7D or 5D

If you had to shoot tomorrow and had both available, which would you choose? It's a short film for festivals, 24fps but there will be dancing and movement so the option of a higher frame rate is advantageous. I have read so many reports "5D - size matters" (sensor) "7D is better for video". No one know better than the editors who view the footage in all types of scenarios.

So quick - knee jerk reaction - which would YOU go with?

5D. You may get a bit more rolling shutter artifacts due to the bugger sensor, but I have seen pretty nice looking 5D shots.

You can also look at the Sony F3, which let's you use prime lenses but in a video camera form factor.



www.strypesinpost.com

I have heard great things about the F3 - researching that for an upcoming project. Clearly DSLR cameras aren't great for running and gunning. I did a shoot last week and we used a RED, a 5D and a 7D. And although the 7D did so well in tests it didn't quite hold up. Might have been the glass though- which is why I am so curious as to others experiences in the trenches ...

They are definitely NOT good for running & gunning (I have a 7D). Watch out for moire & aliasing issues that you cannot see until you watch on a monitor. I blew an entire shoot on a 7D because I didn't know about it until I was finished running around without checking on a monitor for 8 hours & 53 gigs of capture (it's an issue with both cameras). If I had a choice of both cameras in front of me, 5D with the moire filter (you had better read this thread this before getting EITHER camera):

[philipbloom.net]

When life gives you dilemmas...make dilemmanade.

Neither. And, I'd rather not shoot at all if I was being forced to use one or the other and didn't have the option of chosing the right tool for the job.

Like he said, have a look at the F3. I did a grading job recently for a car shoot where they tried to skimp and used the F3 for principal photography, and a 5D for on-boards etc. The F3 won hands down. A far superior image with much finer detail. It was really a shame, they could have easily afforded the 2 day rental. The F3 is also a real camera with real accesories and the real features decent gear should have.

I worked on another job recently where they blew it completely on the moire issue too. Now they're sweating getting past the broadcaster's QC.

The 5D certainly has it's own particular sexiness in some situations, but in reality is quite limited. Especially if fast movement/action is involved. Although many timelines these days are codec agnostic, that doesn't diminish the quality requirements for your footage, unless it's news or docu or in certain creative scenarios where you want a mixed-media look.

As always, test beforehand and make sure you're making the right choices.

I own a 600D (t3i) which is the latest from Canon. Unlike its predecessors it does not overheat. Like its predecessors it has a lousy kit lens which is borderline unusable. I find the 600D handy for getting shots in very confined spaces and where one has complete control over DOF.

But do not consider any of these cameras to be movie cameras.

And I advise against the 7D or the 5D because when they overheat - which they do constantly - you then grind to a standstill until the camera cools down. The 600D does not overheat at all and has a far better monitor screen which flips out and twists. It also allows you control over the sound recording levels and compression which is much better.

But it's still not a real motion picture camera. It's bad for hand-held because, even with the whacking great chunk of glass I purchased to replace the kit lens, the camera weighs nothing and therefore has no momentum. The optical stabilizers do not cover hand jiggles.

Over and out.

Harry.

Might I offer up the Panasonic GH3.

Its better than both for video and low light noise. It does have as bad of a problem with rolling shutter as the 5d or 7d.
I shoots in AVCHD and has nice frame rates. The default lens is very nice in all conditions for all conditions.

I would choose the GH3 over both.

do a vimeo search to see it in action.

""" What you do with what you have, is more important than what you could do, with what you don't have."

> > > Knowledge + Action = Wisdom - J. Corbett 1992 """"

ooops Panasonic GH2.
the 3 is not out yet i dont believe.

""" What you do with what you have, is more important than what you could do, with what you don't have."

> > > Knowledge + Action = Wisdom - J. Corbett 1992 """"

Thanks Gents!

See? Those of us in post know the deal as we are the ones trying to fix the shortcomings of the shoot ... I just hate it when I am fixing the shortcomings of my own shoot!

I have heard great things (as mentioned) about the Sony F3 - thinking about that moving forward for sure. Bums me out to not hear one good review here for either the 7D or 5D as I sit here staring at both. I have had some success with the 7D before but have also had it not hold up due to noise and moire - which ironically, are almost spelled the same ...

Any thoughts on the Panasonic AF100 as opposed to the F3??

Quote
Any thoughts on the Panasonic AF100 as opposed to the F3??

Our FCP users group in Tucson last month was treated to a demo of the Panasonic AF100. Everything about the camera was very nice, except that it produced a lot of noise in low light. So keep that in mind if you are considering that camera.

Quote
harry323
[the 600D] has a lousy kit lens which is borderline unusable.

I don't know what harry323 is faulting the kit lens on, but it probably shouldn't be on sharpness. Any lens sharp enough to make half-decent use of an 18 Megapixel sensor is plenty sharp enough for the 2 Megapixel HD video images obtained from that sensor.

The DSLR produces its 2 Megapixel HD video image from almost the whole area of the 18 Megapixel sensor. It more or less averages 3x3 blocks of pixels into single large pixels or else it subsamples from such blocks.

Still photos can make use of 18 Megapixels, but video images can't. HD resolution (2 Megapixels) is sufficient for viewers at typical viewing distances from the video image. These distances have a horizontal viewing angle of no more than 40 degrees. The corresponding minimum viewing distance for an 8"x10" photo (in landscape orientation) is 14". In other words, an 10" wide photo having just 1920 pixels across looks quite sharp at 14". But still photos are often examined from closer than at 14". Also they're often cropped before enlargement.

Loose talk of "good glass" for HD video needs refining. Lenses designed for shooting stills with DSLRs are more than adequate for shooting HD video with DSLRs, while it's actually the lenses designed for shooting HD video on small sensors which need to be exceptionally sharp. Some increased sharpness comes gratis from the shortening of focal length -- aberrations scale down -- but optical diffraction does not scale down and imposes a serious limitation for HD video on small sensors.

harry323 can rightly fault consumer camera lenses on grounds other than sharpness. For example, many consumer zoom lenses today have greater distortion than would have been tolerated in the past. This is a shift in consumer taste, an arguable unorthodoxy, whereas unsharpness over a 18 Megapixel sensor would be just absurd.

The Bayer array problem is separate from these general considerations. The Bayer array on DSLR sensors should have amost no effect on the de-rezed HD video image. If the HD image suffers especial moiré, I'd guess it's due to poor design of the DSLR's demosaicing/de-rezzing.

Dennis Couzin
Berlin, Germany

Hi dcouzin,

You say:

I don't know what harry323 is faulting the kit lens on, but it probably shouldn't be on sharpness.

I found the lens unusable because the fit of the focusing barrel is so poor that it wobbles at least one millimeter from side to side. I called Canon and they said that this was normal. But it meant that when you attempted to focus, the image would shift from side to side when you touched the focus ring.

I also had to send it to the service place because the stabilizer simply did not work at all.

I call that unusable.

I then bought the Canon 15-85 zoom which cost about $700. I cannot speak from the same position of expertise as you, nevertheless my subjective impression was that the color was visibly better in some mysterious way that I cannot explain, and the lens was solidly built. The focus and zoom rings feel solid and smooth in my hand.

You are correct that you did not know upon what I was faulting the lens, and continue that it was probably not on sharpness. Well, again subjectively, the 15-85 gave me better "apparent" sharpness. I don't know why. Perhaps you can educate me as to what I am experiencing. Is it psychological, due to the fact that my new lens cost about 4 or 5 times as much? Or is it some other effect due to what I would hope are better optics?

I'd be interested in your reply, because you clearly know a lot about this stuff.

Best

Harry.

> I then bought the Canon 15-85 zoom which cost about $700.

My Canon 60D came with an 18-135mm kit lens. I'm no camera expert, but I'd say it's far from "unusable". The focus is fine even without a follow focus accessory.

In general, the wider the zoom range, the more compromised the image. So it would stand to reason that a 15-85mm zoom lens would look better than an 18-135mm lens.

But there are other considerations. I've shot four live-concert situations with the 60D, and even with the 18-135mm lens, the zoom range isn't enough. Can't get close-ups of the musicians even when I'm right at the edge of the stage, but obviously, a prime lens is out of the question for live shooting, and the widest range has to be available as well. Sharpness is only one part of the equation.


www.derekmok.com

Quote
Troy Christian said:
I have had some success with the 7D before but have also had it not hold up due to noise and moire - which ironically, are almost spelled the same ...

Not true..."noise" and "moire" are NOT the same thing in the least. Completely different as a matter of fact. You can reduce the noise by introducing more light, stopping down and reducing your ISO as there are "sweet spots" for the 5D / 7D ISO:

The 5D and 7D?s ?native? ISO levels are 160, 320, 640, 1250, and 2500 ISO. While the cameras have dozens more ISO settings, it turns out that settings in between these values are artificially boosting (or lowering) the camera?s exposure compensation; you don?t actually gain any highlight headroom (e.g., ISO 200 is just an exposure-compensated ISO 160). STAY ON THOSE ISO SETTINGS for the least amount of "NOISE".

...and I shot a complete 8 hour day running and gunning with the 7D on a monopod running 720p most of the time and I never experienced any "overheating" issues that I was aware of. The moire / aliasing killed every shot. Looks like this will be my still camera until Canon comes up with a firmware update or something to fix this because I would never use it for another VIDEO shoot as is.

You can reduce (pretty much eliminate) the moire / aliasing with the filter I pointed you to in the above post (7D version coming out soon).

When life gives you dilemmas...make dilemmanade.

harry323, the fault you cite, the wobble, is a great example of a crossover problem. Lens wobble is just an annoyance for still photography but a disaster for video.

If you still have the kit lens why not do an HD sharpness and color comparison at same focal length and same f-number and let us know the result.

Dennis Couzin
Berlin, Germany

Resolution and sharpness.... Not lens related, but...

[prolost.com]



www.strypesinpost.com

It's a no-brainer that from a full 18 MP Bayer image a good-for-2 MP image can be extracted. Either the Canon sensor isn't fast enough to yield sixty full 18 MP Bayer images per second or else its image processing isn't fast enough to do the sixty good 2 MP RGB extractions per second. (For 4k instead of HD change '2 MP' to '4 MP'.) It's Canon's shame that they weren't ready to make a proper crossover camera. This will be sorted out in time with faster sensors and/or processors. Whatever anti-aliasing optical filter "fixes" the present Canon HD images won't fix the HD images the next Canon crossover camera makes.

Dennis Couzin
Berlin, Germany

i pretty much consider ALL the canons a non-starter (for my uses) for two reasons:

1. aliasing/moire (shy of the new physical adapter joe mentions)
2. 12 min clip limits

i tried a 5D 7D 60D and a GH2 all side by side and decided that the GH2 was the more flexible and reliable tool.

in the right situations and in the right hands. the canons obviously are capable of SUPERB looking stuff. but for me, in day to day uses in the wild. there are just too many things they arent good at.

i use the GH2 with a rayqual m4/3 to nikon adapter with a handful of vintage nikon primes and i like what i get...

All of them are great for interviews though. Simple set, good lights, lovely depth of field set up - looks great.

Quote
Jude Cotter said:
All of them are great for interviews though. Simple set, good lights, lovely depth of field set up - looks great.

Oh yes...very much so...just as long as the moire / aliasing is dealt with (you MUST use a monitor to set it up...sometimes you cannot see it on the LCD on the camera). You can see it on lines / patterns in clothing, bricks / wires / backgrounds, etc. If you plan for it, the 5D / 7D looks just like film...very rich & sexy (ask Stu Maschwitz - I am currently studying a DSLR Filmmaking class with him as one of the Professors). Also * VERY IMPORTANT *...in the User Settings, create a Custom User Setting starting with "Neutral", reduce Sharpening & Contrast to "0" and reduce the Saturation 2 clicks. This gives you much more contrasty headroom in Post. If you fry your recorded image with sharpening / contrast / saturation, you cannot get that information back.

When life gives you dilemmas...make dilemmanade.

> All of them are great for interviews though. Simple set, good lights, lovely
> depth of field set up - looks great.

Ironically, I think some of that advantage is offset by the very poor audio quality and options. You pretty much have to have dual-system sound for any DSLR shoot.


www.derekmok.com

5D for sure, I have seen the two together and it's noticable that the 7D is 'lower' quality.. 5D is my call..

12 Core MacPro | 8Gb RAM | MacOSX 10.6.8 | FCP 7

Marcus T
iCreate! digital|post
12 Core Mac Pro, Snow Leopard, FCP 7.0.3, 8Gb Memory.

One of the guys who we work with uses 5Ds for all sorts of work and gets lovely results, so it's not impossible - here are some tests he did before the firmware update





Of course this is an embedded mp4, so the quality is rammed, but you can get a slightly better idea of the quality if you watch actually on Vimeo.

So - I shot on the 7D as the piece I am filming has dance in it and i wanted the option of higher frame rate. Moire on certain pieces of clothing is a big issue. Had no issues with overheating. The issues were with the connector for the external monitor not being design for running and gunning. When the connection was lost the camera would shut down and the shot lost.

The other HUGE issue is that in that several critical clips in the middle of a card are corrupt. 6 in a row in fact. Can't get them open in any program. Is there a software that can recover that? I can be by the file size that the clip is there0 it just won't open getting the "the movie is not in a format that QT understands". Has anyone had that issue? Been able to recover??

[www.aeroquartet.com]

But they are a little pricey.



www.strypesinpost.com

[philipbloom.net]

pretty sure the discussion/advice is still up and running on Bloom's site . . .

Bluey,

Thx Strypes! - Aeroquartet seems like it will save me from a re shoot

I wonder why Aeroquartet does it while Jon's app doesn't (it doesn't do H.264). In cases of abrupt pauses in recording? Shouldn't it be the file headers that are damaged? Are h.264 headers different from standard QT movies?



www.strypesinpost.com

Even Though The GH2 is better than both of those cameras the closet of the bunch is the 5d Mark. You will need more lenses to get the gusto out of it.

mid speed lens / Fast lens / Ultra fast lens then about 3 specialty lenses.

My friend has the 5D and we swopped cameras for a test shoot. I changed lenses 4 times from 4pm to 9pm . He changed lenses twice.

He has the following lenses

cannon EF 24-105mm
cannon EF 17-40mm ultra wide
Canon 24mm f/1.4

2 others i think one is a nikkor.

I only have 3 lenses.

panasonic 7-14mm f4
panasonic 14-140mm
and the 20mm

I use the 14-140mm most.


You get good results with any of these camera but since the topic is 7d vs 5d. I would choose the 5D.

""" What you do with what you have, is more important than what you could do, with what you don't have."

> > > Knowledge + Action = Wisdom - J. Corbett 1992 """"

I just wanted to add that i have only been using this camera for 2.5 months.


Here is the video that convinced me.





""" What you do with what you have, is more important than what you could do, with what you don't have."

> > > Knowledge + Action = Wisdom - J. Corbett 1992 """"