So it finally arrived, and I'm having a little trouble getting as excited as some of the other posters, so I'm wondering what I'm missing. First off, I am using the kit lens because my Tokina is on backorder, so for all of you T2i users with better lenses, can you confirm / deny that my following criticisms will go away with these better lenses? I hear the kit lens isn't so bad, so it's hard to imagine my issues can all be explained away simply with the lens. Nevertheless...

LOW LIGHT
It's raining and raining so my tests are all indoors, but that's good, because I want to see how well it performs in dark, unlit, ugly situations. And so far, it doesn't seem to be that great. Now, I've shot with the 5D a little but other than that, the DSLR world is new to me. I realize the 5D is going to be better in low light, but is it THAT much better?

here's some full-frame, untouched examples- shooting at 1/50th, wide open on the kit lens, iso800, 1080/24p.
First, close up and focused- not terrible, but not terribly impressive, either- colors, saturation, noise, detail, all ehh....
http://foolfactory.com/rebel/rebel01.jpg

But as soon as you get into a lot of detail and information on the frame, that "lovely, 35mm shallow depth of field" look is just ugly- it looks like the combination of generated low-light noise and it's own compression artifacting is spitting out a bad photoshop-filtered "impressionist" look. Here's a wall, out of focus:
http://foolfactory.com/rebel/rebel02.jpg

And here it is, in focus, where the abundance of information in the frame just gets noisy, in an ugly way:
http://foolfactory.com/rebel/rebel03.jpg

And here's the one that really got me- again, out of focus- it looks like a jpg set at the highest compression, saved for the web:
http://foolfactory.com/rebel/rebel04.jpg

and the same shot, focused (check out that no-detail-red couch):
http://foolfactory.com/rebel/rebel05.jpg


I have some 5D footage shot in that same room but on a brighter day (I forget what lens was used.) It's miles ahead of the T2i. I know the rebel is not the 5D. But is it THIS different? Is it merely that I'm shooting at an 800 iso? Is this camera simply not a low-light camera and I need to accept that? Or will my fast, sharp Tokina lens save the day? Shooting a film in nothing but available light is one of the reasons I got this camera... perhaps I jumped the gun too soon?

And how does the 7D, which has a similar sensor, compare- are they both equally inferior to the 5D?

Feel free to chime in!

First thing, I can't see your images. Are the links correct? I just get question marks when I click on them.

Secondly, I have zero clue what your background is and where you come from but when I first shot with the T2i my feelings/thoughts were very similar to yours. I was not thrilled with what I was seeing (also shooting indoors in low light) and was really quite disappointed.

I then realized that there was a ton of footage posted online from the T2i that looked great. I have the same camera (not using the kit lens, have a couple of Canon 2.8 zooms) so why does my footage look like crap? It must be the operator. So for the past few weeks I have been drowning myself in education about DSLRs and the T2i. I've never been a still photographer, just a videographer and I didn't have an understanding of still basics which is necessary to shoot well with this camera.

So I've been reading like mad, purchasing training videos, asking questions, shooting with it every day in any circumstance I can. All to try and get familiar with the camera and understand how it works. This camera can produce wonderful footage, that's not in question as people have show it to be true. My options are either to hire those people for jobs or get better myself. So I'm getting educated.

In only a few weeks I've progressed quite a bit, I think. I have a good grasp on what this camera can do and in what circumstances. I'm still very much a beginner in the photography world but have a good understanding of the basics now and am learning more each day.

My bottom line, what I discovered is: Out of the box in the hands of someone that doesn't know still photography this camera isn't going to be great for video. At least for me it took a lot of education.

I went out this morning and shot some around my little town (first sunny day in weeks) and I'm very pleased with how it came out. But each shot I spent a handful of minutes setting up, checking my levels/exposure, making sure everything was correct before hitting record. These are things I didn't do when I first got the camera and my first footage shows it.

Again, no idea where you are in the process but that's what I discovered about me and the T2i.

In terms of lowlight you need a lens with a 2.8 aperture or faster. Purchase a 50mm 1.8 for now till you get your tokina in. The kit lens is a nice lens for outside shooting. In doors and lowlight is going to be very difficult with your kit lens unless you are using a whole lot of light. I think once you get your tokina in you'll feel better. Now when it comes to sharpness you will be disappointed when comparing it to a 3CCD camcorder. It frustrates me that the sharpness is not there compared to my XHA1 but for everything else it's a really nice dslr that shoots nice video.

The kit lens is junk, unless you shoot outdoor then it is great, and if you want to shoot in low light next to nothing, the Tokina 2.8 is not going to cut it either, you need prime lens at F1.4 or better. The 7D has intermediate ISO like 1000, 1250, when you have next to nothing light I use 1250 the most cuz at 1600 it has more noise that I would like and so 7D is better than T2i in that area and both of them is about 1/2 stop slower than the 5D.
bTW don't know if it is my computer or not but can't see any jpeg that you posted.

Image links not working -- can't you just post them here? There should be a "manage attachments" dialog box immediately below the text input field when making a post.

I see your pictures now, those are aliasing artifacts, you don't want to use any Canon DSLR to shoot anything that has patern lines like your cd case, roof top,this is not what people buy this camera for, it is well know for producing aliasing/moire artifacts for this kind of scene.

Sorry- the pics opened fine in my browser, but upon further review, they were actually exported out as PICT files from QT Pro, despite having the jpg extension. The links should now work, but they are also uploaded onto the site via the original post (read Left to Right, from #1 to #5)

Bryan- my original background was shooting 16mm film, as well as 35mm photography (but that's more a personal thing than a professional one) so I have a solid understanding of 35mm SLR's and film cameras, though I later switched digital video (once film was just too expensive to continue using) but DSLR's are a new world for me. The 5D shot really well for me and rivaled my experience with Sony's EX-1 that it threw me onto this DSLR bandwagon with gusto- I had no problem making the 5D images look as well as what I could do with the EX-1. But perhaps it was the lens combined with the full frame sensor? Or maybe it is simply operator error. I would have thought, though, that the principles of f-stops and focal planes are, at least, somewhat the same in both worlds, though perhaps that's just not true. I'm curious, Bryan, what you think you were really missing that you are now grasping, coming to this as a videographer. Perhaps I have a lot more to learn than I thought.

I see your pictures now, those are aliasing artifacts, you don't want to use any Canon DSLR to shoot anything that has patern lines like your cd case, roof top,this is not what people buy this camera for, it is well know for producing aliasing/moire artifacts for this kind of scene, about your red couch, you focus on the cd case and so what do you expect the couch to look like? if you want all of the scene in focus in low light like this you need to stay with 1/3 inch ccd camera, with large sensor like DSLR to get everything in focus you have to stop down to probably f8 for this scene to get everything in focus and it will be too dark.

I see your pictures now, those are aliasing artifacts, you don't want to use any Canon DSLR to shoot anything that has patern lines like your cd case, roof top,this is not what people buy this camera for, it is well know for producing aliasing/moire artifacts for this kind of scene.

I realize this was their weak point, but I hadn't seen examples showing it to be THIS bad- that was where the shock came from. jagged edges on diagonals, sure, but such a lack of detail was shocking- and even when I shot a medium close up of person in front of a plain wall (in poor, dark lighting I realize, but still) I got the same splotchy lack of detail. I know I'm pushing it with the camera, giving it no light to work with and a crappy lens... I realize if you light the scene it's going to look much better. I just wasn't expecting such poor performance, and was hoping to compare notes with your experiences to see if that really is just how the camera performs or if lenses and / or other user-controllable factors would make a big difference.

thanks for the input!

i have a close friend who has shot film for his winery and culinary outlet, first with an xha1 (which i also had and sold last fall), the switched to the EX!, and finally sold that for two canon 5D's. his videographer says the detail, color and quality of the image absolutely smokes the canon xha1, and is considerbably better than the EX1. i dont understand how you can compare a small digital sensor inthe xha1 in comparison to a dslr. bill

I realize this was their weak point, but I hadn't seen examples showing it to be THIS bad- that was where the shock came from. jagged edges on diagonals, sure, but such a lack of detail was shocking- and even when I shot a medium close up of person in front of a plain wall (in poor, dark lighting I realize, but still) I got the same splotchy lack of detail. I know I'm pushing it with the camera, giving it no light to work with and a crappy lens... I realize if you light the scene it's going to look much better. I just wasn't expecting such poor performance, and was hoping to compare notes with your experiences to see if that really is just how the camera performs or if lenses and / or other user-controllable factors would make a big difference.

thanks for the input!

Dude... put a lens on the camera, then get back to us. The kit lens is letting in 1/4 the light of even a decent zoom, and 1/8 the light or less of a good prime. You're STARVING the camera of light... hence the garbage results you see.

I've shot the 7D and the 5D and yes the 5D is better, but not THAT much better.

... Also, change your ISO to 640 and get off 800 (can you set 640 in the T2i?).

i have a close friend who has shot film for his winery and culinary outlet, first with an xha1 (which i also had and sold last fall), the switched to the EX!, and finally sold that for two canon 5D's. his videographer says the detail, color and quality of the image absolutely smokes the canon xha1, and is considerbably better than the EX1. i dont understand how you can compare a small digital sensor inthe xha1 in comparison to a dslr. bill

No it is the other way around, the XH-A1 smoke the DSLR in details resolution, what your friend see is a shalow dof of the DSLR and so the subject stand out more and it make it looks like it is sharper when comparing to XH-A1 but it is not, I have both.

I've shot the 7D and the 5D and yes the 5D is better, but not THAT much better.

That's the kind of info I'm looking for. Hey, I started off acknowledging the obvious- this is a kit lens. I'm putting the camera in the worst possible circumstances, and yes, I'm starving it for light, but you can starve the EX-1 for example with way better results. I understand why that is, no need to explain, I just wanted to compare notes rather than follow my first gut reaction to return this thing and save up for a 5D.

The T2i does 400 and 800 but not 640, one of the reasons why we're paying half the price. 400 was a bit too dark. As for the aliasing comment, other shots of large, more solid colors and objects weren't much better- but I'll see how my other lenses fare, once they come in.

Dude... put a lens on the camera, then get back to us. The kit lens is letting in 1/4 the light of even a decent zoom, and 1/8 the light or less of a good prime. You're STARVING the camera of light... hence the garbage results you see.

I've shot the 7D and the 5D and yes the 5D is better, but not THAT much better.

... Also, change your ISO to 640 and get off 800 (can you set 640 in the T2i?).

No he only can go full stop, 400,800, 1600...

Dude... put a lens on the camera, then get back to us. The kit lens is letting in 1/4 the light of even a decent zoom, and 1/8 the light or less of a good prime. You're STARVING the camera of light... hence the garbage results you see.
.

Agree, I got a Cannon 50mm f1.4 at the same time I bought the camera and for video and stills it's awesome. Just for grins, I went into my garage at night in total darkness a snapped a shot with the 50mm wide open. I was shocked that I got an image, albeit not useable but the 1.4 seems to generate it's own light!

I put the kit lens on just to see how it looked shooting indoors and shortly after that it found a place on my shelf with other equipment I never use.

Please don't discount this camera as it really works well...just have to set it up properly.

...and yes, I'm starving it for light, but you can starve the EX-1 for example with way better results. I

Do you honestly believe this? I own an EX1 and shoot it every week. In fact, I just shot it last night in a roller rink with maybe 30FC on the floor. Wanna see what it looks like?

720/30p (levels brought up in post):

Capital Punishment Practice Skate (uncut) By Perrone Ford On ExposureRoom (http://exposureroom.com/members/PerroneFord/67a2c0cadd854538bf0facca3ffb63bf/)

Same Location, previous day 720/24p (levels adjusted in post.. ignore jerkiness please):

Lowered lights indoor test By Perrone Ford On ExposureRoom (http://exposureroom.com/members/PerroneFord/6f640e265bad440fa292f74c7b80762a/)


I am buying a T2i *JUST FOR THESE SITUATIONS* and let me tell you the EX1 isn't even in the same league. When I drop a 35mm F1.4 on that camera this will look like it's sunlit.

(by the way, these are both at gain +6 on the EX1 which is as high as I dare go)

i have a close friend who has shot film for his winery and culinary outlet, first with an xha1 (which i also had and sold last fall), the switched to the EX!, and finally sold that for two canon 5D's. his videographer says the detail, color and quality of the image absolutely smokes the canon xha1, and is considerbably better than the EX1. i dont understand how you can compare a small digital sensor inthe xha1 in comparison to a dslr. bill
In terms of resolution the XHA1 is so much sharper than the T2i. I even have L glass on the T2i and it doesn't hold up. I'm sorry. The resolution is not there. Now the T2i has very nice color, better dynamic range, awesome lowlight with fast lens, and beautiful DOF. The resolution again is not there compared to the XHA1 and sure not anywhere near the EX1. The videographer has no need for resolution or else he would not have sold his video camera.

Okay so just a thought here. If your outputing to DVD everything gets compressed to the same low bitrate. For me personally I would rather have more dynamic range with the illusion of a sharper image from the DSLR than highly compressed footage from a 3CCD camera.

I am buying a T2i *JUST FOR THESE SITUATIONS* and let me tell you the EX1 isn't even in the same league. When I drop a 35mm F1.4 on that camera this will look like it's sunlit.
)

hey, believe me, i'm with you in theory- that's why i bought this thing, because it seemed to potentially blow everyone away at a fraction of the price. But as to my experience, so far, yes, I believe that there's a reason why the sony's costs 9 times as much. I've cranked the gain on that thing all the way with barely any noise. I've shot in super high contrast daylight with deep shadows and found detail in both, beyond what I expected for a camera of that price. Now, these DSLR's have the advantage of lens swapping, so the potential for them to blow away the EX-1 is there, of course, since EX-1 is stuck with the lens that it has, and I am sure that this kit lens is half the problem... I just don't know if it's ALL the problem. Your footage doesn't look half bad, considering you're shooting really fast motion under horribly ugly low light. I would love to see the t2i in that same exact scenario- and I don't mean that as a taunt- I would honestly LOVE to see just how well it can perform in that scenario. I just dropped some big cash on this camera, lenses, and other accessories, so I WANT to believe. Believe me!

The only point to my posting is simply that I did not expect the kit lens to look as bad as it does- that's all. I expected everything that I'm hearing from people, but not to that extreme. If it really is simply a matter of what lens is on that thing... well, holy crap, that's an amazing thing to me, that a lens can make THAT much difference. I didn't expect much from the kit lens, but I expected a bit more than totally unusable crap! I might as well use a flipcam!

I would love to see the t2i in that same exact scenario- and I don't mean that as a taunt- I would honestly LOVE to see just how well it can perform in that scenario. I just dropped some big cash on this camera, lenses, and other accessories, so I WANT to believe. Believe me!


My friend with the 7D will be back from vacation in a few days. I'll try to shoot this exact same thing next Sunday with the 7D and we'll see how it goes. Only problem is that he has slow glass. F4 may be the best we can do with his glass. I'll have to see.

Okay so just a thought here. If your outputing to DVD everything gets compressed to the same low bitrate. For me personally I would rather have more dynamic range with the illusion of a sharper image from the DSLR than highly compressed footage from a 3CCD camera.And what if you're required to deliver Blu-ray? If it's a DSLR shoot only then there is nothing to compare to. If you have a XHA1 in the mix you will see a difference immediately in sharpness. My only point is that if sharpness is the original posters complaint which it partly is, the answer is to get a real camcorder. If sharpness is not what you need these dslr's are incredible tools for the money.

Why, again, are we comparing a $799 camera body and kit lens (read: garbage) with a dedicated HD camcorder with fixed lens that costs 4X as much?

This just in: the Sony XDCAM series looks waaaaaay sharper than my Flip Mino HD.

Anyone who needs proof that the T2i can produce beautiful HD imagery either doesn't know what they're doing or isn't looking hard enough on Vimeo.

We're comparing so that we can understand better what, exactly, this $800 camera can and can't do. The original question was pretty simple- not "why does this not look as good as an EX-1" but "should these images look as bad as they do, given the settings and lens?" Given the right conditions, I can make your Flipcam look pretty impressive. So what? As explained, I've seen what the 5D can do, I've produced some beautiful, sharp (or "sharp-seeming-but-technically-not-actually-sharp") images with it, and I was a bit surprised that the t2i performed as poorly as it did, even taking into account all the factors. If the answer lies mostly in the kit lens, I'm fine with that. If the answer is that the camera, regardless of lens, performs poorly in low light, this I wasn't expecting (not to that degree anyway) and it would definitely give me pause. Obviously opinions on DSLR's run the gamut from "they suck" to "they're the second coming" but I don't see much point in arguing our tastes and biases- I was just looking for some objective feedback to better understand what it is I'm holding here.

Thanks to all who have done just that.

You've seen some good footage from it, but have you seen any good footage like the way you set up? no, nobody shooting book case like that with deep dof like you did and can make it looks good, the only way to make this scene looks good is shoot in from an angle and focus on only a few books or cd and blur out the rest by taking advantage of your shalow dof, you are comparing it biggest weakness to other smaller chip strongest feature, this camera is not for that, it is best use for shalow dof, strong point is good low light if you have fast lens, artisctic, cinematic is what it is best at, not video type shooting style.

That's a good post, Khoi. I view these cameras as a way to fill some gaps that my video cameras have, not to replace them completly.

I would be inclined to blame the kit lens, though I freely admit I've never even attached mine to the cam. Went straight for the 50mm 1.4 and the 24-70mm 2.8. And as I pointed out in another thread, a 7D film just won the jury prize at SXSW, probably the second biggest film festival in the nation. So depending on your needs (and your ability to control your shooting environment), the T2i/7D cams can be a workhorse even when your work goes to the big screen -- it's not just speculation anymore.

We're comparing so that we can understand better what, exactly, this $800 camera can and can't do.

To answer the original question, and echoing other comments, the kit lens works "OK" in good light, but that's about it. I believe the stock 5D kit comes with a 24-105 f4, which would be an immediate advantage in light gathering and sharpness, which is probably part of what you saw. Going to even faster lenses would be even better. I think you will be more comfortable when you get your other lens in.

That said, I like what Pham mentions above. Would any camera produce better results in that setting/framing/look? Also, if you are trying to make comparisons, it would be better to see the same shots with the EX-1 or 5d to see what performance other cameras achieve that the T2i is not.

thanks koi and mando for your responses...then my real question...am i going to get less aliasing and a considerably sharper picture with a canon xha1 than any if canons dslrs. i am talking about a wide angle shot of mountains, ocean waves hitting the rocky coast at sunset, slight movement in panos? having sold the xha1, would one of the smaller canon vixia hf s1 do just as well with iQ? and skip the rebel?

thanks koi and mando for your responses...then my real question...am i going to get less aliasing and a considerably sharper picture with a canon xha1 than any if canons dslrs. i am talking about a wide angle shot of mountains, ocean waves hitting the rocky coast at sunset, slight movement in panos? having sold the xha1, would one of the smaller canon vixia hf s1 do just as well with iQ? and skip the rebel?To answer your question William I actually get aliasing in my footage with my XHA1 depending on what I shoot with it. Typically it only happens with siding on houses and not bricks. It's really weird. I don't see moire for the most part until down-converting as I do see it immediately with my T2i. So yes you will get less aliasing with the XHA1 and a sharper image than a Canon DSLR. If you're shooting scenery why not just do timelapses with the T2i? You can shoot jpeg and yield some very high quality sharp images to use as a timelapse. If full video is required and you have only the T2i/7D/5D just shoot with it. No one knows what is missing until you compare it to something else. If you are pretty set on the DSLR I say go ahead and pick one up. Grab some fast lens and start shooting. Just understand you maybe disappointed if the image is not a sharp as you may anticipate it to be. It has disappointed me, but I just work around it. Hope this helps.

Yeah no doubt my XH-A1 has more details and sharper than my 7D or T2i, and from the shot that you described it would be the right camera with sharper and almost undetectable aliasing, the newer consumver vixia should do just as good if not better than the XH-A1 especially outdoor when you have good light, from test review in the past I believe the A1 is around 900 lines and 7D is around 700 + aliasing/moire artifacts.

moday, koi thanks for your input..yes i could take stills with my nikon system, then import into vegas...but i have filmed lots of areas with movement..harlequin ducks on a river, various shots of the ocean surf pounding in on the olympic coast, se alaska..movement with sea otters in rolling waves..all areas that would be prone to aliasing? i just might go the newer vixia, or wait for the nam that might announce the new canon xha1 solid state? i am also concerned about weight as i backpack in remote areas..even tho i am an old guy.

thanks for steering me away from the canon rebel and dslr's...almost made a huge mistake.

Also read this thread, David:

http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/canon-eos-rebel-t2i-eos-550d-hd/475426-thoughts-after-my-first-real-shoot-t2i.html

There's more mentioning that the T2i is not so sharp in terms of resolution, and aliasing and moire are also big issues. However, there is more or less agreement that the 5D/7D/T2i can produce stunning cinematic looks when handled correctly and using the best glass.

I do not own a T2i, I'm not sure about buying a 35mm adapter or just go for the T2i, but if you're chasing after the cinematic look, these DSLR(s) are the best you get for the price.

Dont agree that the kit lens is rubbish, it perfectly useable, yes I know that its the bottom of the pile. Simply invest in something like a Rotolight. I dont know of any video shot in low light, that does not require additional lighting. You need light to get a good shot, just as you need a good set of mics for good sound, or a tripod for steady shots. These cameras are exceptional for low light shooting, but surely to shoot without the help of additional lighting, when needed, is counter productive

I just got my 550D and played around with the kit lens in low light, and I'm very happy with the result. I know I have much to learn AND much to spend on lenses but the idea is, it's not that bad. I'm definitely impressed. I'm also happy my computer handles the raw video files quite well in Premiere.

Dont agree that the kit lens is rubbish, it perfectly useable, yes I know that its the bottom of the pile. Simply invest in something like a Rotolight. I dont know of any video shot in low light, that does not require additional lighting. You need light to get a good shot, just as you need a good set of mics for good sound, or a tripod for steady shots. These cameras are exceptional for low light shooting, but surely to shoot without the help of additional lighting, when needed, is counter productive
Here, here, right on the money.
After all photography is really painting with light.

I think if you're in a remote setting, such as a bar filming a band then you'll most likely not use an onboard light.

But if you're in the field shooting events, such as wedding receptions, which are notoriously dark almost cave like in some instances, you'll at least use an on camera light for fill lighting. I prefer off camera lighting, which is easy to setup.

And if you're doing a studio shot, then you should always use lighting, either available (window) or setup, when possible.

Well, we have to remember that everyone has different needs and aesthetics, yet we are all using the same camera here. I can understand why you'd say "use more lighting" but frankly, I hate using any light that isn't naturally occurring. When shooting narrative film, you have to light the set because there's no other way to get exposure- that I get, and a whole art form has developed because of it. But the greatest contribution digital video has given us, or, at least, me, is the freedom from having to light a scene, and instead using the little amount of light there is to it's own advantage. It gives me and the actors or action total mobility, shrinks the crew down to 2 (or 1) person(s), etc. etc. That's just my thing, and that's what I was hoping to do with the rebel- I assumed that these cameras are only going to get better in low light, so my experience with all sorts of DV and HDV cameras had set my expectations higher for the t2i with kit lens. For me, adding a camera light is not a solution because that completely ruins the shot for me. I realize that's not the case for weddings. Since most DV cameras have a fixed lens that is really no better than the rebel's kit lens, I did expect better results. But that was literally my first impression, and I gave it just to get some feedback from folks. I'm sure in the weeks ahead I'll learn to get the best image out of that "garbage" lens, and then even better shots with "good" lenses.

'kit lens' and 'low light' don't go well together. Although even at f3.5 T2i sees better in dark than my HV20 f1.8 at 1/50 shutter, with the slow lens you cannot expect so much against the law of physics. I just tried out my friend's f1.2 50mm and the difference is quite literally night and day and I now know that the extra 5x amount of light is worth about $1200.

the 1.4 50mm from Canon is pretty amazing in low light too and $350

the 1.4 50mm from Canon is pretty amazing in low light too and $350

The only thing to remember about the 50mm lens on a cropped sensor such as the 7D/550D, is that your lens will multiply by 1.6. So a 50mm becomes an 80mm lens.

I prefer a lens of 28-30mm for a cropped sensor which gives me a focal length of 45-48mm. Which is better for tight in shots and enable you to hold focus a little betetr with large apertures like 1.4.

Also remember, that while having 1.4-1.8 for low light is great, your focal length especially with a cropped 50mm lens which is now 80mm, will be very slim.
So while you have great DOF your subject can easily fall out of focus with little movement fore or aft. Best range for shooting constant video is 4.0-5.6 which lets you keep your subject in focus much easier. But the downside is that you lose a lot of light.

This is why I love these lenses for photo work, but find them very difficult for video. Wide apertures are great for stunning DOF photos, but hard to shoot a moving subject with video.

That is unless you decide to shoot like they do a lot in movies where subjects are walking towards the camera, coming from out of focus to in focus.

This being said I do love the low light ability of a 1.4-1.8 lens for certain wow shots. Just not for every day.

The only thing to remember about the 50mm lens on a cropped sensor such as the 7D/550D, is that your lens will multiply by 1.6. So a 50mm becomes an 80mm lens.

I prefer a lens of 28-30mm for a cropped sensor which gives me a focal length of 45-48mm. Which is better for tight in shots and enable you to hold focus a little betetr with large apertures like 1.4.

Also remember, that while having 1.4-1.8 for low light is great, your focal length especially with a cropped 50mm lens which is now 80mm, will be very slim.
So while you have great DOF your subject can easily fall out of focus with little movement fore or aft. Best range for shooting constant video is 4.0-5.6 which lets you keep your subject in focus much easier. But the downside is that you lose a lot of light.

This is why I love these lenses for photo work, but find them very difficult for video. Wide apertures are great for stunning DOF photos, but hard to shoot a moving subject with video.

That is unless you decide to shoot like they do a lot in movies where subjects are walking towards the camera, coming from out of focus to in focus.

This being said I do love the low light ability of a 1.4-1.8 lens for certain wow shots. Just not for every day.

For me and my line of work, shooting at F1.4 is everyday lens, you just have to practice focusing, at 1 minute of this video
Bulletproof Brass on Vimeo
you see a trumpet walking toward me and it stay focus, I practice this a lot at home before going out shooting for money with my as some would call it "toy". (-:

Koi, true practice makes perfect and one really has to learn how to pull focus (like film) with these cameras.

Overall in the short time I have been using DSLRs again, I did used to shoot film photography long time ago, it has made me much better with my video camera shooting.

One thing of note though, is that you were using a 30mm lens on your 7D, which as I mentioned above make sit easier to hold focus with since it's a much wider lens than running a 50mm on a 7D/550D.

BTW, great colors and imagery in your footage. As well as the audio. I take it that audio was captured off camera?