Upgrade from my Canon 7D

[lyrov]

I need to look more into that then. I saw footage of the menus in the alpha version and thought the menus didn't look too user friendly. Plus, I'm reluctant to put anything on this camera if it's still in alpha or beta. That usually means SOMEthing isn't working right.

I thought there was already a stable release for the 7D...guess not yet. I have used ML to all my canon cameras and never had a problem. Right now Im using ''Nightly Builts'' on my 60D for shooting RAW video and everything works normally.
Of course it comes with a risk...!

 

[tinpanalley]

I thought there was already a stable release for the 7D...guess not yet. I have used ML to all my canon cameras and never had a problem. Right now Im using ''Nightly Builts'' on my 60D for shooting RAW video and everything works normally.
Of course it comes with a risk...!

No, I don't think it's ever left alpha. But the thing is, I'm not pro enough of a photographer to really care about all the extra features in magic lantern. I shoot as raw as possible and then use photoshop if I need to touch anything up. I pretty much continue to use my 7D the way I still use my Canon AE-1. And for filming, again, I want the cleanest image possible. I'm really interested in trying to figure out which of these cinema profiles out there to use.
Anyway, I really appreciate all the help. I'm pretty much convinced about the 70D, but I need to figure out how to find a shop in Paris that will buy my 7D. I bought it at B&H in 2011 when I lived in NY and after I spoke to them yesterday, they said they DO buy stuff from people in other countries. But I'll end up paying shipping as well which cuts into how much I can get for it. What do you guys think is a good price for the 7D body, the battery, and all the accessories and documentation that came in the box. I've taken about 4000 pictures. Any ideas?

 

[tinpanalley]

I would also suggest:
* Nikon D5300 (or D7100 if you care about stills: it has better AF, including AFMA): I think this is the best APS-C DSLR for video right now
* Sony A6000: second-best APS-C DSLR for video if you ask me, and it can take your Canon lenses through a Metabones smart adapter

What would you say are the major benefits of these and even the GH4 over a camera like the 70D in terms of video, keeping in mind that shooting 2K or any kind of in-camera special effects isn't important to me.

 

[Samuel H]

^ Basically, image quality.
The image on the Canons is plagued by aliasing/moire, and lacks actual detail. The Nikons are a lot cleaner (like: A LOT) and have slightly better DR. The new Sony seems to be pretty clean too, and also has slightly better DR than the Canons.
Check this, with special attention to the sharpness and moire tests.

But keep in mind that everything else can be a downside. For example, if you are used to the Canon controls, you may not like the new ones. But I believe the image is worth it, but I know other people put a lot more weight on usability.

FWIW, I started noticing that vimeo softens my videos when I switched from the T2i (which has exactly the same image as your 7D) to the 5N. And these new cameras are another step ahead of that.

 

[unadog]

What is the take on the Nikon D3200?

I was just looking at DxO, and for stills it looks to be fairly close to the D7100. The biggest difference seems to be the presence of the AA filter on the D3200, which they cite as a plus for video - less aliasing & moire.

http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Best...are-between-the-D3200-and-the-D5200-and-D7100

You can get a D3200 kit for $400 or less, or teh body only for $325, while the D7100 is about $1,150+ for teh body only. They also rate the D3200 as highly as the Sony A6000 for the sensor.

++++

I know Nikon has always had the issue of having to switch out of video mode to change the aperature (WTH???) The Magic Lantern features for Canon are also a big plus/value add, especially RAW. But it looks like only the 5DIII has really good RAW. The SD cards look to be a bottleneck for RAW (unless ML can do a psuedo raw? Some other cameras have pretty decent output at the 40 MB/s SD limit.):

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AgQ2MOkAZTFHdFFIcFp1d0R5TzVPTVJXOEVyUndteGc#gid=5

http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=6215.0

The dual ISO capability also looks nice - shooting at both 100 ISO + 400 ISO at the same time for enhanced DR.

+++++

Some really beautiful 5DIII RAW resuls out there, although I think the $2.5K price point is beyond realistic for this thread? The first is a comparison to 35 mm film and the Red Dragon, for intercutting for tv:

https://vimeo.com/88834695

And a comparison to the GH4:

https://vimeo.com/94057334


It is worth looking at the "Net Cost of Ownership" for some of these beasts. Not the total amount invested, but the depreciation cost between buying and selling. For example, my Canon T4i body was $600 2 years ago. The used value is about $400, so the "Net Cost of Ownership" for 2 years - is about $100 per year! Pretty incredible.

I find $100 to $200 to be about average for an entry level body. $20 to $350 might be more accurate for a mid-tier body, like the 7DII or GH4 for teh first 2 years. And about $350 to $500 for something like the 5DIII when new. Depending on when you buy, how smartly you buy, and how long you own ...


This might be the wrong time to buy a 5DIII used. But if a lot of shooters jump to a 7DII in September, it may be worth picking up a used 5DIII for $1,875 or similar, if the marketplace takes a hit.

Of course, if Canon finally gives us a high DR sensor with Dual Pixel Auto Focus for $1,300 on the 7DII .....

++++

I should mention re: my comments, taht I am a long time Canon stills shooter. So I have some needs/constraints that don't apply to folks like Simon & the OP< who can more easily swap system sand gear.

I will almost always have to support 2 systems, a stills & video system. And the stills system needs to be highest end - in this case Canon's best full frame L glass, the 24-70 II and 70-200 II, a $4K investment just for those 2 lenses.....


So a Canon 5DIII will make more sense than a GH4 plus 5DIII .... plus $2k of glass for the second camera. Until I can completely switch to something like a GH4.

Unless/until Canon gives us C100 or 1DC features at the $2,000 price point .... Which they could do if they didn't have such great margins on the Cinema series.

Cheers!
Michael

 

[lyrov]

Samuel is...as always right! Final image quality is probably the most important factor when choosing cameras...BUT...depending on what and how you re shooting, IQ might not be the first priority! Im choosing Canons because they re the best (so far) for what I do. I sucrifice sharpness and maybe some DR and I choose softer, moired images but I also get very good low light performance, amazing AF and most importantly excellent functionality!!! When you re shooting something that is happening LIVE and ONLY once...you just cant lose your time by trying to find how to change aperture!!! After post production and especially when the story is good...nobody...and I mean NOBODY will ever notice lack of sharpness or moire! But the shot will be there!
I have to admit, the new A7s has made me thinking...but when it ll be released it would be too late for that wedding season. I might switch my canon XF100 for the sony AX100 though, I need a ''camcorder'' in my bag and that little thing is so impressive!!!

 

[tinpanalley]

What is the take on the Nikon D3200?
I was just looking at DxO, and for stills it looks to be fairly close to the D7100. The biggest difference seems to be the presence of the AA filter on the D3200, which they cite as a plus for video - less aliasing & moire.
http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Best...are-between-the-D3200-and-the-D5200-and-D7100
You can get a D3200 kit for $400 or less, or teh body only for $325, while the D7100 is about $1,150+ for teh body only. They also rate the D3200 as highly as the Sony A6000 for the sensor.

Thanks, Michael! This was all really interesting and helpful. I can't believe there's something like the D3200 that actually appears to be better than the 7D and for a lot cheaper. Seems to not make sense to me that the 7D would be the price it is. Can the Canon name really be THAT much of a factor? It's not like Nikon are nobodies. I'd say they're in the exact same league.
The fact is that ANY of these and even some lower end models would be perfectly good cameras for my amateur photography. But if I'm going to look to upgrade from the 7D, what I really need is the best video imaging that my money can buy because THAT's the primary workload of my camera for my film work. And antialiasing is something I like the idea of to avoid those Canon moires. You've made a good point that I need to look at ANY and ALL manufacturers if I really want to say that I got the best video quality that my money can buy.
Feel free to recommend any others under 1000. I don't care how old they are if they've got the specs.

 

[Andrius Simutis]

Seems to not make sense to me that the 7D would be the price it is. Can the Canon name really be THAT much of a factor?
...
The fact is that ANY of these and even some lower end models would be perfectly good cameras for my amateur photography.

You have to realize that Canon makes the 7D primarily as a stills camera for sports photographers. It shoots close to 10fps raw stills for a reason. It's weather sealed and has a rugged build. It's got great autofocus (again for stills). I know those features don't mean much to a videographer, but they're the reason for that camera's existence.

 

[Ebrahim Saadawi]

What is the take on the Nikon D3200?

Cheers!
Michael

The D3200 is the old generation of Nikon Video DSLRs, meaning the quality is similar to the D5100/D7000/D3100, eg, full of moire and aliasing, low sharpness... But not bad by any means for a lot of uses. Image quality there is comparable to say Canon 7D, 60D, t3i.

After that, Nikon made a huge leap in terms of video quality, they removed aliasing/moire, gave their cameras extremely high sharpness, and low light performance comparable to the 5D mIII. These are the D3300/D5200/D5300/D7100

I would suggest going with any of the second gen. models instead of the D3200 if video is your concern

 

[Samuel H]

The D3200 is the old generation of Nikon Video DSLRs, meaning the quality is similar to the D5100/D7000/D3100, eg, full of moire and aliasing, low sharpness... But not bad by any means for a lot of uses. Image quality there is comparable to say Canon 7D, 60D, t3i.

After that, Nikon made a huge leap in terms of video quality, they removed aliasing/moire, gave their cameras extremely high sharpness, and low light performance comparable to the 5D mIII. These are the D3300/D5200/D5300/D7100

I would suggest going with any of the second gen. models instead of the D3200 if video is your concern

True. The D3200 is very good for stills, but I wouldn't even consider it for video. And I'm not that sure about the D3300 either, is it free of aliasing/moire?
Plus: the new Nikon image is basically clean, and sharper than that from the Canons, but I wouldn't call it super-sharp either. Just sharp-enough. The GH series is sharper, for example (but it lacks the DR).

@lyrov:

 

[tinpanalley]

You have to realize that Canon makes the 7D primarily as a stills camera for sports photographers. It shoots close to 10fps raw stills for a reason. It's weather sealed and has a rugged build. It's got great autofocus (again for stills). I know those features don't mean much to a videographer, but they're the reason for that camera's existence.

I have to admit, I wasn't aware of the sports photography element. It makes sense, of course, upon looking at the specs. But I didn't know that. My reason for buying it was the following... despite what people will say about a photography camera being for photos and a video camera being for videos, I think a media device is for media. Period. Perhaps it's years spent as a low budget independent filmmaker that gets your brain thinking this way but I don't believe the "proper" camera for shooting is a term that should exist. You shoot with a)what suits you logistically and b)what you can afford. And everything else, when you have these limitations is irrelevant. Why? Because the alternative is not shooting at all and to me that's not an alternative. I spent years early on in a world where 16mm was the minimum way and 35mm was the proper way. That world is gone. So, not that any of you have been negative towards me at all, but I need to state this because I think it will help everyone here answer my questions better. I'm a purist in many, many things. I still listen to 78s and LPS and refuse to ever replace CDs with digital files. But when it comes to doing what I love doing, like telling stories and making films, I'm a pragmatist first.

That being said... I've shot with the 7D. It's fine. But I see clearly because I know specs and tech, that it has limitations even for a DSLR that might be problematic for me in the near future and we're getting to a point where it starts to depreciate in value exponentially.
Here's what I'd like:
- Good low light shooting without artifacting that looks so "digital". I shoot a LOT of available light in various conditions. I like dark, I'm not afraid of underexposed images. The 70D does low light noise in a way that, to my eyes, is less "video" looking. Don't know what it is, that's just the way it looks to me.
- I love the texture and richness of the video I shoot at 1080p, 24fps on the 7D. If there is more that can be achieved in a similar range camera, then great!
- Shooting above 1080 is not a factor to me. Nor is anything over 24fps except maybe for the occasional slow-motion effects. I'd rather a 1080 with amazing imaging than a low end 2K camera that will shoot footage I'll have to compress to edit with anyway and will have to be compressed even further to stream online. I'm not likely ever going to output to a file that will be seen on a 50ft screen in a theatre.
- Full frame is a photography spec. So, it's not something I need. I've had cinematographer friends confirm to me the fact that APS-C is closer to s35mm than full frame and that's good enough for me. There is lots of information online that explains why this is.
- I record audio on a separate device. Headphone out isn't really something I need.
- Any DSLR has good enough photo imaging for my purposes which is why I'm not focussing on that.
- Which manufacturer doesn't matter to me except that I've been a Canon person my whole life. I still shoot with the AE-1 that used to belong to my parents. I currently have this 7D and a fantastic 24-105 IS USM. It would be a shame to let it go.

Of course, I'd love a RED or a blackmagic cinema camera but that isn't going to happen. I spent enough time not making films because stock and cameras were unaffordable. I'm not letting the fact that DSLRs aren't made primarily for video stop me. And I love the look that DSLR can accomplish. It's just, you know, these little specs that could potentially be better for a small or similar price that I want to look into. And you guys have more knowledge than me in that. So I appreciate any and all input you guys have.
Right now, the 70D looks best suited to me and it looks like an ad I put up on ebay here in France is getting some attention. So I may have the funds sooner than later for an under 1000 euro camera.

 

[unadog]

I would suggest going with any of the second gen. models instead of the D3200 if video is your concern

Thank You!! Very helpful ...

I was looking at the DxO review on the D7100, and they said the D3200 was very, very close to the 7100 for stills, except the latter lacked the AA filter. Obviously not the same case for video. I know that Nikon lagged a bit getting video "nailed" in some cameras.

++++

We are starting to get some good "bottom feeding" bargains on slightly older gear for stills, as the sensors stabilize at 16 MP to 24 MP. The Olympus Pen E-PL2 kit for $200, NEX 6 for $525, Nikon D3200 for $325.

Once video reaches a better quality plateau - which is mostly codecs, sensor readouts, & bit rate through-put, the sensors are there - we should finally see some great deals. Maybe in 3-5-7 years?

Things equivalent to a 2 generations old Nikon D800 for $750 for stills: The Sony A7S for $600, GH4 for $400. A Canon C150 with 4K 10 bit 4:2:2 available used for $875, or a BMCC for $350 .....

Slowly getting there ...

Cheers!

 

[unadog]

Right now, the 70D looks best suited to me and it looks like an ad I put up on ebay here in France is getting some attention. So I may have the funds sooner than later for an under 1000 euro camera.

I think you can get into the 70D now - which will maximize the value of your 7D, before the 7DII comes out. And I think you can own the 70D for 6 months to 1 year (or longer if you want of course) for almost $0 cost.

The 70D is available from Adorama in the US right now for $1,187 with the 18-135mm STM lens, plus the Canon Pixma Pro 100 printer, after a $400 rebate (you pay $1,587 up front, rebate comes in 3-5 weeks via American Express card.)

If you sell the lens & printer (or just the ink from the printer), the math pretty easily works out to:

$1,187 - $300 lens - $100 ink/printer = $787 net for the 70D body! Which is a really good price.

Obviously that is harder to do in France. But if you know anyone here who could do that for you ... Maybe someone who was coming to visit you and could bring their own 70D "personal camera" along on the trip?? :huh:

I have already gotten 2 rebates on the Pro 100 printer, so I can't risk a third ... Even if you paid someone $100 to do the selling, it might be a deal.

Or find one of the bodies from that deal for $850? Some people have additional credit card discounts & etc., that they make an extra profit just buying that for $1,500+ and selling all items ...

Just a thought/example.

 

[tinpanalley]

Just a thought/example.

Very good idea, very clever, and thanks for the suggestion. But in the end, it's just too much money to bother gettng it in the US when I can just as easily get it here.

Anyone have any other recommendations for similar DSLRs or maybe even a video camera (though I doubt azny would be in my price range)?

 

[starcentral]

Have you considered the Sony F3?

$13k new but only between $5000-$6000 used and it rivals images coming out of really higher end cinema cameras, although you might want an external recorder for 10-bit 422 YCrBr or RGB 444 recording. No moire and you can get 60p 1080 out of it (with an external recorder), or 720p 60p internal to cards. It has XLR inputs, built in mic, clean images at high ISO's. ND filter. slog, hypergammas, decent dynamic range, uses cheap batteries that will last all day, and can accomdate any lenses on the planet from PL mount to Canon, Nikon, etc..

Just an idea if you're looking to get out of the DSLR arena. (not that there's anything wrong with that)

 

[tinpanalley]

Have you considered the Sony F3?

You must have missed that my limit is 1000euros. rogar-BigGrin(DBG)

 

[starcentral]

Ah gotcha.

 

[Ebrahim Saadawi]

The thing is, you want to keep your Canon lenses. And clearly there aren't many choices for Canon video in your price range other than the 70D, If you really want to keep using your lenses fully, with autofocus and IS, the 70D is a great camera and your only option. A decent step from the 7D in terms of video.

I know that most reviews online say that the image quality has not changed, and that's being thrown around as a fact. But honestly there is a decent IQ jump from those older 550D 7D to the 70D's new sensor. Only thing their images have in common is moire and aliasing, other than that, a big low-light advantage (both amount and texture of noise), resolution, color rendition, dynamic range and a stronger All-I codec. Plus DPAF of course.

-The reason the 70D is not praised and always looked down to, is that while the image is indeed nicer on the 70D, other companies started giving an even nicer image from lower-end cameras, they are better in lowlight, have no moire/aliasing, higher resolution.

By these cameras I mean Nikons entry-level D5200 & D5300 & D3300. Though no Canon lenses will ever be used on those.
Others are Panasonics GH3/G6, Sony A6000, and these are mirrorless, so you will be able to mount Canon lenses (no AF/IS)

These cameras do have a better image. But for me as a user, I find the Canon DSLRs a lot more usable and easier to use and shoot with overall, especially with MagicLantern (this thing is awesome!!)

-So it comes down to you really, if you're willing to sacrifice your Canon ergonomics for better image quality, or is the IQ on the Canon good enough for you and keep the usability benefits.


As samuel said: people are different. Some only care about the final result, amd some put more weigh on usability. No right or wrong here.

*If it's worth it, A bird told me, at the 4th quarter of 2014, we're going to get a 7D MKII (sports camera with 11 fps and 61 AF points) with an image that looks like the C100 and the 1Dc in S35 crop mode in terms of detail and lowlight. Dual-Pixel Af, touchscreen, headphone jack dual card slots, peaking and will be priced higher than than 7D's launch price.

 

[lyrov]

But honestly there is a decent IQ jump from those older 550D 7D to the 70D's new sensor. Only thing their images have in common is moire and aliasing, other than that, a big low-light advantage (both amount and texture of noise), resolution, color rendition, dynamic range and a stronger All-I codec. Plus DPAF of course.

^Totally agree to that! 70D is better.

*If it's worth it, A bird told me, at the 4th quarter of 2014, we're going to get a 7D MKII (sports camera with 11 fps and 61 AF points) with an image that looks like the C100 and the 1Dc in S35 crop mode in terms of detail and lowlight. Dual-Pixel Af, touchscreen, headphone jack dual card slots, peaking and will be priced higher than than 7D's launch price.

If Canon ever release such a camera...Im gonna buy it regardless of price (assuming it will be under their cheapest C model)...and that exactly is the reason that makes it difficult!

edit: after all those years and I still havent figure how to multi quote...

 

[tinpanalley]

Thanks for the added input, guys. Again, very helpful.
Quick question... Do I have anything to be concerned about with reliability and write speeds of HD video going from CF cards to SD cards on the 7D to the 70D respectively?