I’m ready to upgrade to HD, and am looking at my options. I am very intrigued by the 7D option, but have no experience with it. I like the fact that it’s a professional camera and camcorder in one small package. And the 7D is also very attractive because of the lens options.

Can I really get away with using the 7D for professional video productions? (Assuming I deal with the 12 minute restriction). I’ve seen footage people have shot with it and am very impressed.

I’m basically looking at either the 7D or the Sony PMW-EX3 (But I’m open to suggestions).

Here are a few questions/concerns I have:

1. How does it perform handheld compared to standard camcorders? Is there any sort of OIS? What with the hole “Jello” think?

2. Is there continuous auto focus when recording video?

3. Is there audio-out capability (for headphones)?

4. What is the difference between the 7D and the T2i, besides it costing twice as much?

5. Again, are there disadvantages to this when put beside a camcorder like the EX3? If so, what are they?

Thank you for helping me understand.

1. Depends on how wide or tight you are. Very wide it performs as well, telephoto not as well. The image stabilization on Canon cameras is all in-lens and isn't as agressive as camcorder IS. Since the sensor is scanned from top to bottom, and not in a rapid fashion you'll see a jello effect with fast motion across your field of view. This is most obvious if the things are supposed to be straight, like fenceposts or window shades. You can usually plan around this, it's a limitation like any other equipment limitation.

2. No.

3. Yes.

4. The 7D is weather sealed and has selectable color temperature for white balance in 100k units. The 7D takes Compact Flash, the T2i takes SD. The T2i has a slightly better LCD for video, the 7D has a 100% viewfinder.

5. It's not a 'real' camcorder so if you want to lug just one piece of gear and have a full suite of automatic and manual options, the HD DSLR isn't the way to go. The EX3 will have better out of the box usability and flexibility. The DSLR will have better depth of field and cheaper, more widely available lens options, especially in cheap, fast primes.

If you've never shot video before, an EX3 will be more forgiving, but you won't be able to get as shallow depth of field. If you're mainly interested in shooting a very film-like look and have time to learn and work around its limitations, the HD DSLR can be a good option. For $800 with good resale value the T2i is a very cheap place to start.

All depends on what you need to shoot. The 7D has a couple of advantages over the EX3. The EX3 has at least a dozen over the 7D depending on several factors.

Jeff indicaes that the 7D has "better" DOF than the EX3. This is a misnomer. It can have shallower DOF in many scenarios. Whether that equates to "better" is dependent upon needs.

The 7D and EX3 are about as similar as a Ford F150 and a Ferrari. Totally different ways to commit moving image to silicon.

"I’m ready to upgrade to HD"

I'm just throwing this out there. If your coming from a standard def small chip camera background the 7D could be a bit tricky because of focus. HD can be pretty demanding focus wise, the 7D can be brutal to focus. You are basically dealing with all the focus challenges of a camera like the RED but most likely without all the tools and staff.

It can be very doable and it will make you a better shooter, but it aint easy.

Great point Burk. And many users find themselves reverting down ti F5.6 or f8 to be able to keep things in focus. It's one thing when you have a focus puller and the actors have to hit marks. Quite another when trying to film unscripted action. And in that instance I'd take the EX3 all day, every day.

If you're willing to spend EX3 money, you might consider and EX1 and a T2i. Talk about having your bases covered.

I have an EX3 and a 7D so will comment. As pointed out, very well above, they are very different tools. I love both of them for different reasons but after several months of 7D ownership I'm still using my EX3 for most of my commercial work (7D only as a B cam/fun tool but also commercial stills work). I'm not sure what kind of stuff you shoot but I'd be very hesitant of using a DSLR for any kind of event work for example as it's the wrong tool for that. The people that shoot weddings with them need to be right at the top of their game to produce good results (even just in focus shots) as there are many pitfalls for us lesser mortals too. But like I said, I love my 7D and have been happily adding lenses to my kit as I'm enjoying it so much. When I do use it to it's strengths, I can get beautiful shots that I simply cannot get with my EX3 (which produces different kinds of beautiful shots).

I think the best way to decide would be for you to hire a 7D for a weekend and see how you get on or buy a T2i and go from there. The suggestion that you could own a T2i/550D and an EX1(r) is a good one and you'd be buying fantastic technology (EX1r) at the beginning of it's new product cycle refresh (note, I'm expecting a similar type of "EX3r" refresh sometime this year too...) and rapidly developing technology (the T2i/550D) at very little money. In 2-3 years time DSLRs will be so much better than they are now at shooting video without aliasing, moire, 4GB file limits, ergonomically, etc., that's almost a definite - This is why so many people are excited about the T2i/550D as it allows you to step into the arena to be part of the show now (just to see what all the hype is about) without having to pay front row prices! My advice is don't spend too much money on a DSLR body at this point in time. Lenses are a different matter as they are "whole lifetime use" type purchases - well to me they are!

One thing many people forget is that to really use a DSLR professionally you're going to need a lot of additional kit (plenty of lists and suggestions on DVinfo to help you with this list). The cost of all these extras can easily mount up SIGNIFICANTLY...

So my suggestion is rent/buy/borrow a basic 7D or T2i "starter kit" and go from there. If you decide it's not a good enough HD tool for you (again, it's basically ergonomics, moire, aliasing, 4GB file limit, lack of XLR audio etc.) then you've still not broken the bank regarding getting a NXCAM, EX1r, EX3(r?), new solid state Canon videocam later this year (or whatever) and will still have a great B/fun cam. Hope this helps and good luck!

The nice thing about the extra kit needed to make a DvSLR work well is that it's the kind of gear that lasts for decades (assuming that you buy good quality), and it makes you a better filmmaker.

For lenses, you can start at the low end and sell them later to upgrade. If you buy used, about all you lose is the shipping cost. Think of the payment as a long-term rental.

With tripods, shoulder rigs, jibs, follow focus and so on, the market is much smaller. You can't always sell these for what you paid. It makes sense to buy good quality once. But all of these items can really improve the quality of your work, even if you upgrade to a Scarlet next year and Epic couple years later.

Andy offers some great advice in his post.

I think people with an experienced background knowledge of working with DSLRs will find it easier to use the new hybrids. There is no doubt that normal camcorders offer huge advantages and anyone contemplating on using a DSLR as their main video tool would be wise to try to rent or loan one first before buying fully into the system.

I have a 7D and HMC150. I was real excited about getting the 7D, but after using it for a while, I have to say that I now consider a limited use camera and would not recommend it as either an A or B camera. This is not to say that it doesn't shoot wonderful video, because it does. It's also great when depth-of-field control is real important, or when you want to shoot in a stealthy manner. However, IMO it's simply too cumbersome to use and requires much more operator intervention than does a real video camcorder.

Thanks everyone for the input! Very helpful.

I’m not new to shooting video (3 CCD Pan) and using a DSLR (D200), but I am new to HD and shooting video on DSLRs.

I would mostly be shooting documentary footage, interviews, and events. I also would like to have the capability to shoot a small feature.

The reason I was looking at the 7D/T2i is for their compact size (I may be doing international travel with it) and easy access to lenses. So if it would work comparably to a professional camcorder, I could save money on the body and purchase a couple good lenses and maybe a second body. But it seems like there are still a considerable amount of bugs to work out of the DSLRs.

I do like the idea of getting both (T2i and EX1), but I have a question with that. If I were using say the T2i as a B camera, would the images look close enough? For instance, using the cameras for close and wide interview shots.

Sure, DSLR's are a valid tool for professional filmmaking. However, don't be fooled by the low price of the DSLR bodies. You're going to need a nice selection of lenses, an external audio solution, a viewfinder or monitor, and some sort of stabilization device. When all is said and done, you're right back in the price territory of the EX1.

I would mostly be shooting documentary footage, interviews, and events. I also would like to have the capability to shoot a small feature.



The EX is a better 1 stop shop, if you had to pick one. Although for interviews I like DSLR because you don't need to fret over creating a nice background. Just blur it. I also like it better as a cinema cam, again, because of its show focus ability. Docs and events? EX all the way.

Although for interviews I like DSLR because you don't need to fret over creating a nice background. Just blur it.

You'll still want to pay attention to that background--a low contrast, flat background won't look good just because it's blurred. I put just as much effort into designing and lighting and backgrounds for interviews whether shooting with small or large chip cameras.

I will echo most of the thoughts here too--EX series for "unpredictable" work, DSLR for controlled situations where the shallow depth of field is desired. I've shot doc with the DSLR's but only with a lot of extra gear and a skilled focus puller, and wouldn't want to attempt it without that.

There is lots of good stuff in this article especially around DOF. Canon Reveals Their Next Pro Video Cam at DVInfo.net (http://www.dvinfo.net/features/canon-reveals-their-next-pro-video-cam.html)

There is a DOF Formula. If you don't want razor thin DOF then you needs small sensors. You loose a lot of light by making the iris smaller. One development I'm hoping for is 1080 and 720 cropping on the next generations of dslr's. That is only using the center 1080 or 720 pixels of the sensor. This would give you lots more depth of field. Then when you want shallow DOF flip a setting and use the full sensor.

I have done two documentary style corporate productions with the 7D recently. By documentary style I mean interviews and lots of locations and setups in minimal time frames, real people doing things instead of actors, and shooting mostly by myself or with an assistant. It is more of a hassle than a traditional video camera but the results are worth it, in my opinion.

Shooting double system sound is not a problem and syncing sound is not a problem. What is a problem is logging things properly so you know which sound clips go with which video clips. If you have enough people on a shoot, it gets much easier.

After shooting my first interview, I bought a 28-75 Tamron 2.8 lens just for interviews. Unless you're on a dolly, it's difficult to do interviews without a zoom. I generally will move in to change area during questions. You really can't shut down the camera and switch prime lenses fast enough to do that without interrupting the flow, and often I'm in a setup where it's also not feasible to pick up the camera and move, even if I could do that in a short time period. So a zoom lens for interviews is a necessity, for me.

While I think the 7D is good for documentary shooting, if you have it properly equipped (ie., a rods support system for hand helds, the lenses you need, and the right sound gear), some people consider documentary shooting to be more like TV news shooting, ie., run 'n gun, all handheld, no lighting, etc. If you're doing that, then the 7D is not ideal. If you've used fully manual cameras before, or shot film, you probably would have an easier time adapting to the 7D than if you come from the "prosumer" camera world.

As far as the specific questions, the OIS is in the lens. If you want OIS, you have to buy a lens that has it. Even then, you really need a shoulder mount type system for any decent hand held shooting. The jellocam is sometimes there in fast pans, so you need to learn to work around that. There is no autofocus during video shooting. You can use the auto focus button to set focus before you start recording if you want. There is a headphone jack, but most everybody does double system sound because there is no gain control in the camera's audio, although Magic Lantern will fix that whenever it is ready.

Finally, there is the DOF issue. You do have to be aware of depth of field calculations when shooting with a big chip camera. There are going to be times you want more depth of field than you can get shooting at 100 ISO with a 2.8 lens. A really fast 35mm lens is nice, as well as a fast 50mm. Also, with the 7D you can actually shoot at higher gains with no serious degradation of the image. I've routinelly shot in low light conditions at 320 ISO and even at 640 one time. Some people are going even higher with very good results. And for outdoor shooting you'll have to buy ND filters because they aren't built in with thumbwheel to use as in traditional video cameras.

You'll still want to pay attention to that background--a low contrast, flat background won't look good just because it's blurred. I put just as much effort into designing and lighting and backgrounds for interviews whether shooting with small or large chip cameras.


I don't. A deep focus background requires more thought for me. That book better not be the Bible or the yellow pages or anything the draws too much attention, that diploma better not be for "6th grade homework completion month of April 1987" and that photo better not be of John Holmes. Not to say you can ignore the bg, but for me at least, shallow focus makes things easier.

I've found that for shooting static interviews, my 7D has totally replaced my old XH-A1. On the sticks, and with my 85/1.8, I can get some amazing stuff. My clients noticed "the new look" right away. For pick-up b-roll shots, it's pretty handy, too.

Since 85% of my productions are exactly those types (talking heads w/ supplemental b-roll), the DSLR workflow really suits me. Being able to review takes instantly, has saved some time, and frustration, on-location too. I know immediately whether I got the shot, nailed the move, etc.

Here's one I shot entirely w/ the 7D:
YouTube - The Orange Door in downtown Longmont Colorado (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IP1GOzF2Qao)

Certain shoots just won't lend themselves to the DSLR... long-form, obviously, and anything that's at all uncontrolled... sports, competition, "reality" stuff, etc.

You can rent a Canon body and some decent glass for almost nothing at a local camera store. I wouldn't use it on a paying gig without a lot of practice, so fake up some shoots for a day and try it out. If it suits you, and your work, I think you'll find it a great too to keep in your quiver.

Cheers,
Brian Brown
BrownCow Productions

I have shot interviews with these cameras with an abstract-style background but even then I take pains to makes sure that the values and tones around the subject's head are what I want them to be, which requires the same amount of lighting as if they were in focus.

A lot of this is based on one's aesthetic and what one considers the right look. Just as many insist on shooting as shallow as possible with these cameras, I prefer to pick and choose my depth of field choices depending on the circumstance. For certain interviews I might be inclined to use a much deeper depth of field if the environment and type of interview called for it, where it is just lightly out of focus.

I'd go with EX over 7D. Here's why. Consider your start to finish workflow. For each additional step or process required, your time spent on a project jumps exponentially. With the 7D, in most cases you'll have to transcode your footage first before being able to edit. You also need a double audio system. In post, you'll have to sync up every cut. How much time do you think you'll need to transcode, then sync up 200 cuts?

By comparison, in most cases you can drop your raw EX files directly onto your timeline, and edit instantly. You'll have 2 audio tracks in perfect sync, every cut.

I've heard 7D users say it's worth all the effort, but in my opinion, I think they're just hyped over being able to achieve a new look without fully understanding how much more work it is, compared to the EX. This is especially true if you're doing long projects with many cuts that require audio sync.

The 7D is great at making terrific images, but in my opinion it's not the right tool for long form projects with many cuts.

To me the nice thing about the blur is that junk in the background - like in a messy office - just doesn't matter as much. As Charles said, composition, lighting and color still matter. But unless the junk is right behind the subject (is that a pencil sticking out of his head?) shallow DOF makes it much less distracting.

The 7D is great at making terrific images
Isn't that the point...

Not always Liam. If you miss the shot due to type of camera system used, then it is the wrong tool for the job. And both Warren and Bill offer some very valid points.

In my opinion, and at this stage, I think Peter would be better off with a T2i and EX1 combination to see how he gets on.

I can't disagree with you there Tony - I seem to use a different camera on pretty much every shoot I do these days! The choice is always a simple equation between quality/budget/time, but I never put ease of use in that equation. I guess that was the point I was making. I believe if you can go the extra yard to make a better film, you should do. Either that or go work in a call center:)

You also need a double audio system. In post, you'll have to sync up every cut. How much time do you think you'll need to transcode, then sync up 200 cuts?

200 cuts would be QUITE the project for me. Feature-length maybe.

On my productions, I find on headshot interviews I have maybe 3-4 takes of interview to sync.

Most of my b-roll is shot MOS (no sound), so there's nothing to sync. In fact, sometimes I don't even use the headshot video once I've established who the speaker is (just roll on the b-roll), so I don't even worry about those videos or syncing them. And the audio-only files take up a LOT less space than sync video ever would.

Again, look at your projects and workflow and see if a DSLR is a good fit. It simply WON'T be a good tool for shooting a lot of things... but other projects it simply makes for jaw-dropping visuals. To each his own, but I haven't got THIS excited about shooting video in a very, very long time.

This info has been helpful. It does seem as though people are using the DSLR for a variety of things. Although they are getting good results, it is still a touchy workflow.

If I got the Sony and a T2i and cut between them on the same interview (wide shot/head shot), would there be a really noticeable continuity issue?

Sure, DSLR's are a valid tool for professional filmmaking. However, don't be fooled by the low price of the DSLR bodies. You're going to need a nice selection of lenses, an external audio solution, a viewfinder or monitor, and some sort of stabilization device. When all is said and done, you're right back in the price territory of the EX1.

True, I ended up spending $7,000 and still going. It's really endless when you consider all the expensive stabilization rigs.

True, I ended up spending $7,000 and still going. It's really endless when you consider all the expensive stabilization rigs.

You can be up and running for way less than $7,000.
Personally I think it's a little crazy to spend $9,000 accessorizing an $800 video camera and defeats many of the advantages of getting a 7D in the first place.

I'm sure everyone's seen this thread by now...
http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/canon-eos-7d-hd/473931-robert-rodriguez-shooting-music-video-badass-canon-7d-rig.html
If it's good enough for RR...it's way overkill for me and way too expensive! HaHa!
Can't wait to see what video this turns out to be!

So there ya go OP!

This info has been helpful. It does seem as though people are using the DSLR for a variety of things. Although they are getting good results, it is still a touchy workflow.

If I got the Sony and a T2i and cut between them on the same interview (wide shot/head shot), would there be a really noticeable continuity issue?

An interview is about the easiest task for a DSLR - static camera and static subject. The limitations of a DSLR won't really show, especially if you get all of the sound from the Sony.

I'm sure everyone's seen this thread by now...
http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/canon-eos-7d-hd/473931-robert-rodriguez-shooting-music-video-badass-canon-7d-rig.html
If it's good enough for RR...it's way overkill for me and way too expensive! HaHa!
Can't wait to see what video this turns out to be!

So there ya go OP!

RR has a bigger budget than most of us. He's got a focus puller too.

all joking aside, RR can choose whatever the heck he wants to shoot with and the fact that he's using a 7D speaks volumes to me. Now whether it was his choice or was he just a hired gun is still in question. It just feels like the industry is shifting towards mainstream acceptance of DSLRs and it's cool to be a part of it!

Amen 2 that!!

I just wanted to point out that the use of Pluraleyes software takes all the work out of syncing your sound to the clip it does it for you! so if you have 200 clips transcode, load audio file use pluraleyes and your done!

Singular Software (http://www.singularsoftware.com/pluraleyes.html)

1. How does it perform handheld compared to standard camcorders? Is there any sort of OIS? What with the hole “Jello” think?

I like it quite a bit better than dedicated camcorders. Every camera has trade-offs, and the 7D is no different. OIS is in the lens you choose, and the jello look will be most apparent in handheld shots with non-IS lenses. If you have a steadicam or shoulder mount, you will usually be okay, especially when using lenses with IS. Unfortunately, the prime lenses are non-IS (except for some of the longer range ones), so you better have a tripod/shoulder mount/steadicam for every shot using primes.

2. Is there continuous auto focus when recording video?

There is not continuous autofocus. Professional film doesn't use autofocus, either.

3. Is there audio-out capability (for headphones)?

Unfortunately, not at this time, but you need an external audio recorder anyway, since the 7D and 5DmkII have the Auto Gain, which makes audio recorded directly from the camera unusable. Magic Lantern is working on a firmware to correct this, and I believe they are looking in to making the A/V out provide real time audio out.

4. What is the difference between the 7D and the T2i, besides it costing twice as much?

Build quality, weatherproofing, more dedicated buttons, and a nice little display on top of the 7D to show settings is absent from the T2i. Also, the T2i has real-time autofocus, but I wouldn't put any faith in it, as it will likely over-adjust and come back, making it quite obvious that it is being shot in auto-focus. I also think that the 7D *may* have slightly less noise in low light, but I'm not positive. They are very similar, and it basically comes down to what it's worth to you. For me, I'm glad I have the 7D, but I also shoot in extreme conditions, and really like the dedicated buttons and top display lcd on the 7D. It seems you have a relatively large budget, seeing as you are considering an $8,000 EX-3, so I would go more toward the 7D, seeing as its only a few hundred more than the T2i, and still a quarter the price of the EX-3, but again, that is simply my opinion.

5. Again, are there disadvantages to this when put beside a camcorder like the EX3? If so, what are they?

There will be advantages and disadvantages when compared to the EX3, but for me, the 6 thousand dollar difference in price is well worth those disadvantages. If you have that kind of budget, it's all about what you are looking for. The disadvantages will be the occasional jello, which will just require reshooting and being more careful :-), more labor goes in to focusing, high speed/action shooting will be more difficult, among some other down-falls, but again, the EX-3 is close to four times the price of a decent start up package of a 7D with lenses/bag/filters/memory, so is the EX-3 4 times better than the 7D? That's up to you to decide what it's worth to you. I believe you will be plenty happy with either camera if you use it right. I am shooting a documentary right now on the 7D, and I couldn't be happier. I may seem biased, but that is simply because I have a 7D, and have had my expectations greatly surpassed thus far (aside from the audio issue obviously).


I hope this helps some...

one question i have to ask is...

i just releasized that the compact flash i bought is a scandisk ultra II with 15/mbps speed...yet the data rate of the camera is around 40+ mbps...this can cause problems with video cant it? like blur or skipping frames? also cause problems in the editing phase?

one question i have to ask is...

i just releasized that the compact flash i bought is a scandisk ultra II with 15/mbps speed...yet the data rate of the camera is around 40+ mbps...this can cause problems with video cant it? like blur or skipping frames? also cause problems in the editing phase?

The Sandisk card is a 15 MegaBYTE card. The camera shoots 48 MegaBITS. For the purposes here, there are 8 bits in a byte. So you need to multiply your 15 * 8 to get the equivalent megabits number.

aha so the only advantage to a 60mbps compact flash to a 15mpbs is that i loads into the computer faster...thats it...?

based on that, the camera only averages 6.25 megabytes per second....therefore the card is ok...is this correct?

Bits and Bytes always seem to confuse people!

Canon recommend UDMA rated cards. I have both a Sandisk 16GB UDMA rated at 60MBps (MegaBytes per second) and a Sandisk 16GB Extreme III (which is rated at 30MBps) and have never seen any Buffer Delay indication or indeed overheating Icon with either for video and photo. The lack of overheating might just be luck.

I think slower cards than that are just asking for trouble somewhere in the camera or down the chain - otherwise why would Canon recommend UDMA?

This has been a good read and the OP should have enough to make a decision. I will add my opinion as an EX and DSLR user.

I would repeat what was suggested before, get the EX-1 and a VDSLR. Then you will have tools that can cover a lot more bases.

For my use, I am just getting around to using the 5D for video work as I have only used it for my still jobs. The role it will play will be the shallow DOF role, mainly as my interview camera.

I do not expect any less work for the shooting with the DSLR, just shallow DOF.

My other video cameras will do the video camera work.

If you only shoot cinema, then these are a game changer. If you produce a lot of different of products, they are one of many tools you will need.

I agree with Bill's post about needing a zoom lens for interviews on sticks. A prime would be just too limiting unless you want to stay wide the entire time.

But make sure you use a parafocal zoom lens (retains backfocus) as all lenses in the still world do not have this feature!

My two cents....

If you are a younger, low budget "video" guy , you're gonna get tried of the 7D real fast. If you're used to 16mm and 35mm motion picture film, you are gonna love the 7D. The middle ground is gray, depends on your innate abilities, client, and budget.

The unspoken dirty little secrete is that alot of video people (and still photographers) hate DOF and exposure and lens selection, etc. They secretly want auto-everything, all the time.

And so do I... if I get low-balled into some dogmeat production. Why screw around with DOF if your clients are blind and cheap?

It seems most Red owners usually end up buying a run 'n gun video camera.

lol i do agree tho, wisely said

Just don't ignore the aliasing issues that you will encounter with the current Canon DSLR's. Unless you can be sure that your backgrounds are going to be well out of focus aliasing will come and bite you. See the attached pixel for pixel frame grabs to see just how bad it can be. Not only is the aliasing all over the brickwork but its also visible in the bushes and grass in the full frame. T2i at the bottom, EX1 at the top.

The Canon DSLR's are IMHO specialist cameras for shallow DoF, artistic work, the EX is a good all-rounder.

Alister,

It's a shame that the EX1 doesn't capture the beautiful blue and red lines that were painted on those homes.

;) ;) ;)

its called anti aliasing....lol

Maybe I'll paint blue and red wavy lines on my house, just to freak out imaging experts. :)

Alister,

It's a shame that the EX1 doesn't capture the beautiful blue and red lines that were painted on those homes.

;) ;) ;)

ROFL!! -thanks for giving me my first crack up of the day!

I'm amazed that no one has come up with a replacement optical low pass filter for any of the Canons. For astronomy applications you can replace the Ir cut filter with one that let's through a broader spectrum. Until the aliasing is sorted out with a new optical LP filter the only types of shot these cams are suitable for is shallow DoF faces. Even the you see aliasing in hair, teeth and clothing. You can't fix it in post as the image is recorded full of moire. You could use some light diffusion in front of the lens to soften the image, but the amount needed will vary according to the focal length and aperture. What's neede is a behind the lens diffuser or LP filter.

What is the math behind this that instead of rendering thin lines of black over whit for instance into a mish mash of grey it introduces this bluey greeny rainbow pattern?
Its not just dslr cmos but other dedicated cmos consumer video cameras, like the sony hd1000 shoulder mounted camera?

Until the aliasing is sorted out with a new optical LP filter the only types of shot these cams are suitable for is shallow DoF faces.

Most of the people who own this camera don't share this sentiment.