I've noticed that sites such as Vimeo are now becoming increasingly populated by videos shot on the 7d or 5dmk2 which show great quality footage (seemingly as good as high end video cameras) and great dof etc. As such, I was wondering what the main advantages to continuing to own a large bulky camera and heavy dof adaptor still are over such a small camera such as the 7d/5d(other than the time you can record on the memory card)?

....and the COMPLETE flexibility, that you can record for hours on end (without it overheating), better audio set-up, impresses the corporate clients more....

Sure 5D II and 7D have their advantages and place - but we are a long way from replacing pro grade video cameras in my opinion (but I would say that as I have one!)

BTW, I see you've posted this question in more than one Forum area. Just so you know Chris really discourages that.

I've noticed that sites such as Vimeo are now becoming increasingly populated by videos shot on the 7d or 5dmk2 which show great quality footage


Assessing anything as "great quality" by looking at it on Vimeo is like trying to determine the worth of a painting by looking at it through a store window. You are looking at a rough approximation of the video at best.


(seemingly as good as high end video cameras) and great dof etc.


The idea that the 5d or 7d is competing with "high end" video cameras is a fallacy. At this point, they are standing in for prosumer cameras with DOF adapters, and doing a credible job. They are nowhere close to standing in for high end video cams. Maybe once they are able to record with a reasonable codec, fix the skew issues, offer timecode sync, live HD monitoring, and other things available on pro-level cameras this might change.


As such, I was wondering what the main advantages to continuing to own a large bulky camera and heavy dof adaptor still are over such a small camera such as the 7d/5d(other than the time you can record on the memory card)?

Better quality codecs, audio if you are confined to recording it in the camera, the ability to monitor in HD, the ability to operate with more than one person (try pulling focus on a wide lens on the 5d or 7d), the ability to rig for common camera moves (steadicam, dolly, crane, etc.), the ability to operate in for long periods of time (like my having to record 4 continuous hours for conferences).

The 5d and the 7d certainly have their place, and are doing wonderful things. But they are still quite some way from displacing even moderate video cameras, much less high end ones.

The audio isn't a big concern for me, what do you mean by the 'complete flexibility'? Apologies if this is a ridiculously open-ended question! Are there any articles on this point?

Plenty of reasons: Audio, (XLR's, live monitoring, Manual gain control, meters) form factor/ergonomics, better manual controls, Live output, better codecs/formats (5D had an awesome codec but because it was 30p not 29.97p it was still not perfect, although the 7d offers plenty of options), proper rotating LCD and EVF, zebras, etc.

Plenty of people are working through these issues to make content for TV/films, but HDSLR's have a long way to go and until they catch up to video cameras in the areas I listed above, I think most 5dmkII videos will not go much further than vimeo. That said, I have massive respect for those videos that DO go further, because they are working against the odds and paving the way for the rest of us.

I think it depends what you are doing, and what your needs/expectations are. I do a lot of interviews and shooting for documentary work, and though I'm thinking seriously of using the 7D for some of that, the extra work involved (i.e. the sound limitations, the 12 minute time limit, the shape of the camera making it harder to hand hold, the differences in stabilization, need for external monitoring if shooting from very high or very low, the lens limitations, the possible overheating issues, etc., etc) all make me think that for most of the stuff it will be quicker and simpler to use a real video camera.

If anything, I intend to use it as a camera for creating great B-roll, rather than as the primary shooter. But that's just for what I'm doing; I can see other people might have completely different attitudes based on what they are creating.

If you were shooting at 720 60P, is it still only 12 mins duration? The biggest issue I am finding (currently using an Sony FX1 and Letus adaptor) is the sheer weight and inconvenience of having to carry so much equipment etc)

I agree with the above points. A hybrid HDSLR isn't a "real" video camera, although you can get footage that looks great and will intercut just fine from cameras costing much more. That doesn't mean it is a replacement for such cameras. I'm not going to sell my XH A1 when I get the 7D. There are too many things I'll still shoot with it. Long interviews, for example, and Steadicam work are both much easier with it, not to mention the convenience of a 20:1 zoom for grabbing a wide angle and then an ECU without having to carry around a bag with lenses.

There's one thing I think is a truism that seems to be etched in stone: If something costs less, it's going to be more difficult to use than the same item that costs much more. I think a person could go out and make a feature film with the 7D and make it look good, or do a documentary--after all, back in the 16mm days we did lots of documentaries and only had 10 minute magazines. Michael Moore did "Roger & Me" in 16mm, and with double system sound. Doing the same thing with a 7D and a separate recorder will be more hassle than with a "real" video camera but not as much of a hassle as with 16mm. But a person can do it. The real question is, I think, is the quality you get from the 7D worth the hassle over shooting with something like an XH A1 or an EX1?

If I didn't own any cameras now and had to buy just one video camera for what I do (corporate work as well as documentary), I don't think I'd feel comfortable with any HDSLR for that purpose. On the other hand, If I only had $2K to spend and needed a camera and wanted the best quality I could get for that price, then the 7D might be my first choice.

I don't see any big problem with the H.264 codec. When HDV came out people said it was difficult to edit, difficult to key, had artifacts, etc. Yet people have done very nice feature films with HDV cameras, and I use one for all I do now, including chroma keying. You have to light more precisely, you have to work within the limitations of the camera; but they all have some limitations.

Plenty of reasons: Audio, (XLR's, live monitoring, Manual gain control, meters)
The 5D can do live monitoring, has manual audio gain and onscreen meters with extra software (http://magiclantern.wikia.com) (that will hopefully soon also be on the 7D). XLRs can be easily added with an inexpensive preamp.
form factor/ergonomics,
Once you've put it on a nice rails system, the DSLR form-factor is no longer an issue. Any DOF adapter will require them, too.
better manual controls,
Both the 5D and 7D have full manual control. What do you mean?
Live output,
The 7D has live HD on the HDMI port, and the 5D might have it as well (http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/canon-eos-5d-mk-ii-hd/406272-full-hd-hdmi-while-recording.html).
better codecs/formats (5D had an awesome codec but because it was 30p not 29.97p it was still not perfect, although the 7d offers plenty of options),
The codec and colorspace are definitely limiting for some applications.
proper rotating LCD and EVF, zebras, etc.
Zebras are taken care of. If I'm shooting with a field monitor the fixed LCD doesn't really bother me, and high-end cameras like the Red One don't even have one built in.

Timecode is also coming to the 5D (http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/canon-eos-5d-mk-ii-hd/393642-smpte-timecode-5d-mark-ii.html), to address one of Perrone Ford's concern.

The biggest problems that I see in the current crop of DSLR cameras are the rolling shutter, the aliasing of the down-sampling algorithm and the overheating (although this also affects Red). And I don't see an easy way to fix them, either, without some internal hardware changes.

If I didn't own any cameras now and had to buy just one video camera for what I do (corporate work as well as documentary), I don't think I'd feel comfortable with any HDSLR for that purpose. On the other hand, If I only had $2K to spend and needed a camera and wanted the best quality I could get for that price, then the 7D might be my first choice.


So if you didn't already have a dedicated video camera you would purchase a 7d ?

the overheating (although this also affects Red). And I don't see an easy way to fix them, either, without some internal hardware changes.

I keep reading about the overheating issue. Just how bad is this? Is it like a laptop overheating (i.e. it does get very hot but doesn't impair the use of the laptop or does it have more of an impact of the quality of image etc)?

For us 7D and 5D are good for some weddings situations. When the clients is asking us for a full traditional coverage of the wedding day we sometimes prefer to bring our Canon XHa1s.

1) You can record for hours, or in some cases, days.
2) Autofocus is so slow on many VDSLRs that it's usually easier just to manually focus, which means risking jostling the lens.
3) You have much more control over file formats with a videocam.
4) You can monitor at full HD resolution with a videocam.
5) No VDSLR on the market allows you to monitor audio in cam as you record.
6) No VDSLR, without hacks, allows you to lock the gain levels in audio.

There are certain times when the 7D does very well, but these are mostly cases when you can *control the action* - interviews, stuff you can reshoot. Since I mostly shoot documentaries, to me, having something that I can pick up and go with is more important than something that looks good.

While I own a 7D, there's no question that I would not have picked it up if I didn't first own a more traditional camera - the HG20.

Once you've put it on a nice rails system, the DSLR form-factor is no longer an issue.

Some of the nice rail systems I've seen cost as much as the camera, but make the whole thing larger and more unwieldy than many video cameras...

...but as others have said, pretty much everything can be overcome one way or the other, and if you want to use the 7D, I think you can use it for virtually anything. Whether to get the 7D in place of or as well as a video camera becomes a personal decision as much as anything.

I keep reading about the overheating issue. Just how bad is this?

There's a thread for that already (though it's now locked.) It seems a little early to make a conclusive statement from what's currently known, but check it out...

http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/canon-eos-7d-hd/458260-overheating-warning-icon-mild-temperatures.html

The 5D can do live monitoring, has manual audio gain and onscreen meters with extra software (http://magiclantern.wikia.com) (that will hopefully soon also be on the 7D).

Once you've put it on a nice rails system, the DSLR form-factor is no longer an issue.

This is exactly what I meant when I said "people are working around these issues." Also I don't think a rails + shouldermount system is anywhere near as convenient as a proper shouldermounted camera (I'm not talking about with a DOF adapter here). I'm curious... are you able to use a remote shutter to start recording on the 5dmkII when shooting on a shoulder mount?


Both the 5D and 7D have full manual control. What do you mean?

I mean that the controls are better layed out for video work, especially when handheld or shoulder-mounted. I never said the 5dmkII didn't have manual control, but perhaps I should've said that video cameras give you "easier" manual control because thats why they are designed the way they, rather than like an SLR.

The 7D has live HD on the HDMI port, and the 5D might have it as well (http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/canon-eos-5d-mk-ii-hd/406272-full-hd-hdmi-while-recording.html).

Yes, but can you get a clean signal to send into a switcher or external recorder?


The biggest problems that I see in the current crop of DSLR cameras are the rolling shutter, the aliasing of the down-sampling algorithm and the overheating (although this also affects Red). And I don't see an easy way to fix them, either, without some internal hardware changes.

The Foundry - Overview (http://www.thefoundry.co.uk/pkg_overview.aspx?ui=47C4AB50-4636-4326-87D1-FB380B2119EF) have got a plugin for AE which looks fairly effective at correcting rolling shutter but it's pretty expensive.

Tim, if I couldn't afford a regular video camera, then, yeah, for what I do I could live with a 7D. I would not go any lower than a 3-chip 1/3" camera like the XH A1, so if I only could spend $2K, the 7D would probably be a good choice Also, I shoot a lot of stills. So if I were starting from scratch, I could save money and have good quality for a lot less cost than buying a quality still camera and video camera. It would not be an ideal thing but it would be do-able. However, if the money's available, I want both. If the 7D, when I get it, is awesome and I end up shooting most everything with it and the XH A1 ends up on the shelf...well, I'll let ya know if that happens.

I have a couple of comments. I agree with most of what is said re HDSLRs not having the controlability or flexibility of dedicated HD cameras, particularly with respect to sound and accessing of manual controls. However, I do think the HDSLRs will be a great asset for those of us who do wildlife / bird video work, where much of what is shot may be unplanned. It will be so helpful to have a small camera capable of using long DSLR lenses to enable travelling light, to capture shots when not set up for a shoot, and to use as a light second camera to capture two perspectives on the same action. I have plans to simultaneously capture wide and close shots of a kingfisher diving, but cannot afford a second XL-H1A but a HDSLR should work out fine for such shots.

I'm waiting a while to see what happens with the temperature warning problem on the 7D; also I am hoping prices will fall in the coming months, although the pound-yen exchange rate may put paid to that wish.

Neil

Assessing anything as "great quality" by looking at it on Vimeo is like trying to determine the worth of a painting by looking at it through a store window. You are looking at a rough approximation of the video at best.


Perrone,
I totally agree with that comment but it brings up an interesting point, because I think there are a large number of people on these boards that produce work primarily destined for the web. I have been working in production for 8 years and I find for the companies and organizations I work for, the majority ends up on their websites (often exclusively), and a lot of my personal projects get viewed only through my site or Vimeo.

So I couldn't agree more with that statement, and using Vimeo, Youtube, etc. as a judge of a camera's quality, but if the viewer says, well that is where my work is going to get seen, then maybe it is a more accurate way of assessment. If these hybrid cams (which certainly have shortcomings) do seem to have a perceived look on Vimeo than say an EX-1, HVX, HV20, etc. (which is up to each person to decide), then maybe a camera like the 7D is the right choice.

I just got my 7D last week and have had little time to play with it, but it seems quite nice. It will not replace my EX-1 for most work but I think (hope) that it will get used often in a professional capacity. I will be interested to see, though. I am shooting a web-based "soap opera" series of five 3-minute episodes next month for a non-profit I work with. I think we will probably use the 7D as the end result will just be web, and I think there are some nice "film-like" qualities to the image. But we are shooting a 20 minute film in the spring for the same organization which we are hoping for theatrical release, and I think we will likely shoot on a Red One for that.

Anyways, I think when looking at any of these cameras it's important to think of where your work will be seen.

I keep reading about the overheating issue. Just how bad is this? Is it like a laptop overheating (i.e. it does get very hot but doesn't impair the use of the laptop or does it have more of an impact of the quality of image etc)?
The manual states that if the camera gets hot, it can impair the quality of the image. The question is whether your usage will be long enough to cause the heat to rise enough to impair the quality, or even to cause it to discontinue recording. Both are possible. Read the other thread for people's experiences.

................

The idea that the 5d or 7d is competing with "high end" video cameras is a fallacy. At this point, they are standing in for prosumer cameras with DOF adapters, and doing a credible job. ................

I would say it's doing a credible job standing in for 35mm movie cameras, and allowing people to admit finally that 35mm DOF adapters produce pretty crappy images.

For the price of the DOF adapters one gets a whole camera that can shoot in the light from a few candles. I guess if the video look is one's "normal", the response is ewwww. But for people from film its ohhhh.

But this is just a short transitional phase to large sensor cameras with full video camera features. Almost an accidental phase from Canon. Longer term VDSLR will be just an oddity.

I would love to see some one shoot a sports game with a 7D. I pretty sure all the kids in a school concert would love out of focus video as well. DOF is great but not for everything, big bulky video cameras are big and bulky for a reason.

If you were shooting at 720 60P, is it still only 12 mins duration?

Yes. That's because 1080 30p, 1080 24p and 720 60p all have the same bitrate, approx 45-47mbps. I tested all three.

It's interesting that people feel so passionate about their choice of camera. There is a real desire to have a single "perfect" solution for every possible subject and style. And I guess that because many of us are using video as an "expressive" form, that in a way it's a very personal choice.

But I think the (rather uninteresting) answer is that you need to pick the tool that best suits the way you work within the budget you have available and be happy with your choice.

I've been thinking long and hard about what I want, especially as this is no longer a business for me, but a hobby (that I sometimes make money out of).

For all the number-crunching arguments over bit-rate and color sampling rates, I really love the very "aesthetic rich" image that DSLRs create. I dislike the CMOS "skew" far more than I ever hated the CCD "bloom" -- but within the budget I have available, and given that I'm filming events or long interviews, my money goes on the 7D (especially as I love still images as much as I love moving images).

PS. I'm also getting a Canon HF S10 video camera... just in case!

I would say it's doing a credible job standing in for 35mm movie cameras, and allowing people to admit finally that 35mm DOF adapters produce pretty crappy images.


I'd disagree strongly with this, amd it seems most credible folks in the industry would also. The 5/7d lack even the most basic of filmmaking needs. Yes, it produces lovely images. I am AD on a project starting this month that will shoot with a 5D and I had a chance to really play with it last night. It's nice, but the lack of monitoring caught the DP and Director by surprise. We'll be shooting sync sound of course, but the lack of timecode for any serious production make it a non-starter.

The ASC and Producers Guild of America just finished a test of the "Top HD video cameras of tioday". Essentially tools designed at replicating or replacing 35mm film on cinema projects. The 5D is nowhere to be found. Genesis, RED, Viper, D21, HPX3700, F23, F35, and a 435 for good measure. DSLR just isn't there yet. Maybe in a few years.


For the price of the DOF adapters one gets a whole camera that can shoot in the light from a few candles. I guess if the video look is one's "normal", the response is ewwww. But for people from film its ohhhh.


I got the sense from the people from film, it's.... "hey, where's the 24p?" The fact that the single most used frame rate in the industry is not included and not planned on being included tells me where this camera stands. Again, if you are interested in shallow DOF, and nice pics, the 5d can get you there on a budget. Albeit with skew, and a somewhat questionable codec that cannot be worked around at this point.


But this is just a short transitional phase to large sensor cameras with full video camera features. Almost an accidental phase from Canon. Longer term VDSLR will be just an oddity.

The problem with your logic, is that this "transitional phase" has already been done in the TRUE film market. Oscars have been handed out for films shot with large sensors and full video features. This isn't new ground. What *IS* new is the price point. And it will take some time for the economics to work itself out.

Perrone,
I totally agree with that comment but it brings up an interesting point, because I think there are a large number of people on these boards that produce work primarily destined for the web. I have been working in production for 8 years and I find for the companies and organizations I work for, the majority ends up on their websites (often exclusively), and a lot of my personal projects get viewed only through my site or Vimeo.


I agree. Much of what I shoot ends up on our webpages also. But I still try to produce masters that I would be pleased to have shown on PBS or elsewhere. I think we do ourselves a disservice if we only produce to the lowest common denominator.



So I couldn't agree more with that statement, and using Vimeo, Youtube, etc. as a judge of a camera's quality, but if the viewer says, well that is where my work is going to get seen, then maybe it is a more accurate way of assessment.


I think you buy the best tool for the job. the 7d certainly has it's place. And honestly, if your work doesn't require timecode, or some of the other things that current handycams bring to the mix, then the 7d is a fine choice. I'd love to have one for some of the work I do. But the bulk of my work lends itself better to a true videocamera. If all I did was narrative work shot double system, I'd SERIOUSLY be lookat at one of these cams or the Scarlet. And I'll probably be looking hard at a Scarlet anyway.



I just got my 7D last week and have had little time to play with it, but it seems quite nice. It will not replace my EX-1...

I am shooting a web-based "soap opera" series of five 3-minute episodes next month for a non-profit I work with. I think we will probably use the 7D as the end result will just be web...

we are shooting a 20 minute film in the spring for the same organization which we are hoping for theatrical release, and I think we will likely shoot on a Red One for that...


Exactly. Choose the proper tools for the job at hand.


Anyways, I think when looking at any of these cameras it's important to think of where your work will be seen.

I think it's not only important to think of where you work will be seen, but where you might LIKE it to be seen.

the lack of monitoring caught the DP and Director by surprise.
I believe the 7d improves on this...
We'll be shooting sync sound of course, but the lack of timecode for any serious production make it a non-starter.
There are solutions to this (use a visual marker / plugins for FCP that will synch for you). Not ideal, but not a deal-breaker by any means.

"hey, where's the 24p?" The 7d has it.

Thanks for the comments Alex,

However, telling me that the 7d "improves on" something that is essentially non-existent doesn't really help matters much. We can work around the no-monitoring issue by installing a Marshall or Ikan on the unit with a splitter to go back to video village. Yes, it's a solvable problem.

Yes, a clapper can be employed (just like I do with my DVX and EX1). But that gives away a lot of ground to what I consider "digital cinema" ready video cameras.

And yes the 7d has 24p. Of course, you give up the full-frame sensor to get there. So what have we gained?


I am fully willing to admit the HDSLRs have their place, and have done so repeatedly. But trying to describe them as credible replacements for 35mm film cameras is laughable. These things don't have a patch on the RED one, and even that camera is often dismissed as a true stand-in for one of the nicer 35mm cams.

...but since when has a "full-frame" been so important to professional studios? You say "give up" .... give up for what? For a more standard image format? That's not a minus in my book at all.

And also, yes, one can use a site like Vimeo to judge quality. Unlke YouTube and most other sites you can download original files and play them back on a quality monitor. That's the benefit of sites like Vimeo. Of course though watching them online will never be as good as the real thing.

EDIT:
I’d like to leave you with one more thought. I’m from the old school days of analog recording and mixing. I’ll just say that none of the plug-ins, analog emulators, etc. are as good as the analog equipment and sound from just over 10 years ago and beyond. But the reality is…they are “good enough.” Good enough to the point where “probably” most of today’s current hit music are a direct product of these newer technology. I use them all the time. It’s like MP3’s…a total degradation of music as compared to CD’s etc. But…they are more widely in use today than CDs….and it is accepted everywhere. I look at videos from these lower end cam/camcorders as being the same thing. Not a total replacement for film but is very acceptable to where some will replace film with their use.

Full-frame in and of itself isn't crucial. However full frame when you're talking about scanning at 4k to make DPX files is VASTLY different than full-frame when you are sampling at less than 2k.

Vimeo only allows the original file to be downloaded for a week. And frankly, the "original file" download is generally a highly compressedversion of the original. In my case, my camera shoots 35Mbps originals, but I never used more than 6-8Mbps uploads to Vimeo. So even that is a very rough approximation.

As you say, good enough is good enough. And if the 5d or 7d is good enough, then it is.

I would say it's doing a credible job standing in for 35mm movie cameras, and allowing people to admit finally that 35mm DOF adapters produce pretty crappy images.


I suspect what you mean is that the cameras are an improvement over the 35mm adaptors not a replacement for 35mm move cameras. These current cameras aren't any where near that standard and I suspect Canon wouldn't claim them to be. For what people currently seem to be using them for they seem to be fine, but best not to consider them as direct replacements for many of the HD video/digital cinema cameras when going beyond the web or perhaps DVD. That's not saying they wouldn't used as specialist cameras, all sorts of cameras have been used in the past including WW2 gun cameras on major feature films.

I think some folks are so excited about this 7D and what all is included that they envision it as a potential replacement for every application, when we are still in (and will remain in) a world where the right tool for the job will be the rule.

I do most projects for me, for fun, and sometimes for competition or for light distribution on DVD and most of it winds up rendered to an HD file format for display on my 42" LCD TV. The video capable DSLR supplements my HF100's with what the VDSLR does better (control over DOF, low light/night work) but takes a "back seat" when the video camera is the more flexible tool. And I sometimes will use both on the same project.

Again a special situation would be where I don't know what I will be doing, stills or video. When I walk out the door "travelling light" the VDSLR is what is called for. Even though it may not be the right tool for the "job" I stumble upon it will be what I have with me.

I would say the VDSLR absolutely does not replace the video cam at this point, but in a lot of cases it can sure supplement very strongly.

My experience with the 5D as well as having shot a short with the HVX200 and a 35mm adapter leaves me with the follow observations about the 35mm DSLR.

1. If you are a budget film maker, looking for a budget method of getting a 35mm depth of field look, the Canon 5D or 7D gives you that look for less money than you can event get a decent 35mm adapter and a camera combination going. The 7D is looking like a magnificent bargain, and I don't even have one to try to defend at this point.

2. These camera work great in controlled lighting and shooting situations. If you know your camera, you have as much creative control as with any other video camera-- more in fact because of the the depth of field choices. And in low light situations where cameras like the HVX200 turn to hyper graininess, the image of these cameras still shine.

3. Realistically, these cameras are no tsomething you want to shoot for long events, nor are they great for sporting events, unless you want to sink a lot of dough in long lenses. Overheating and lack of continuous shooting are issues. To get the same telephoto effect as my 12x FX1, even my 80-200 with a 2x converter does not provide the same telephoto effect.

4. The image of the camera can be shot to produce stunning results, the proof is in the image. While you can talk about 4:2:2 v. 4:2;0 and 4:0:0, I tend to ignore that stuff, because I am concerned what the finished product is like. I can tell by stuff posted on the web, that great finished products can be the result shot planning. I just have to learn to do it. By shooting flat , and using an intermediate codec (NeoScene) in post, I think I can get a reasonably editable file that will color correct into a decent file. Also by learning how to control the camera, I can limit the issues with aliasing and moire.

5. Now if I am doing a major motion picture, with a budget, of course I don't shoot the 5D or 7D. Noone is claiming it replaces the likes of 35mm film cameras, or those high end digital film cameras. But neither does a 35mm film adapter and camera. They have their own disabilities. And I still remember film outs of successful films shot with cameras of DV resolution, so I am thinking that if I happen to shoot a great project with the 5D or 7D, its salability will not be greatly affected.

6. Magic Lantern has fixed a lot of the disabilities of the 5D, and if Trammel Hudson or others can get it ported over to the 7D, you will be able to shoot in camera sound, and have enhanced exposure control with 24p.

Ultimately, I look at these cameras as a cheap form of film school, and I would be crazy not to take advantage of it.

Nice post Chris. I like everything you are saying!

Thank you Chris, that is an extremely useful summary. I work primarily in very low light situations (in clubs, gigs etc) but rarely shooting one scene for a particularly protracted length of time. The footage shot is used by performers on websites etc for promotion so the 7d/5d look ideal.

One question that I'm struggling to answer is what is the largest memory card the 7d can hold? I understand that it cannot shoot more than 12 mins but what size card does this equate to? Do pyou simply buy a number of cards or do you typically download the footage to a laptop etc as you go?

One question that I'm struggling to answer is what is the largest memory card the 7d can hold? I understand that it cannot shoot more than 12 mins but what size card does this equate to? Do pyou simply buy a number of cards or do you typically download the footage to a laptop etc as you go?

I'm using 32gig cards for both photos and video. It's likely easier to just get a few 32gig CF's than off-loading to a laptop, since even at 30MB/s, 32gigs will take about 15min's to download. 32gigs is about good for 1.5hrs of video (12min's per 4gigs).

64gig cards have just become available, but they're at a premium.

Ultimately, I look at these cameras as a cheap form of film school, and I would be crazy not to take advantage of it.
Dude, that line basically sums up what I have been thinking. Thanks.

I'm using 32gig cards for both photos and video. It's likely easier to just get a few 32gig CF's than off-loading to a laptop, since even at 30MB/s, 32gigs will take about 15min's to download. 32gigs is about good for 1.5hrs of video (12min's per 4gigs).

64gig cards have just become available, but they're at a premium.

Oooh I thought that 12 mins was the max time you could record video irrespective of the video card size.

Oooh I thought that 12 mins was the max time you could record video irrespective of the video card size.

12 min's per clip - it's the 4gig file size limit, but you can shoot as many clips as can fit on the card.

If I didn't own any cameras now and had to buy just one video camera for what I do (corporate work as well as documentary), I don't think I'd feel comfortable with any HDSLR for that purpose. On the other hand, If I only had $2K to spend and needed a camera and wanted the best quality I could get for that price, then the 7D might be my first choice.


I bought the 5D last year thinking the same thing - it would augment my XHA1 but never replace it. Approximately a year later I've used the XHA1 maybe three times, in each case when I needed a second camera that I could set and forget while I moved around with the 5D. Right now the only reason I haven't sold the XHA1 is the library of tapes I have which are shot in Canon's proprietary 24f, but once I make sure the important ones are captured to disc I'll probably sell. This is not to say that it's necessarily a video camera replacement - that obviously depends on what type of shooting you do - but just that in my experience once I started shooting with it I didn't really want to shoot with my video camera anymore.

That could happen. I'm already planning on doing a short with it, hopefully before the end of the year. I'll probably shoot everything with it but will use the XH A1 for the Steadicam shots, mainly because of the flipout LCD. Also, for the type of Steadicam shot where I move up to one person, hold, then move to another, the auto focus is nice. That's the only time I've ever used auto focus. The deeper depth of field of the XH A1 helps in that regard too. So it might end up becoming my Steadicamcam. I also have too many HDV tapes shot at 24F. I'd have to make sure all is captured and backed up before getting rid of the camera and I probably won't be ready to do that for a long time.

Also, having two cameras is nice, especially for road trips. In years past I always had a second camera in case of any problem, but for the past 3 years I've only had the one. A backup is always good on a critical shoot.

My big hesitation, though, is the tapeless workflow. I don't like the idea of having to load and backup everything. Right now, I don't care if a drive crashes--I have the tapes. And I have seen numerous firewire drives die for no apparent reason. What I plan to do with the 7D footage is load it, then store it in 4 gig batches onto the good quality DVDs. Probably eventually I'll get a Blu-ray burner. On the positive side of tapelessness, in the HDSLR world the cards are cheap enough so I can buy however many are necessary and get through a week shoot without having to worry about uploading footage every night in a hotel room; I can do it when convenient. Also there's no need to stop and load footage during a shoot like people have to do with P2 because of the cost. Using non proprietary common media goes a long way toward making the tapeless thing work for me. But I still prefer tape.

"My big hesitation, though, is the tapeless workflow."

Sorry to hear that. Most people who've abandoned tape haven't gone back...


"I don't like the idea of having to load and backup everything. Right now, I don't care if a drive crashes--I have the tapes. "

Hmmm, so what happens if the tape gets trashed? Dust, drop outs, gets mangled in the tape mechanism...

"But I still prefer tape."

Give me the price of a tape solution that stores 1920x1080.

I have to agree with Perrone. I was very nervous about a tapeless workflow initially, but it makes everything much easier - we've never looked back.

For live projects we keep content on a mirrored RAID. Once the project is finished we hand over a hard drive with all footage and finished project to our client and tell them that it is their responsibility to keep the footage backed-up / safe. We also keep a hard drive ourselves, and if we think there is a good chance that the client may be coming back for more changes, etc. then we keep a third drive!

12 min's per clip - it's the 4gig file size limit, but you can shoot as many clips as can fit on the card.

Unfortunately, that's a total deal breaker for shooting live events, which wouldn't be a good application anyway.

And the recording limits are tied to file size and the current European Union tax structure for video recording devices.

When you purchase rails, handles, follow focus, matte box etc for a VDSLR, it may become as large as a normal video camera, and cost more then the actual VDSLR itself, but they can be used for any other cameras down the track... such as scarlet. I'd rather invest the money on a modula system with parts that won't depreciate, instead o spending my whole budget on a proper video camera that will be completly out dated and gathering dust in a couple of years.

"My big hesitation, though, is the tapeless workflow."

Sorry to hear that. Most people who've abandoned tape haven't gone back...



Give me the price of a tape solution that stores 1920x1080.

I'm a worrier. I love having those old HDV tapes in the drawer. Just in case. I've owned the EX3, 7D, and HD100. The problem is I can't sell the HD100 because then I'm stuck without a deck.

Hard drive must be the worst archive solution ever made. I also don't trust optical media.

I'm hoping to find some sort of DLT solution.

I trust optical a HECK of a lot more than I trust tape. While we often see professionals extol the virtues of tape there is a piece that is always left out. And that is that archive tape needs to live in some very specific conditions.

I backup critical government data as part of my living. And I am not talking about video. We did tape for a long time. BUT that tape lived in a fire safe, in a room that was temperature and humidity controlled, and had a halon system installed.

After watching what happened during Katrina in New Orleans we realized that we had a HUGE liability in terms of water damage. He had protected against fire with halon, against dust and foreign particle intrusion with the safe, as well as physical security, but water was a REAL issue.

Optical media is not susceptible to water damage, dust damage, humidity damage, etc. At least not in normal environments. It requires no physical contact to operate so playing or reviewing the viability of the stored data does not degrade the media. It is not susceptible to magnetic field or x-ray, so transport gets easier. Where optical falls down is in backup speed compared to modern LTO standards, and in density in regards to how much data can be backed up per unit of media. The issue with LTO is that you need the drives to run it, and LTO-3 drives are about $1k right now, with tapes running about $30 each for 400GB. And every other iteration of the technology is not backwards compatible. So LTO-5 will read LTO-5 and LTO4, but not LTO-3. So you have to refresh your library every 3 years or so. We played this game with DLT for years before abandoning it.

So honestly, your choices are:

1. Stay on HDV and use cheap tapes
2. Go tapeless and archive to HDD/Optical
3. Go tapeless and archive to LTO (DLT is worthless at this point)
4. Wait for something new to come along.

I trust optical a HECK of a lot more than I trust tape. While we often see professionals extol the virtues of tape there is a piece that is always left out. And that is that archive tape needs to live in some very specific conditions.....

So honestly, your choices are:

1. Stay on HDV and use cheap tapes
2. Go tapeless and archive to HDD/Optical
3. Go tapeless and archive to LTO (DLT is worthless at this point)
4. Wait for something new to come along.

Good information Perrone that is mostly overlooked.

Even for those people storing on analog, DV or HDVtapes, you have to keep the camera forever. Ive got an analog tape right now I need some footage off of and no way to get it because the 10 year old camera is broken. Also, I had to capture all my most important, but not all, XH-A1 HDV footage before I could sell the cameras as the tapes become useless when the camera is gone. I did a lot of work in the past on a JVC HDV camera and am stuck with it as a capture device until I find a few hundred free hours to capture the tapes. Camera tape is no solution at all IMO.

Im currently all tapeless nowdays. I have a 3X redundant, fire safed, HDD backup program that works for me until a better solution comes along. IMO, hard drives may not be reliable, but they are inexpensive.

Tape decks/camera *can* be fixed actually.

Perrone actually has me thinking about LTO3, it might not be forward compatible but the $1000 price point is tempting. I'd have to believe the build is robust and that HP(?) will continue to support it parts wise. If not, I'm sure someone, somewhere would have one.

I think HP also makes a lower capacity data tape for considerably less than even LTO3.

Hard drives are currently about $73 per TB, so $1,000 would get you about 13.7 TB. Triple redundancy would get you 4.6 TB of storage out of the 13.7 TB. That's still a lot of money and a possible reason for using LTO if you have lots of TB to store.

LTO 4s are about $40 (800 GB), so 1TB is $50 (plus drive equipment). How many redundant LTOs do you need? Id guess one would be enough.

Ok...

So let's talk tape.

The first two images show our first DLT libraries. I watched 3 of these fail over 3 years. They were so much a problem they were replaced with the gray units you see. Two of those failed (one let blue smoke out of the back with a month of my data stuck inside). Note that they now both live in our technology graveyard. You can see we went to two SAN solutions, one HP, one Third Party. Finally, you can see a photo of half of my local data center. I have 6 similar installations and protect over 100TB daily. We abandoned tape 3 years ago as too slow, and too difficult to deal with. The off-site shuffling, geographic dispersment, etc., were just too onerous.

I get it. I get tape, I really do. And I also get redundancy. Those tape libraries were stored in a temperature and humidity controlled room with Halon. None of you guys is going to spend the $80k it took to build that. And still I had over half of my tape units fail under warranty. At one point, the service tech actually had to source us replacements from overseas because the supply of working units in the US was zero. This was with HP/Compaq.

We had to destroy hundreds of backup tapes with sensitive data on them to leave this solution. And it was worth every bit of the trouble.

So you guys are welcome to ignore what I am saying but I am telling you that tape is NOT the panacea that many people would have you believe. Been there, done that.