Vs EX1 and stills

[astigmatic]

Here's a test i did with the sony fx1000 with sgblade's filmic rr2 glass. I didn't up the gain or run neatvideo, but I did crush the blacks and increased the color depth in camera. I also white balanced towards yellow in camera... I think one could easily pass this off as hdlsr footage..

 

[Kholi]

For anyone that doesn't really know what they're looking at, sure. However, diffusion etc all have a distinct 35mm Adapter look. The closest I think you can get to a DSLR image with an Adapter is a G35 or SGpro and those still have a distinct look.

 

[Barry_Green]

Throw in a 35mm adapter and crush the blacks and I bet the picture quality would be pretty close.

An EX1 with a good adapter will outdo a DSLR all day long. Better sharpness, better dynamic range, better overall.

But the point is, that EX1 with an adapter is going to be minimum $7500. The DSLR is $1500 to $2500.

 

[bwwd]

I dont know... better sharpness ? but 7d image is rescaled from 5k not upscaled from 720 lines like charts are telling us,every line is just from different place ,they are far from each other when thrown into 1080 resolution so it creates jaggies and moire.
Barry its not the same as upscaling 720p to 1080p.It doesnt have blur created by upscaling,it has sharp edges and jaggies because of wrong downscaling algorithm.
Lets compare ,720p upscaled to 1080p and 1080p straight from 7D.
EX1 doesnt have better sharpness than 7D just because downscaling in 7D is terrible and creates moire,stairstepping and jaggies.
But i agree that its big problem when everything is in focus,you can see moire and jaggies easily.

 

[Kellar42]

The Ex1 resolves a hell of a lot more detail than any of the DLRS. Look around for the charts...

 

[Barry_Green]

Yes better sharpness. Look at a chart, or shoot a page of text, with progressively smaller letters. You'll be able to read the EX1's letters easier and clearer than you would a 7D (or 5D or GH1).

The DSLR's don't have all that much actual resolved detail, especially in comparison to a class-leader like the EX1 or HPX300.

 

[astigmatic]

For anyone that doesn't really know what they're looking at, sure. However, diffusion etc all have a distinct 35mm Adapter look. The closest I think you can get to a DSLR image with an Adapter is a G35 or SGpro and those still have a distinct look.

actually I'm using the same ground glass as found on the original SGpro. I should post a sample of a higher gain test i did that I denoised then sharpened. It disturbingly took on that crispy smooth quality the canon dslrs have.

 

[bwwd]

i think youre right ,so is there something to count if it has 1080 individual lines or only 700 but some are doubled to achieve 1080p?

 

[morgan_moore]

I dont think expensive lenses make that much difference

most 50 1.8s are the same

BUT

you cant get an 18 F2, for example, cheaply or at all maybe

Such a lens would make the 7d 'pop'

The 5d looks more cinematic at f4 or 5.6 (IMO it looks stupid open at 2 or 1.4)

purchasing F4 or 3.5 lenses is cheap, also some cheaper 2.8s work better at 3.5/4

S

 

[Kholi]

I dont think expensive lenses make that much difference

most 50 1.8s are the same

BUT

you cant get an 18 F2, for example, cheaply or at all maybe

Such a lens would make the 7d 'pop'

The 5d looks more cinematic at f4 or 5.6 (IMO it looks stupid open at 2 or 1.4)

purchasing F4 or 3.5 lenses is cheap, also some cheaper 2.8s work better at 3.5/4

S

I'm not sure how this one is missed, but aside from resolving power, sharpness both It's very obvious that A-Grade glass makes a difference. If you have primo glass and cheap glass, do the comparison yourself. You don't need to get scientific, just point the camera at something-- a logo or text-- and focus on it. Then switch lenses, use the x10 zoom to double check focus and you'll see the difference immediately.

No, you can't find a cheap 18/2 but you can get superb performance out of the Canon and Nikon zooms, my preference beeing the 14-24/2.8 Nikon and 17-35/2.8 Nikon. Both of which are stellar.

I do agree that the MKii should be shot somewhere around 4-5.6 Split, but there are applications where wide open can be useful. Adverse to that, you don't have to shoot 4 or 5.6 split with the 7D. You can shoot 2.8 - 4 and get more light than you would with the MKii @ 4 - 5.6.

Cheap glass in video mode will give cheap results, I stand by this one from viewing similar focal lengths side-by-side. Zooms and Primes. If you're someone concerned about resolved detail, you absolutely want to consider purchasing THE best glass you can afford.

Again, my 35mm Zeiss Contax versus my 17-35mm Tamron Zoom @ 35mm, there is an OBVIOUS difference. As well, even my Zeiss Cy Zoom at 28, 35, and 50 versus my 28, 35 and 50mm Zeiss primes (all @ F4 or 5.6) loses in the resolved detail and sharpness categories.

I'm on the verge of getting my Zeiss ZF set (21 - 100mm primes) and will comment back on those, I have a feeling the updated optics do out perform the C/Y but we'll see.

Also, gonna grab some Takumars. Namely a wide and a telephoto since I have a mediumish. Specifically because of their vintage color cast and softness.

 

[ASG]

Maybe my cheap lenses aren't as cheap as your cheap lenses My main interest is wides, as an example I have the sigma 10-20 f4-5.6 and the sigma 20 f1.8. Stills performance is more than adequate for my needs and I often use them for timelapse. But in video mode would I really see a better image from a zeiss distagon? I would doubt it as this is where the camera really falls down, super wide deep dof. So I guess I have to keep using my video cam for wides, but you can't get wide adapters for video cams that go as wide as an SLR wide without suffering chroma fringing, soft edges and distortion.

Another example - I have a nikkor 50 f1.2. If I takes stills at 1.2 or zoom in to 10x to set focus in video mode at 1.2 the image on the LCD is very diffuse, almost promist looking, which I hate, so I stop down to 1.4 and it is much improved. But that obvious difference between 1.2 and 1.4 really doesn't show up in the video, especially after you apply sharpening in post (which is basically a must as far as I'm concerned, YMMV).

So that's my experience and where I'm coming from. The quality of the video is such a dissappointment to me I wouldn't consider spending the money on expensive lenses, especially when the next best camera could be a different brand

 

[Ian-T]

actually I'm using the same ground glass as found on the original SGpro. I should post a sample of a higher gain test i did that I denoised then sharpened. It disturbingly took on that crispy smooth quality the canon dslrs have.

In good light...I don't see why it wouldn't. But in low light...both the DSLR and EX-1 shooting the same thing....it's no contest. The DSLR wins. And....if you try to compensate for the difference by raising the gain in the EX-1...then here comes the noise which will.....soften the image. Now you are back at square one leaving you to decide which compromise you like better. They both have their strengths and weaknesses.

 

[Ian-T]

Here's a test i did with the sony fx1000 with sgblade's filmic rr2 glass. I didn't up the gain or run neatvideo, but I did crush the blacks and increased the color depth in camera. I also white balanced towards yellow in camera... I think one could easily pass this off as hdlsr footage..

I see what you are trying to do but it really looks more like a DSLR with a very slow lens. Once you raise the gain in post noise will appear and saturation lost.

 

[Ian-T]

Also, gonna grab some Takumars.

Once I get my camera I'm going to try my Super Takumar F1.4 lens. I'm glad I hung on to it.

Question for you...but if you recall Rodney Charters some weeks back had this HUGE cinema lens on the 7D. Would a lens like that have made any difference with the charts Barry shot recently?

 

[ASG]

I've got a cheap-ass 17-35/2.8~4 Tamron zoom and bet your money that I can tell the difference between this @ 35 F4 and my Zeiss Contax 35 @ F4.

The glass absolutely, undoubtedly matters.

I'd love to see grabs just to see how much difference it really makes.

 

[astigmatic]

I see what you are trying to do but it really looks more like a DSLR with a very slow lens. Once you raise the gain in post noise will appear and saturation lost.

my point is that if you gain up, all you have to do is run a de-noiser and sharpen filter in post to get rid of the EX1 grain and you may just l end up with about as sharp and clean image as the 7d. Also you can bump up the color depth in-camera to compensate for the low-light.

 

[Kholi]

Maybe my cheap lenses aren't as cheap as your cheap lenses My main interest is wides, as an example I have the sigma 10-20 f4-5.6 and the sigma 20 f1.8. Stills performance is more than adequate for my needs and I often use them for timelapse. But in video mode would I really see a better image from a zeiss distagon?

I bet money that you would.

I would doubt it as this is where the camera really falls down, super wide deep dof. So I guess I have to keep using my video cam for wides, but you can't get wide adapters for video cams that go as wide as an SLR wide without suffering chroma fringing, soft edges and distortion.

Again, I bet money on it. A 21/2.8 Zeiss ZF or C/Y Distagon versus yoru 20/1.8 Sigma @ 2.8. In video mode, there WILL be a difference.

Another example - I have a nikkor 50 f1.2. If I takes stills at 1.2 or zoom in to 10x to set focus in video mode at 1.2 the image on the LCD is very diffuse, almost promist looking, which I hate, so I stop down to 1.4 and it is much improved. But that obvious difference between 1.2 and 1.4 really doesn't show up in the video, especially after you apply sharpening in post (which is basically a must as far as I'm concerned, YMMV).

Are you using this on a 7D? 1.2 - 1.4 really isn't a major differnce to begin with. 2.8 - 4 is. Again, if you're using it on a 7D just push the zoom in button and check. Nothing scientific needed.

So that's my experience and where I'm coming from. The quality of the video is such a dissappointment to me I wouldn't consider spending the money on expensive lenses, especially when the next best camera could be a different brand

I dont' disgree that the video is a disappointment, however I do disagree that the lens does not make a difference. It surely does. It's not even that hard to prove.

 

[Kholi]

Once I get my camera I'm going to try my Super Takumar F1.4 lens. I'm glad I hung on to it.

Question for you...but if you recall Rodney Charters some weeks back had this HUGE cinema lens on the 7D. Would a lens like that have made any difference with the charts Barry shot recently?

The Charts? No. IN fact, if anything I think it'll make it WORSE because the lens is going to resolve so much detail, the aliasing would go crazy. I haven't tested it, though.

So nah, I don't think it would have helped but I am damned pressed that a Nikon 35/2 or 1.4 Versus a Cine Lens or even a Zeiss ZF will show plenty difference. I dunno if it has to do with micro contrast and all of those other attributes, but I do stand by this.

I have the 50/1.4 Super Takumar and it looks so nice on the 7D. It's pretty sharp @ F4 for video, not as resolute as my 50/1.4 Zeiss C/Y.

 

[Kholi]

I'd love to see grabs just to see how much difference it really makes.

I'm not the most efficient at getting test material up. If you do have the camera, though, I urge you to try it.

I'm in the writing process right now on a feature and I haven't touched my cameras in days, I'll try to get a worthy test scenario up just for stills.

 

[Kholi]

One thought that I have is that it comes down to lens design. Not just one attribute, of course, but all. My Zeiss C/Y 50/1.4 looks softer @ 1.4 than the Super Takumar, but by 2.8 it's obviously sharper to my eyes, especially when zoomed in. Diffraction, Abberation, etc etc. All of that has an effect on the video image just the same as a still image.

The question's more if it's a major difference or enough to warrant the purchase of more expensive glass. That's a personal choice, though.