Hah!
Okay, because you asked... It is nowhere near full 1080p. It delivers real-world resolution that is very, very, very similar to what an HPX170 delivers.
Why is the HPX "stuck" at 500? You can use the gain switch to get up to ISO 4000 if you want. Granted, the 7D can go slower (100 and 200, etc) whereas the HPX170's minimum is about 320, depending on the gamma curve you use, but you can adjust the 7D via "ISO" or you can adjust the HPX via "gain", it's the same thing.
Surely you mean the HPX has more controllability over light, seeing as it has adjustable "iso", 7 gamma curves, a master pedestal range of -100 to +100, and has three built-in ND filters?
Agreed, to match the DOF you would need an adapter. But adapter+HPX will deliver as good or better results than a 7D. And really, nobody should complain about that -- you're talking about a $5,000 camera outperforming a $1700 camera -- isn't it supposed to?
And the 7D rates at about 600 lines, which is just BARELY above SD. You can't have it both ways -- either the 7D is HD, in which case so is the HPX, or the HPX is just barely above SD, in which case: so is the 7D.
I know that you're telling us that -- but the charts and reality say otherwise. Don't buy into hype, look into what the product actually does. If you want to know why the 7D looks so deceptively sharp (and it does), read the "Aliasing" article, it explains it all.
Seriously, under what scenarios? It can't even record audio worth a hoot, it doesn't have timecode, it needs thousands of dollars in accessories before it becomes a workable shooting package -- a configured 7D with all the stuff Phil Bloom uses to shoot his short films on, ends up costing more than an HPX+adapter. Yet the HPX will at least let you connect a microphone and manually set the audio level.
That is the absolute truth. And, as I think Ian said, look at "Little Mouth To Feed" and revisit whether an HVX+adapter can't look absolutely brilliant, and certainly on par or better than anything you've seen coming from a 7D.
1080p - they're basically the same, the 7D may have about 10% more resolved detail, but it also has aliasing and moire that the HPX doesn't.
If what you were saying was true, then yeah, that'd be a no-brainer. Problem is, you're operating under a severe misconception! The 7D doesn't down-res 18mpix to 2K, it pixel-bins and line-skips and ends up using about 10% of that 18-megapixel sensor to create an image with a total resolved detail of around 1500 pixels' worth, which will further be contaminated with purple/green aliasing.
No doubt -- this is a huge advantage to the DSLR.
Not really true, as demonstrated above.
You can control the HPX's white balance by a pretty significant amount, by using the COLOR TEMP menu settings. It doesn't limit you to only manual white balance, you can control it in about 15 steps. Not quite the same as what the Canon allows, of course, but it's not as limited as you're making it sound either.
Yes, the storage medium is less expensive. And aren't likely to prove nearly as reliable, nor are they an edit-ready medium that you can edit 12 streams of realtime HD off of, like you can with P2. The storage medium issue is an entirely different discussion.
But it doesn't! Put a 7D at 3200 ISO, and put a Sony EX1 in 1080i at +12dB of gain (800 ISO + 12dB = 3200 ISO), and tell me which has more noise? The EX1 will be noticeably cleaner.
I'm a 7D owner, I'm very very familiar with what it can do. How is pointing out reality, "bashing"?
The 7D produces a ton of apparent sharpness, but not that much actual resolved resolution. It's clearly nowhere near as sharp as a little $1850 HMC40, for example. An HMC40 or EX1 will eat the 7D's lunch, when it comes to actual resolved detail.
Shoot a variety of shots, not just a headshot -- we've seen that one done to death a million times.
Hah!
It is nowhere near full 1080p. It delivers real-world resolution that is very, very, very similar to what an HPX170 delivers.
Why is the HPX "stuck" at 500? You can use the gain switch to get up to ISO 4000 if you want. Granted, the 7D can go slower (100 and 200, etc) whereas the HPX170's minimum is about 320, depending on the gamma curve you use, but you can adjust the 7D via "ISO" or you can adjust the HPX via "gain", it's the same thing.
Surely you mean the HPX has more controllability over light, seeing as it has adjustable "iso", 7 gamma curves, a master pedestal range of -100 to +100, and has three built-in ND filters?
Agreed, to match the DOF you would need an adapter. But adapter+HPX will deliver as good or better results than a 7D. And really, nobody should complain about that -- you're talking about a $5,000 camera outperforming a $1700 camera -- isn't it supposed to?
And the 7D rates at about 600 lines, which is just BARELY above SD. You can't have it both ways -- either the 7D is HD, in which case so is the HPX, or the HPX is just barely above SD, in which case: so is the 7D.
And, the HPX in 720p mode is just embarrassingly better than the 7D.
I know that you're telling us that -- but the charts and reality say otherwise. Don't buy into hype, look into what the product actually does. If you want to know why the 7D looks so deceptively sharp (and it does), read the "Aliasing" article, it explains it all.
Seriously, under what scenarios? It can't even record audio worth a hoot, it doesn't have timecode, it needs thousands of dollars in accessories before it becomes a workable shooting package -- a configured 7D with all the stuff Phil Bloom uses to shoot his short films on, ends up costing more than an HPX+adapter. Yet the HPX will at least let you connect a microphone and manually set the audio level.
That is the absolute truth. And, as I think Ian said, look at "Little Mouth To Feed" and revisit whether an HVX+adapter can't look absolutely brilliant, and certainly on par or better than anything you've seen coming from a 7D.
1080p - they're basically the same, the 7D may have about 10% more resolved detail, but it also has aliasing and moire that the HPX doesn't.
720p, it's a no-brainer, the HPX slays.
If what you were saying was true, then yeah, that'd be a no-brainer. Problem is, you're operating under a severe misconception! The 7D doesn't down-res 18mpix to 2K, it pixel-bins and line-skips and ends up using about 10% of that 18-megapixel sensor to create an image with a total resolved detail of around 1500 pixels' worth, which will further be contaminated with purple/green aliasing.
If you want an 18-megapixel sensor that actually down-rezzes to 2K, you'll have to get a Red Epic 6K system. No DSLR will come within a hundred miles of that, for actual resolved sharpness.
Here, do yourself a favor and see the difference for yourself: shoot a clip on your 7D, and in the middle of that clip, take a still frame. Down-rez that still frame to 1920x1080 in photoshop. Then compare a frame grab of the video against that 1920x1080 still, you'll see that the still is shockingly better. And then you'll see where the fallacy lies -- the DSLRs do not record the full frame, they kludge it together (in a usually very pretty way), but it's not anything like what you're thinking it is.
No doubt -- this is a huge advantage to the DSLR.
Not really true, as demonstrated above.
You can control the HPX's white balance by a pretty significant amount, by using the COLOR TEMP menu settings. It doesn't limit you to only manual white balance, you can control it in about 15 steps. Not quite the same as what the Canon allows, of course, but it's not as limited as you're making it sound either.
Yes, the storage medium is less expensive. And aren't likely to prove nearly as reliable, nor are they an edit-ready medium that you can edit 12 streams of realtime HD off of, like you can with P2. The storage medium issue is an entirely different discussion.
Hey, love your 7D all you want, I'm not telling you not to. Just remember the old adage "if something seems to be too good to be true, it probably is." You're simply not going to get a $1700 product that beats a $5,000 professional video camera, in all ways. If you use it in limited ways, yes, it does have some advantages.
Love it for what it is, not for what the hype makes it seem like it is.
Of course not -- the HPX has been here for a year, the HVX200 since December 2005, and the 7D for about three months.
I've seen plenty of them, and I've made my own, yes.
I don't believe I said it did. I said that it performs about the same in terms of resolved detail. The 7D can make absolutely lovely footage that in many instances is far more aesthetically pleasing than one gets out of an HVX. But it can also crap on the footage, something the HVX will never do.
Did I say that? Re-read what I said -- I said that the amount of gear Philip Bloom used to kit his out, cost more than an HPX170 plus adapter.
Just look at charts, they tell you exactly what is going on. The 7D can barely eke out 600 lines, if that. And that's a fact.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGXqJN0RtEo
You do realize that this statement is, on the face of it, impossible? 59.94 fps progressive from one camera cannot be "smoother" than 59.94fps progressive from another, unless someone screwed up the shutter speed.
Where? I haven't seen anyone "hate" on it.
Says who? Where is this statistic quoted? I said that it resolves a bit more, yes, maybe 10% more -- which, again, leaves you in the position of either acknowledging the HVX as HD, or denigrating the 7D to "barely more than SD", but still -- Canon makes no claim for the # of lines of resolution, so where is this statistic coming from?
I published the charts. You're free to see for yourself -- but the product can only do what it is capable of, and no more than that.
Granted. But you can also record audio on four channels, you can plug in phantom-power mics or line-level audio sources, you can flip in ND filters with the flick of a switch, you can actually shoot under fluorescents without worrying about scrolling bands, you can shoot flash photography without getting flash bars, you can pan or tilt as fast as you want without worrying about jello or skew, and -- oh, yeah, you can record for more than 12 minutes at a time. And you can autofocus. And you can actually execute a zoom. And you can connect it to an HD-SDI monitor and/or an HD-SDI recorder without trying to blow up the central 1600x910 and crop out the red dot. Oh, and you can actually control the audio levels. And you can actually easily pull focus because the magnified focus still works while recording. And have we talked about exposure? Two levels of zebra, a spotmeter, and a full-fledged waveform monitor and vectorscope. Firewire streaming, anyone? And, yeah, you can use the HPX for more than 30 minutes with *no* fear of "overheating".
Go to Hallows Fest and watch our "Little Mouth To Feed", and then put it up against anything on the 7D. I'd be comfortable with that comparison.
Of course it's capable of absolutely gorgeous imagery. But -- and here's the funny thing -- the sharper the lens you put on it, actually the more contamination it causes in the image! Super-sharp lenses are great for stills, but they actually magnify the imaging issues in the DSLRs (all of them, not just the 7D of course).
Yes, I have long argued that the 1080/24pA from the HVX/HPX is its best mode, definitely better than its 720p.
Yeah, that was an oversight on my part.
People have been reading charts differently for years, so I finally posted an article (again, in the "Articles" section here, on how to actually read a chart. It's not really subjective, or at least it shouldn't be. If one person sees 600 lines and someone else sees 900, then one of them is way, way wrong. I outlined the proper methodology in the article, and am very, very, very comfortable in saying 600 lines for the 7D.
Not that I know of. The best I know of is when Tom Roper shot the Winnebago on his 5D and EX1 and Canon video camera.