to 7D or not 7D

P

pgillpro

Active member
I have my GH1 and it's been fun for the past couple months but am thinking about selling it for the 7D, I just wanted to list my pros and cons and make sure my knowledge is correct.
The rotating screen is great on the gh1 but the 7D's screen is still flat similar to the 5D. The 7D has external audio input correct? that is a huge plus.
As far as image the gh1 is still picky with low light, sometimes looks great sometimes gives a lot of noise, from the videos I've seen the 7D has next to none noise in low light conditions. It is also time consuming having to reverse telecine all of my 24p GH1 footage, is that necessary for 7D 24p footage?
another aspect that is appealing with the 7D is the wide range of lenses that can attach straight to the camera without an adapter.
any other differences I missed?
thanks
 
The biggest difference is one of them you already own, and the other…

Seriously, though, the things you mentioned are certainly a few of the differences.

I miss the articulated LCD of the GH1, but not that much.

I don't miss having to reverse-telecine my GH1 clips (no, you don't have to do that with the 7D).

My shooting doesn't generally involve a lot of low light, but the 7D seems to have the advantage here, to my eye, though much of that could be the faster lenses I've used on the 7D.

The best you can do is find someone who has a 7D, take it for a spin and see what you think. Me? I love the 7D, but every now and then I think of the good times I had with my GH1.
 
There's no need to telecine 7D Footage.

You can attach an external monitor to the 7D to make up for the lack of a flip-out screen if the scenario calls for it; however, this makes the camera much less of a stealth option.

I don't think you can monitor audio on the 7D, I do double system sound, so maybe someone else can answer that question more accurately.

Using the 7D screen is easier for judging exposure and focus compared to the 5D. Not a TON more, but definitely something I've noticed while using it compared to the 5D. Could simply be that focusing is also easier since it's not a FF sensor.

Gh1 also has an EVF, so you'd need a z-finder or hoodloupe or LCDvf for the 7D in bright situations.

7D footage has more leeway for colour correction.
 
Woops took too long to post my response haha. Also I agree with trying the camera out and seeing what better suits your need. The GH1 has a terrific lens and AF tracking which can be handy.

I've tried the GH1, 5D, and the 7D and of the 3 I decided to hold onto the 7D, so it's a matter of trying them and seeing what you prefer. It's all extremely subjective.
 
It is subjective, and it comes down to what you value most.

Do you want the absolute best in image quality, or do you want something more fun and better to handle?

The 7D has the edge on image quality, but still has a crop factor for lenses which can be a bit of bummer.

The GH1 has an even bigger crop factor but can use some interesting c-mount lenses. Lenses are a major factor with any camera. Pay attention to lenses.

The GH1 is much lighter and smaller - you may appreciate this unless your projects are very narrative / studio based. Lugging a 7D and 4 lenses around on an ad-hoc shoot or holiday is nowhere near as fun as going around with the GH1 and it's super wide/zoom kit lens.

The GH1 falls short in the image quality department but some see it as having a cinematic feel to it. I agree with that but there is no substitute for proper dynamic range and colour, which the 7D and especially 5D have in spades.

It's a hard decision. One which is about to be made a lot easier when the GH2 comes out I hope :)
 
A gh2 would still be micro 4/3 so I'd assume the dynamic range would be about the same; however, the codec and noise/banding would be improved I'd assume. But again all assumptions on a camera that doesn't exist, so I'm hesitant to even assume what I have. As for crop factor, the 7d is essentially the same fov as regular cinema, so I don't think the crop is much of an issue.

And I've used the word "assume" enough for the day
 
This guy is full of it... he is going to sell his GH1 and most likely go on a drug binge.
Who are you kidding Gill.
 
pgillpro said:
The rotating screen is great on the gh1 but the 7D's screen is still flat similar to the 5D.
Click to expand...
Correct.
The 7D has external audio input correct? that is a huge plus.
Click to expand...
They both have external audio inputs.

It is also time consuming having to reverse telecine all of my 24p GH1 footage, is that necessary for 7D 24p footage?
Click to expand...
Not necessary for the 7D, and that alone was one of the deciding factors for me to pick up a 7D in addition to my GH1.

A further difference is that the footage is recorded in Quicktime format on the 7D, which (for FCP users) would mean it's possible to edit the footage directly. Not a big deal on Windows, as all the Windows editors I use can directly import both AVCHD and the 7D's quicktime files, but FCP doesn't allow direct import of AVCHD, so having the ability to directly import the files may be of benefit to the FCP user. Of course, unless your computer is substantially powerful enough, editing the direct files may not be that enjoyable of an experience yet.


another aspect that is appealing with the 7D is the wide range of lenses that can attach straight to the camera without an adapter.
Click to expand...
The GH1 can take any and every lens that the 7D could, plus many more. (yes, through the use of adapters, but -- the 7D can only take Canon mount lenses without adapters; anyway, adapters are cheap... I got a Nikon and an M42 adapter for my 7D and I think the total bill was under $20).

any other differences I missed? thanks
Click to expand...
Several big huge differences. The 7D's codec is twice the bandwidth, or more, making it more resilient and less prone to artifacting. The GH1 is probably half the size & weight of the 7D, the 7D is comparatively huge -- the 7D is about the same basic bulk and is even heavier than my HMC40. The GH1 can autofocus during video recording (assuming using the stock lens, or another specific designed-for-video Micro 4/3 lens); the 7D can't. The 7D costs about $500 more when comparing the body+somewhat comparable lens. The GH1 has excellent ergonomics and usefulness as a video camera, the 7D not so much. The 7D has an optical viewfinder, the GH1 doesn't. The 7D's sensor is larger, meaning that for any equivalent focal length you'll have a wider field of view on the 7D. The GH1 records to SDHC cards, the 7D records to CompactFlash. The GH1 can record for about 4 or 5 hours continuously on a 32GB SD card, the 7D is limited to a max of 12 minutes.

I'm sure there are many more differences, but those are what I can think of off the top of my head.
 
commanderspike said:
still has a crop factor for lenses which can be a bit of bummer.
Click to expand...

I think its interesting that Super 35 has suddenly become "crop sized" and undesirable. You know what, I'm done with all that business. Full Frame 35mm, too. Screw them both.

645 and 617 are all that will be acceptable to me from now on. Think the 36x24mm sensors will handle things? Turns out, they are just "crop sized" compared to 56x42mm and especially 168x56mm sensors. Full Frame just doesn't have wide enough lenses nor shallow enough DOF.

All joking aside, the native 24p is what sealed the deal for me.
 
Last edited:
wow, thanks for all the tips guy and thanks for spelling it all out for me Barry, I do use fcp so it would be great to be able to throw those .mov's right in there.
And thanks Boomerang, I'll shoot with your 7D first in a couple weeks!
 
Michael Olsen said:
I think its interesting that Super 35 has suddenly become "crop sized" and undesirable.
Click to expand...
Can we please stop repeating the erroneous claim that Super 35 is virtually the same size as Canon's APS-C (e.g. "The 7D has an S35-sized sensor")? Super 35 is almost 25mm wide, while Canon's APS-C is just over 22mm wide. That is roughly equivalent to Academy 35mm ("regular" or "standard" 35mm), which is about 22mm wide. The ~3mm difference is about the same difference in width between the 7D's sensor and the GH1's sensor (in widescreen mode). So it's not insignificant.
 
Last edited:
ydgmdlu said:
Can we please stop repeating the erroneous claim that Super 35 is virtually the same size as Canon's APS-C (e.g. "The 7D has an S35-sized sensor")? Super 35 is almost 25mm wide, while Canon's APS-C is less than 22mm wide. That is roughly equivalent to Academy 35mm ("regular" or "standard" 35mm), which is about 22mm wide. The ~3mm difference is about the same difference in width between the 7D's sensor and the GH1's sensor (in widescreen mode). So it's not insignificant.
Click to expand...

I should have specified.

3-Perf Super35 is 21.95 mm × 13.9 mm
7D is 22.3mm × 14.9 mm

I thought 3-Perf Super35 was what most film was actually shot on to reduce waste and cost, though projected on 4-Perf? Still, a significant difference (~10%) but the closest of any digital acquisition format that I know of in the pricerange...
 
Last edited:
As you can see Super 35 is 24.89mm wide. I think that you're confused about your terminology. The difference between Super 35 and regular 35mm is that Super 35 is intended to be wider, just like Super 16 versus regular 16mm. Super 35 is used in a minority of productions for theatrical release, and the original benefit was to make pan-and-scan conversion for TV easier.

Super35_and_Techniscope.png
 
Last edited:
Right, I understand Super 35 is 24.89mm wide.

But I thought most films were shot in either CinemaScope or Widescreen (a.k.a. 3-Perf) as a method of saving time and money and then transferred after post to standard Super 35 for delivery...

In which case the acquisition format would only be shooting 21.95mm wide?

EDIT: I'm a bit thick headed, sorry. Are you just saying that instead of equating Super35 to APS-C we should equate CinemScope and Widescreen to APS-C?
 
Michael Olsen said:
Right, I understand Super 35 is 24.89mm wide.

But I thought most films were shot in either CinemaScope or Widescreen (a.k.a. 3-Perf) as a method of saving time and money and then transferred after post to standard Super 35 for delivery...

In which case the acquisition format would only be shooting 21.95mm wide?
Click to expand...
No, the whole point of Super 35 is to have an acquisition format that uses more of the film area. Please read the Wikipedia article for more information.

You've got it all backwards. Super 35 has to be reduced to 3-perf, 21.95mm wide, for theatrical distribution. The release prints use the 21.95mm standard width because of the area reserved for the optical soundtrack. Thus, Super 35 is not a standard delivery format for theatrical distribution.
 
Wow. I should get the idiot of the year award for that one right there...no idea how I got it all backwards like that.

Thanks for setting me straight.
 
ydgmdlu said:
Exactly. And it's because equating S35 with APS-C is erroneous and misleading, especially when we're talking about "crop factors" and FOV in standard cinema production.


No problem. I'm always happy to help. :)
Click to expand...

Right, right. S35 is definitely wider than APS-C by a noticeable bit.

Sorry for going so off topic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top