i stay with Vegas primarily, I'll transcode MOV (sigh).

I'm way too old and out of the loop to care about the cool factor, though there was a day that I would have appreciated it. Hasselblad always said, "pro" to both photogs and ad agencies. Regardless of skill level. And friends who really aren't pro photogs or vidiots all told me when I bought the 150 "buy the 5" even though I argued that doing interviews with 10 second clips is sort of, well... duh.

But I come back to that stupid video by the Canon team, of the gal in the kitchen. That's the "look" I want. Right there. Now whether I pay for 'undercoat' or not is the question (G).

choices, choices. You folks are great. The real issue is, "once I have it, do I have anything to say?" We'll see...
 
Last edited:
Hey Barry, I guess it depends on your shooting style but from my personal experience, 18% or just a couple of feet can be a HUGE difference in a composition. IMO it's not negligible but any means.

Now if you said something like 5% I would say that's not that much, but 18% is kind of a lot.
 
8string said:
choices, choices. You folks are great. The real issue is, "once I have it, do I have anything to say?" We'll see...
Click to expand...


Whatever you have to say, it'll be respectable, that's for sure. Doing your hands-on homework defeats all second-hand-fed info. I think it's interesting you point out that the T2i feels more like "go anywhere"... I felt the same way about the GH-1. Just having it around I would pick it up and shoot the most random things. Having the 5D and 7D, that wasn't the case.

They often sat in my 3-DSLR backpack crammed together with the Zeiss lenses, doing not much if I wasn't actually working.

So, quite valid.

On Sensor Size (not directly responding to 8String): If we all can play the "DSLR is good enough!" game, then let's review what 2/3" sensors have done in Cinema lately: Benjamin Button and Slumdog Millionaire.

4/3" is even greater than that. And, as we calculate, not so far off from the beloved S35 format.

So, if DSLRs are good enough for large scale production, 4/3" Is just as good an option as APS-C, again considering the numerous amounts of productions shot 16mm and Digital 2/3" very very recently.

The Wrestler? 16mm.
 
Kholi said:
On Sensor Size (not directly responding to 8String): If we all can play the "DSLR is good enough!" game, then let's review what 2/3" sensors have done in Cinema lately: Benjamin Button and Slumdog Millionaire.

4/3" is even greater than that.
Click to expand...
Well, to be accurate, 4/3 from the GH1 is over 4x larger than a 2/3" chip. It's not just bigger than 2/3, it's four times bigger. yes, it's slightly (slightly) smaller than 7D/5D/35mm, with a Cinema Crop Factor of 1.18, but ... compared to the 2/3" chip's Cinema Crop Factor of 2.32, 1.18 sure looks a whole lot more like 35mm.

The Wrestler? 16mm.
Click to expand...
1.85:1 16mm would have a Cinema Crop Factor of 2.23. Super16 @ 1.85 has a CCF of 1.80.
 
If we spend more time actually doing production, then we spend time talking about what camera we are going to use for our production, we would actually get alot more produced. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top