The Great Camera Shootout 2010
- Thread starter Ruzo
- Start date
Direct Download Flash format:
http://wpc.102A.edgecastcdn.net/00102A/vids/shootout/epi1/ZacutoShootout2010-Episode1-Flash.flv
http://wpc.102A.edgecastcdn.net/00102A/vids/shootout/epi1/ZacutoShootout2010-Episode1-Flash.flv
Ok i caught this last night and I must say i was really blown away. I have known for some time and really was an early adopter of this growing trend to use DSLR's for video. I did this because it was a fairly inexpensive (in comparison) way to get into video, without purchasing a second set of equipment from my still camera. I have known since hte beginning of using the D90 that these DSLR's while some great abilities and features have some really serious short commings. Even after upgrading the the 7D which addressed many of these glaring problems there are still some left.
They took great pains to make sure this test was fair and unbiased, even going as far as to use the same Ziess glass on every camera (including the film cameras
).
Well after seeing these cameras compared to Kodak and Fuji film stocks, its amazing to see just how close these 2nd gen DSLR's are.
In some low light instances i felt the 5DMKII and 7D actually looked BETTER than the Fuji film stock (the Kodak was still clearly the best of anything on any test).
What does this all mean? Film can cost as much as $800 / min to develop. Record 2 minutes of footage and your spent enough to BUY a 7D, record another minute and your up to 5DMKII range, and thats not even counting the cost to get the film camera (buy or rent).
Seeing actual industry leaders confirm a lot of this was exciting to see.
You can also see the difference in the newer gen vid DSLR's (the canons) vs 1st gen technology (The Nikon D3S), and 1.5 gen technology (Panasonic GH1), and how those two cameras still have a few more short commings that the newest stuff.
You still have the issue of rolling shutter (which is greatly improved from the beginings), and a slightly lower dynamic range, but knowing the limitations its pretty easy to work within them. Also for a photo guy like myself, working with a DSLR is just not a difficult task at all, and i actually rather like it in most cases (aside from the viewing screen).
They took great pains to make sure this test was fair and unbiased, even going as far as to use the same Ziess glass on every camera (including the film cameras
).Well after seeing these cameras compared to Kodak and Fuji film stocks, its amazing to see just how close these 2nd gen DSLR's are.
In some low light instances i felt the 5DMKII and 7D actually looked BETTER than the Fuji film stock (the Kodak was still clearly the best of anything on any test).
What does this all mean? Film can cost as much as $800 / min to develop. Record 2 minutes of footage and your spent enough to BUY a 7D, record another minute and your up to 5DMKII range, and thats not even counting the cost to get the film camera (buy or rent).
Seeing actual industry leaders confirm a lot of this was exciting to see.
You can also see the difference in the newer gen vid DSLR's (the canons) vs 1st gen technology (The Nikon D3S), and 1.5 gen technology (Panasonic GH1), and how those two cameras still have a few more short commings that the newest stuff.
You still have the issue of rolling shutter (which is greatly improved from the beginings), and a slightly lower dynamic range, but knowing the limitations its pretty easy to work within them. Also for a photo guy like myself, working with a DSLR is just not a difficult task at all, and i actually rather like it in most cases (aside from the viewing screen).
well this is to your stand point since youre indie. but for me film is still king.Ok i caught this last night and I must say i was really blown away. I have known for some time and really was an early adopter of this growing trend to use DSLR's for video. I did this because it was a fairly inexpensive (in comparison) way to get into video, without purchasing a second set of equipment from my still camera. I have known since hte beginning of using the D90 that these DSLR's while some great abilities and features have some really serious short commings. Even after upgrading the the 7D which addressed many of these glaring problems there are still some left.
They took great pains to make sure this test was fair and unbiased, even going as far as to use the same Ziess glass on every camera (including the film cameras
Well after seeing these cameras compared to Kodak and Fuji film stocks, its amazing to see just how close these 2nd gen DSLR's are.
In some low light instances i felt the 5DMKII and 7D actually looked BETTER than the Fuji film stock (the Kodak was still clearly the best of anything on any test).
What does this all mean? Film can cost as much as $800 / min to develop. Record 2 minutes of footage and your spent enough to BUY a 7D, record another minute and your up to 5DMKII range, and thats not even counting the cost to get the film camera (buy or rent).
Seeing actual industry leaders confirm a lot of this was exciting to see.
You can also see the difference in the newer gen vid DSLR's (the canons) vs 1st gen technology (The Nikon D3S), and 1.5 gen technology (Panasonic GH1), and how those two cameras still have a few more short commings that the newest stuff.
You still have the issue of rolling shutter (which is greatly improved from the beginings), and a slightly lower dynamic range, but knowing the limitations its pretty easy to work within them. Also for a photo guy like myself, working with a DSLR is just not a difficult task at all, and i actually rather like it in most cases (aside from the viewing screen).
REMEMBER
this is just part one. its only dynamic range. it still doesnt cover resolution and aliasing which will absolutely obliterate dslr
NextWaveG
Well-known member
I don't think anyone is saying film isn't king in these videos. I just think they are trying to decide if DSLRs are princes or jesters
Chamber005
Carbonite Member
It's crazy that the 5D is still the best. Its sensor is just too friggin bad-ass.
Funny enough I actually thought the high contrast style of the GH1 was pretty cool.
I like the look of film best, but it's almost a non-argument in the micro-budget world that DSLRs or HD cams with 35mm adapters destroy film -- because then the films can actually be MADE on a person's individual budget. Kevin Smith, Woody Allen, Robert Rodriguez, Spike Lee -- all of them, I think, would have shot on these DSLRs for their first films if they could have.
I'm using film (S16mm and 16mm) alongside DSLR and HD+35mm adapter capture because there's a need for different sort of looks throughout the film; but if I was shooting a movie and I wasn't using the actual format as an aspect of the storytelling (or if I just plain didn't have the money), I most certainly would never, ever, ever spend the extra cash on film. It makes much more sense to shoot RED, DSLR, EX, HVX, etc. No one is going to not enjoy your movie because you shot it on a Mark 5D II or an EX1 with 35mm adapter. Hopefully this shoot out finally puts all that to bed.
There used to be all these people sitting around saying, "I would make a film if only I could get the money together to make it." And now those same people are saying that they have to shoot on film or on a Red with a large crew and so still need all this imaginary money in order to create their "vision". Turns out they're just plain lazy.
I love that we now live in an age where you don't have to have money in order to showcase your talents in a desirable (and sometimes indistinguishable) format for an audience. Heck, even special effects and 3D animation can be done for dirt cheap nowadays.
I think these next ten years could be one of the most important decades in film history; the decade when the everyday joe or jane was able to make a movie for almost nothing. The best young artists coming together without studio approval or interference. Pretty awesome time to be a filmmaker.
The same thing is going on in the literary world because of the Kindle, and once a similar device is delivered for comic books I think we'll see new and amazing works coming from artists and writers all over the world.
I love me some digital, even if it is different from film.
Funny enough I actually thought the high contrast style of the GH1 was pretty cool.
I like the look of film best, but it's almost a non-argument in the micro-budget world that DSLRs or HD cams with 35mm adapters destroy film -- because then the films can actually be MADE on a person's individual budget. Kevin Smith, Woody Allen, Robert Rodriguez, Spike Lee -- all of them, I think, would have shot on these DSLRs for their first films if they could have.
I'm using film (S16mm and 16mm) alongside DSLR and HD+35mm adapter capture because there's a need for different sort of looks throughout the film; but if I was shooting a movie and I wasn't using the actual format as an aspect of the storytelling (or if I just plain didn't have the money), I most certainly would never, ever, ever spend the extra cash on film. It makes much more sense to shoot RED, DSLR, EX, HVX, etc. No one is going to not enjoy your movie because you shot it on a Mark 5D II or an EX1 with 35mm adapter. Hopefully this shoot out finally puts all that to bed.
There used to be all these people sitting around saying, "I would make a film if only I could get the money together to make it." And now those same people are saying that they have to shoot on film or on a Red with a large crew and so still need all this imaginary money in order to create their "vision". Turns out they're just plain lazy.
I love that we now live in an age where you don't have to have money in order to showcase your talents in a desirable (and sometimes indistinguishable) format for an audience. Heck, even special effects and 3D animation can be done for dirt cheap nowadays.
I think these next ten years could be one of the most important decades in film history; the decade when the everyday joe or jane was able to make a movie for almost nothing. The best young artists coming together without studio approval or interference. Pretty awesome time to be a filmmaker.
The same thing is going on in the literary world because of the Kindle, and once a similar device is delivered for comic books I think we'll see new and amazing works coming from artists and writers all over the world.
I love me some digital, even if it is different from film.
ethan cooper
Well-known member
Why have Bloom there as the resident DSLR expert and NOT have him tweek out the GH1 fully? I wonder if they messed with the D3s much or if they (rightly so) left it alone since all the menu fiddling in the world would help much. Glad they tosed it in there just for refrence.
I thought it slightly disingenuous of Zacuto to go out of their way to point out they don't have a horse in the race when clearly the intent of this was to show DSLR's in their best light so more people would gravitate to them and therefore buy more Zacuto accessories.
I thought it slightly disingenuous of Zacuto to go out of their way to point out they don't have a horse in the race when clearly the intent of this was to show DSLR's in their best light so more people would gravitate to them and therefore buy more Zacuto accessories.
NextWaveG
Well-known member
I don't think you understand the purpose of the test. No one argues film is best. The question is how much worse is DSLR. A lot or a little. Their impartiality is for the DSLR manufacturers. Everybody there is rooting for the DSLRs because they the "under dog". Everyone knows that film will win...but the tests are to see by how much.
I don't think anyone is saying film isn't king in these videos. I just think they are trying to decide if DSLRs are princes or jesters
Except for the dof and form factor, i dont see why camcorders arent better. Im not bashng dslrs im buying one soon
i just find the praising a bt premature
NextWaveG
Well-known member
Except for the dof and form factor, i dont see why camcorders arent better. Im not bashng dslrs im buying one soon
Controllable DOF is only one factor in what DSLRs great. They have very good dynamic range, better than video camcorders. The ability to use SLR and Cine lenses is HUGE. Forget DOF, now I can get super sharp quality from Zeiss and other lenses. Yeah, I know you can slap a 35mm adapter on a camera and use these lenses, but with a DSLR you aren't shooting through an adapter which improves quality and light loss. And speaking of light loss, DSLRs have very good low light ability.
I could go on, but for me DOF is not the only reason DSLRs are great.
JFreshInEffect!
Active member
Except for the dof and form factor, i dont see why camcorders arent better. Im not bashng dslrs im buying one soon
That depends on the camcorder. The camcorder market is in a rut at this point in time. Also HDSLR's get just as much hateraid as they get props.
Barry_Green
Moderator
No they don't. Tested side by side, the video cameras always do better.
Except that the camera can't handle that sharpness, and an excessively sharp lens (sharper than the camera can resolve) actually results in the footage looking worse. It's when the lens is sharper than the camera can handle, that the aliasing comes into play.
The major advantage to the DSLR, the undeniable massive advantage, is shallow DOF at a cheap price (even an astonishingly cheap price).
G
Guest
Guest
dynamic range comparison
dynamic range comparison
Is the dynamic range a comparison of a DSLR with a sub $2k video camera?
It must be the thin DOF that's throwing us off, as it adds a creaminess to the image. I do admit, and am not noticing much improvement in dynamic range, but their is some trickery that makes me think there is an improvement.
I wager that the in the sub $1000 market, that DSLR's have better dynamic range.
dynamic range comparison
Is the dynamic range a comparison of a DSLR with a sub $2k video camera?
It must be the thin DOF that's throwing us off, as it adds a creaminess to the image. I do admit, and am not noticing much improvement in dynamic range, but their is some trickery that makes me think there is an improvement.
I wager that the in the sub $1000 market, that DSLR's have better dynamic range.
NextWaveG
Well-known member
@ Barry
Let me rephrase my statement. I've worked with lots of HD video cameras, but I've only owned a few. The camera I owned before my 5D was the XH-A1. Great camera for weddings and event videography, but not the best for filmmaking. Slap a DOF adapter on it and it's decent but not good enough for my taste.
Then steps in the DSLR...
I sold my Redrock M2, XH-A1 and other random stuff and bought a 5D MkII with the kit 24-105 f/4. The first time I shot with it I was blown away. Not cause of the DOF but because of how sharp and vivid the picture was. Made my XH-A1 look like a consumer handy-cam. And at f/4 I hadn't even started playing around with faster and sharper lenses and super sexy DOF.
All I can do is speak from experience and when I compared my 5D to a similar costing video camcorder like the XH-A1, it blew it out of the water...even with the 5D's limitations.
Let me rephrase my statement. I've worked with lots of HD video cameras, but I've only owned a few. The camera I owned before my 5D was the XH-A1. Great camera for weddings and event videography, but not the best for filmmaking. Slap a DOF adapter on it and it's decent but not good enough for my taste.
Then steps in the DSLR...
I sold my Redrock M2, XH-A1 and other random stuff and bought a 5D MkII with the kit 24-105 f/4. The first time I shot with it I was blown away. Not cause of the DOF but because of how sharp and vivid the picture was. Made my XH-A1 look like a consumer handy-cam. And at f/4 I hadn't even started playing around with faster and sharper lenses and super sexy DOF.
All I can do is speak from experience and when I compared my 5D to a similar costing video camcorder like the XH-A1, it blew it out of the water...even with the 5D's limitations.
ethan cooper
Well-known member
Wait, what? I think you are the one who misunderstood my comment. I said nothing about film being better, that's just a given, even they called it the 'gold standard' for the test, I said nothing at all about film vs dslr in my post.
What I said was that despite their assertion otherwise, Zacuto does have a vested interest in showing off the ability of DSLR's and that's to garner more interest in them which will have the side effect of increasing the number of users who will need or want to buy Zacuto accessories.
I'm not implyin the tests were fudged or rigged or anything else, it's simply an effort to keep DSLR's on the minds of consumers/producers that will ultimately help widen their userbase. It's a smart marketing move by Zacuto. I'm just pointing out the slight hipocrisy of them going to some lengths at the beginning of the piece to make it sound like Zacuto gains nothing from the tests.
Last edited: