I’m in the middle of trying to decide between the Canon 7D and 5DMkII for shooting video for music and also still shots that will be incorporated into the video as well. It seems to me that the 5DMkII has an advantage with regards to picture quality and light sensitivity with the full size chip, and now has the updated firmware for shooting in 24p.

I’m not very interested in the built-in flash, 19 points of auto-focus, or rapid sport shooting on the 7D. The only thing the 7D has over the 5DMkII is that it can shoot video in 60p (I guess you can also get 1080p out of the HDMI on the 7D for accurate focus through monitoring; not sure how much of a detriment it is to only get the 480i image on the monitor with the5 D). Anyway, the advantage I’ve seen most people citing about the ability to shoot in 60p is to get a quality slow motion clip by slowing it down to 30p or 24p. I’ve seen some of these videos and they look good, and I would really like to have this capability.

My question is this: If I shoot in 30p or 24p on the 5DMkII, wouldn’t I be able to stretch and resample the clip in Sony Vegas to create a slow motion image as long as I didn’t overstretch the clip and create stutter artifacts? If I can create good looking slow motion clips in Sony Vegas using a 24p or 30p video shot from the 5D then I will go with that camera. I would appreciate your responses.

Oh, one last question: Which is the Compact Flash card of choice for shooting HD video on either the 5D or 7D? Do I really need the 90MB/s cards from Sandisk or can I get the bette r? What is the optimal card speed?


Thank You.

I’m in the middle of trying to decide between the Canon 7D and 5DMkII for shooting video for music and also still shots that will be incorporated into the video as well. It seems to me that the 5DMkII has an advantage with regards to picture quality and light sensitivity with the full size chip, and now has the updated firmware for shooting in 24p.


Better quality? Maybe. Better light gathering? Yes.



The only thing the 7D has over the 5DMkII is that it can shoot video in 60p


I wouldn't say that.



(I guess you can also get 1080p out of the HDMI on the 7D for accurate focus through monitoring; not sure how much of a detriment it is to only get the 480i image on the monitor with the5 D).


HUUUUUUGGGGEEEEE. Unless I planned on shooting in the dark all the time, this difference alone would take the 5D off the table for me.


Anyway, the advantage I’ve seen most people citing about the ability to shoot in 60p is to get a quality slow motion clip by slowing it down to 30p or 24p. I’ve seen some of these videos and they look good, and I would really like to have this capability.


I use the 60p all the time. I shoot a lot of sports footage...


My question is this: If I shoot in 30p or 24p on the 5DMkII, wouldn’t I be able to stretch and resample the clip in Sony Vegas to create a slow motion image as long as I didn’t overstretch the clip and create stutter artifacts? If I can create good looking slow motion clips in Sony Vegas using a 24p or 30p video shot from the 5D then I will go with that camera. I would appreciate your responses.


A. Vegas does a TERRIBLE job at this.
B. The difference between slowing down 30p to 24p or 60p to 24p is MASSIVE.
C. In order to get reasonable looking slow motion from the 5D you are going to need to buy something similar to Twixtor. And even then, it's no match for actually having 60p footage to work with.

Thanks for the great input. The only reason I brought up doing slow motion from 24p or 30p was because I saw this video which claims to have been shot in 30p and slowed down by stretching in Vegas (Cheesycam DIY Skater Dolly Video Slow Motion with Canon 5D Mark II CheesyCam (http://cheesycam.com/hello-world/)). It doesn't look too bad, but I would imagine that slow-motion from 60p would be most ideal. I'll check out Twixtor, too.

If I was to buy the 5D I would probably pick up one of these Lilliput 7" screens (NEW! 7″ Lilliput 2010 + Battery + Shoe Mount CheesyCam (http://cheesycam.com/new-7-lilliput-2010-battery-shoe-mount/)) with a monitor hood, but I guess you're saying that the image output from the HDMI is simply too low at 480i to get accurate focus unless the ambient light is very low. This would be a pretty big draw back for me as well and one reason to go to the 7D. I guess another option would be to use one of the LCD viewfinders to focus off of the LCD (Evil Little LCDVF Twin vs LCDVF CheesyCam (http://cheesycam.com/evil-little-lcdvf-twin-vs-lcdvf/)).

Also, has anyone used the Transcend Compact Flash card with success? They are quite affordable and sold through B&H with many positive reviews.

Any other input from users for the stuff from CheesyCam.com (Macro Adapter, Dollys, Motion Stabilizers, Cages, Lights, Etc). It seems like they have a great deal of usable stuff that can be found or built at very reasonable prices. I just haven't found a follow-focus at a decent price anywhere.

Thanks again.

I couldn't understand how they got that slow mo off the 5D until I read how they did it. Then it made sense. Most people can't have their actors move at half speed so they can get better slow motion in the camera. I've done some slow motion tests in Vegas from regular speed footage:

Like this:
YouTube - Sony Vegas Slow Motion test (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56dMx1obpDQ)

And this:
YouTube - slomo 25 percent (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTENR7t6lKo)

Now I do it like this:
YouTube - FemHit Big (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQKfiDgDibs)


The 5D outputs SD externally while recording. It's not good enough for critical focus. Thus the 7D is more popular for this. The small viewfinder is the way to go but its very awkward..


I have two friends who shoot on Transcend CF cards. Neither has had any issues. Many others have. If you shoot things that can be easily re-created, maybe the risk is worth it. I shoot many 1-time events. Risk is not worth it to me...

I shoot mostly narrative material, and have the 5D and the T2i. I bought the T2i to get the 60p for slow motion work. Both cameras serve their purposes. With the addition of an LCD viewfinder to either camera, I am not finding hitting focus that difficult. I also use a Marshall for a monitor when shooting with a follow focus. The output from the camera to the monitor turns out very easy to critically focus. In most narrative situation you block out the focus pulling before actually shooting anyway.

I can understand the need, if event shooting is your thing, for a higher defintion output for focusing purposes.

The 5D outputs SD externally while recording. It's not good enough for critical focus. Thus the 7D is more popular for this. The small viewfinder is the way to go but its very awkward..You seem to be implying that it's impossible to focus the 5D properly at all which is simply untrue. The 5D LCD screen is only SD & all those people who use loupes to enlarge those SD pixels or just viewing the LCD itself seem to manage OK. Using the Lilliput 7" monitor linked to by Spiro is great. It's just like a very large version of the on camera LCD which can be tilted to the correct viewing angle.

You seem to be implying that it's impossible to focus the 5D properly at all which is simply untrue.

I'm implying that it is easier to do on a camera with a better output. I've shot two films on the 5D. We blocked EVERYTHING because the focus screen equated to a "rough guide" at best. The camera op was very thankful for the screen magnification though. A feature he was unaware of, but made marking shots a LOT more accurate.

Perrone,

Thanks for the You Tube video links. I’m assuming those are shot in 60p and then slowed down via “Velocity Envelopes” in Vegas? Good test. I’m probably thinking of more like a 10-15% slow down (for slight dramatic effect), instead of football replay slo-mo. So, I would imagine as long as the image isn’t moving too fast the slow mo (even if shot in 30p or 24p) should be fine (as evidenced in the beer pour video, which is really slowed down more than I would ever need).

Also, I completely understand what you are talking about with regards to it being very difficult to get ‘critical” focus in certain situations. I think it’s something each person needs to experiment with to find what is best.


Thanks to all for your comments. I may post some more should more questions pop up.

I'm implying that it is easier to do on a camera with a better output. I've shot two films on the 5D. We blocked EVERYTHING because the focus screen equated to a "rough guide" at best. The camera op was very thankful for the screen magnification though. A feature he was unaware of, but made marking shots a LOT more accurate.Your previous statement this difference alone would take the 5D off the table for meseems a pretty extreme personal view i.e. to prefer the 7D over the 5DII purely because of the full res HDMI output. There are an awful lot of happy 5DII shooters (me among them) who while they might find full res HDMI output a nice to have feature certainly wouldn't prefer the 7D just because of that feature.

Thanks for the input Nigel.

I like how Chris has both the 5DMkII and the T2i. Apart from camera build quality and some other still-shot camera features, I don’t see that much difference between the T2i and the 7D. Apparently, the sensors in the two cameras are identical, if not the same. As Chris mentioned, the T2i would allow for 60p shooting allowing for smoother slow motion in post, and to a lesser extent I would have a “B” camera to work with and the ability to circumvent the 12 minute time limit for HD continuous recording. I will not be doing event shooting, mostly just shooting for music video type application, so I will have time to set-up shots.

So, if I’m not mistaken, the T2i has the same HDMI SD monitor output as the 5DMkII, but as Nigel pointed out, since both LCD screens on these cameras are SD, even using a viewfinder would provide an enlarged SD shot, which makes me think that one of those Lilliput 7” external monitors would be ideal.

It also looks like the video output is in h.264 format like the other Canons, so I would probably just need something like Cineform Neoscene to import the HD clips into Sony Vegas for proper editing. Which leads to my next question: Should I definitely look into getting the Vegas 10 Pro upgrade (I’ve currently got Vegas 8 Pro)? I’ve heard that Vegas 10 Pro has many additional features tailored towards DSLRs, but I’m not sure if it’s worth the upgrade.

I’m not sure about the T2i though. If I can do acceptable slow motion editing in Vegas from the 24p clip shot from the 5DMkII, I would not even consider the T2i.

Thanks.

Your previous statement seems a pretty extreme personal view i.e. to prefer the 7D over the 5DII purely because of the full res HDMI output. There are an awful lot of happy 5DII shooters (me among them) who while they might find full res HDMI output a nice to have feature certainly wouldn't prefer the 7D just because of that feature.

I've shot with the 5D, the 7D, and own a T2i. I stand by my statement. But that is for *my* needs. Your needs may be different than mine, and that's ok. I don't find that the 5D brings anything extra to the table that I personally need over my T2i. For others, this is clearly not the case.

Choice is good. :)

So, if I’m not mistaken, the T2i has the same HDMI SD monitor output as the 5DMkII, but as Nigel pointed out, since both LCD screens on these cameras are SD, even using a viewfinder would provide an enlarged SD shot, which makes me think that one of those Lilliput 7” external monitors would be ideal.


The T2i screen is just a little sharper and has a screen shape more conducive to video. Using a 7" monitor is certainly going to yield better results than a 3" monitor. I have a 20" monitor for my needs.

5DMk2

Type
TFT color, liquid-crystal monitor

Monitor Size
3.0 in.

Pixels
Approx. 920,000 (VGA)

Coverage
Approx. 100% (viewing angle: approx. 170°)



T2i

Type
TFT color, liquid-crystal monitor

Monitor Size
3.0 in.

Pixels
Approx. 1,040,000 dots (VGA)

Coverage
Approx. 100%
Viewing angle: 160°




It also looks like the video output is in h.264 format like the other Canons, so I would probably just need something like Cineform Neoscene to import the HD clips into Sony Vegas for proper editing. Which leads to my next question: Should I definitely look into getting the Vegas 10 Pro upgrade (I’ve currently got Vegas 8 Pro)? I’ve heard that Vegas 10 Pro has many additional features tailored towards DSLRs, but I’m not sure if it’s worth the upgrade.


If you plan to drop h.264 onto the timeline, the upgrade is probably worth it. I only do that as an absolute last resort, so this has zero bearing on my NLE decisions.



I’m not sure about the T2i though. If I can do acceptable slow motion editing in Vegas from the 24p clip shot from the 5DMkII, I would not even consider the T2i.


So shoot some 24p and some 30p footage on your current camera. Then slow it down. If you're happy with that, then you have your answer. The 24p or 30p of the 5D is no different than the 24p or 30p of another camera. The slow-down motion will be identical..

Thanks for the input Nigel.

.... even using a viewfinder would provide an enlarged SD shot, which makes me think that one of those Lilliput 7” external monitors would be ideal.

It also looks like the video output is in h.264 format like the other Canons, so I would probably just need something like Cineform Neoscene to import the HD clips into Sony Vegas for proper editing. Which leads to my next question: Should I definitely look into getting the Vegas 10 Pro upgrade (I’ve currently got Vegas 8 Pro)? I’ve heard that Vegas 10 Pro has many additional features tailored towards DSLRs, but I’m not sure if it’s worth the upgrade.

I’m not sure about the T2i though. If I can do acceptable slow motion editing in Vegas from the 24p clip shot from the 5DMkII, I would not even consider the T2i.

Thanks.

1. Lilliput- From specs I have seen, it looks like it has the same resolution as my Marshal HDMI monitor. Thought it is still considier SD, I have no doubt that my 7 inch Marshall improves my focusing capability with my 5D and the T2i.

2. I have Vegas 10 now, as well as NeoHD for editing in the Cineform codec. There is no doubt that Vegas 10 has changed the way I can approach my DSLR footage from the Canons. I can drop the footage directly on the time line without conversion and have a very nice editing experience. My experience with Cineform however is that it also provides benefits in the post processing arena, that still make it worthwhile to use on serious shoots.

3. The reason to use 60p is simply to avoid having to rely on doubling frames or interpolating frames when the playback rate is slowed. With 30p, in Vegas, you can designate playback at 80% and then render the clip at 24p, and you will still have full uninterpolated and unrepeated frames for each frame of output.
For slower motion, you shoot in 60p then play back at 40%, render to 24 fps, and you get the same result, as far as no frame doubling or interpolation.

I'm implying that it is easier to do on a camera with a better output. I've shot two films on the 5D. We blocked EVERYTHING because the focus screen equated to a "rough guide" at best. The camera op was very thankful for the screen magnification though. A feature he was unaware of, but made marking shots a LOT more accurate.

You forget to mention that in blocking the shots with a monitor attached, you are looking at the HD version of the shot for composing purposes, so setting your marks should be fairly accurate.

What everyone forgets too about the 7D and T2i, and now 60D frame sizes is that they are actually closer to traditional 35mm frame size than what the 5D has. As a result the 7D frame and lenses lengths approximates that format closer than the 5D in terms of expectations from lens angle of views and depth of field. I think, from that standpoint, the 5D has a more unique look to it, and some really prefer that.

The 5D also provides a capabability for much faster lenses in the normal range, unless you want to lay out some horrendous amounts of cash to get near the same capability in the 7D/t2i.

In the end, it is a name your poison thing, and it certainly is nice to have both capablities. I am happy that I do.

You forget to mention that in blocking the shots with a monitor attached, you are looking at the HD version of the shot for composing purposes, so setting your marks should be fairly accurate.


Very true.


What everyone forgets too about the 7D and T2i, and now 60D frame sizes is that they are actually closer to traditional 35mm frame size than what the 5D has. As a result the 7D frame and lenses lengths approximates that format closer than the 5D in terms of expectations from lens angle of views and depth of field. I think, from that standpoint, the 5D has a more unique look to it, and some really prefer that.


I'd suspect that a great many 7D, T2i, and 60D owners will never have handled cinema cameras, and thus their experience with the "look" will come from watching Hollywood movies. Yes, the 5D's look is unique in that regard which has its positives and negatives.



The 5D also provides a capabability for much faster lenses in the normal range, unless you want to lay out some horrendous amounts of cash to get near the same capability in the 7D/t2i.


While this is true, the base lighting level on my sets obviates the 5D advantage here. What is more difficult to work around is that if I am trying to set a specific depth and a specific FOV, I need MORE light on the set since I have to stop down the 5D more than normal. Where normal would be with an S35 sized sensor. If I am trying to get the ultra-shallow DOF look, the 5D holds the advantage. I prefer not to shoot that way. I am usually around F2.8 to F5.6 on S35/APS-C.


In the end, it is a name your poison thing, and it certainly is nice to have both capablities. I am happy that I do.

Agreed. Adding the APS-C camera to our production arsenal has made a wonderful difference. Frankly the 2/3" sensor of the Scarlet would be a GREAT benefit in a number of things I do. Where I have reasonable light, but REALLY want more depth. Primarily thinking of sports video which I shoot every week.

Thanks guys. This has been fantastic information. Just starting out here I think I will go with the T2i. I think it gives me all of the features I need for the kind of shots I want to take, and at a price point that I can use to purchase accessories, etc. The only reason I was considering the 5DMkII is for it’s improved image quality and DOF capabilities. I would imagine after shooting stills and video with the T2i for a while I will probably be able to appreciate the improved image quality of the 5DMkII even more when I get that one.

I did notice a new (non-refrub, never opened) T2i with two EF-S Image Stabilization zoom lenses (18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS & 55-250mm IS) on Ebay. What would a very aggressive price be for this kit? I was thinking somewhere around $900-$1,000?

I'd like to draw your attention to something.

Please look at this photo I took Saturday:

http://i666.photobucket.com/albums/vv28/perroneford/FSU%20Truck%20-%20Series%201/_MG_1706_out.jpg


That is from a T2i set to I believe F2.8 on a 55mm lens. That signature is about 10" long. Not the falloff of sharpness in about 2".

I show this to help you understand something. On a normal lens, at a reasonable aperture, like F2.8, the APS-C sensor has a DOF that will not allow you to put an eye and an ear in focus at the same time. If your subject leans back in their chair, they will no longer be in focus. If your subject turns their head to respond to dialog, they will no longer be in focus.

How shallow do you need to be? If you are moving the camera and/or the subject is moving, trying to stay in focus (with that SD output) is going to be an absolute BEAR! And you are going to want to shoot at F8 or F11... if you can find the light. Or you are going to end up shooting on much wider lenses which inherently have deeper DOF.

The fact of the matter is that the 5D gives SUCH shallow depth, it's often problematic. Similar to IMAX. Read Chris Nolan's account of shooting the IMAX sequences in the Dark Knight. Where he was horrified when he realized that on 1-shots, he couldn't get the eyes and nose in focus at the same time. Shooting common shots on the 5D requires MORE light than shooting the 7D/T2i in many instances because you NEED to stop down to get the focus depth. I prefer not to spend an extra $1500 to fight those battles. If I shot in scenarios where I couldn't get more light, I'd probably think about it differently.

On a normal lens, at a reasonable aperture, like F2.8, the APS-C sensor has a DOF that will not allow you to put an eye and an ear in focus at the same time.

There are two factors here that you seem to overlook: distance and type of lens. For example, a fullframe 85mm f/1.4 at one yard will yield 10mm of DOF, while at 5 yards it has three times the DOF. Hence, if you use a macro lens (as I assume you did?) as close as this shot shows, there will be very shallow DOF, also for a non-fullframe camera as the T2i.

-- peer

Edit -- I misspoke: it should be THIRTY times, (not three times) the DOF.

-- peer

Thanks, Peer. That's a good point on the lens choice and distances. I'm still learning my optics basics here, and found this website (Online Depth of Field Calculator (http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html)) which I think would be useful in determining the DOF of a particular lens on a particular camera from a certain distance at a specific f-stop. It even tells you how much will be in focus in front of and behind the subject. Very neat. I could see how having a certain lens at the wrong distance range would cause some serious focusing issues (especially at unplanned event shooting).

The dilemma I'm having now is trying to determine which lenses to use with the camera. Canon has many lenses and apparently some are considered "kit" lenses of lower quality and some are considered mid-range or even higher quality, and then you have thier L-series. For example, the EF-S 18-55mm IS, EF-S 55-200mm IS, and EF-S 18-135mm IS lenses that come with the T2i kit are considered acceptable, but not high quality lenses. Although, once you look at the EF-S 15-85mm IS lens it is considered to be optically superior, but there is nothing on the lens that specifies this (it's labelled as just another EF-S lens) . I've also watched some You Tube video tests with the T2i camera and it seems as if the prime lenses (even the basic 50mm f1.4 lens) have a much better look to them versus the zoom lenses. Let me know if I'm on the right track, but it seems like zoom lenses should be used for taking photography still shots in situations where you can't carry around extra lenses, and filming nice cinema quality video in well planned out shots should be left to higer quality prime lenses.

With that being said, is there a primary resource somewhere on the web that goes thorough all of the Canon lenses and actually shows which lenses are lower quality "kit type" lenses, and which are upgrades to mid-range or higher quality. Also, are there different levels within the L-series group of lenses, or are they all considered to be equally great? I've searched around and it seems like everyone has thier own review of what they think of a lens, but I'm I need something more authoritative.

Thanks.

There are two factors here that you seem to overlook: distance and type of lens. For example, a fullframe 85mm f/1.4 at one yard will yield 10mm of DOF, while at 5 yards it has three times the DOF. Hence, if you use a macro lens (as I assume you did?) as close as this shot shows, there will be very shallow DOF, also for a non-fullframe camera as the T2i.

-- peer

No, I did not use a Macro lens. I used a 55mm lens circa 1965, and I used it from the drivers seat of a pickup truck shooting at the passenger side dashboard. No Macro, no 5 yards. I was at a normal inside the vehicle filming distance.

Calculate here for yourself:

Online Depth of Field Calculator (http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html)

F2.8 at 5ft gives about .26ft of depth on the 550D.

12" = 1ft so .26ft = 3.1" at F1.8 (which I might have used) that drops to .16ft or 1.92".

My point still stands. Standing 5ft from a subject with a ~50mm lens at F2.8, or more open will not allow the eyes and the ear to be in focus at the same time.

Thanks, Peer. That's a good point on the lens choice and distances. I'm still learning my optics basics here, and found this website (Online Depth of Field Calculator (http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html)) which I think would be useful in determining the DOF of a particular lens on a particular camera from a certain distance at a specific f-stop. It even tells you how much will be in focus in front of and behind the subject. Very neat. I could see how having a certain lens at the wrong distance range would cause some serious focusing issues (especially at unplanned event shooting).

The dilemma I'm having now is trying to determine which lenses to use with the camera. Canon has many lenses and apparently some are considered "kit" lenses of lower quality and some are considered mid-range or even higher quality, and then you have thier L-series. For example, the EF-S 18-55mm IS, EF-S 55-200mm IS, and EF-S 18-135mm IS lenses that come with the T2i kit are considered acceptable, but not high quality lenses. Although, once you look at the EF-S 15-85mm IS lens it is considered to be optically superior, but there is nothing on the lens that specifies this (it's labelled as just another EF-S lens) . I've also watched some You Tube video tests with the T2i camera and it seems as if the prime lenses (even the basic 50mm f1.4 lens) have a much better look to them versus the zoom lenses. Let me know if I'm on the right track, but it seems like zoom lenses should be used for taking photography still shots in situations where you can't carry around extra lenses, and filming nice cinema quality video in well planned out shots should be left to higer quality prime lenses.

With that being said, is there a primary resource somewhere on the web that goes thorough all of the Canon lenses and actually shows which lenses are lower quality "kit type" lenses, and which are upgrades to mid-range or higher quality. Also, are there different levels within the L-series group of lenses, or are they all considered to be equally great? I've searched around and it seems like everyone has thier own review of what they think of a lens, but I'm I need something more authoritative.

Thanks.

I'll save you some time and effort.

Many recent feature films are using glass that is 20 years old or more. Some use glass that is over 50 years old. The current crop of Canon DSLRs (in video mode) cannot resolve more detail that a good 50 year old lens can deliver. The Canon 18-55 kit lens is built with cheaper plastics and materials. Optically, it supports 5k capture. It has to as that is what the camera shoots in STILLS mode. All of this glass you are looking at is designed to work well for shooting in 3K to 5k capture or beyond. These are still cameras and still lenses. At BEST you are shooting 1080p, but in reality, these cameras are not resolving more than 800 lines if that. So the fact of the matter is, you could put a piece of glass on these cameras from the 1960s and it will deliver all the detail the camera is capable of. I've done it, I've tested it, and it's fine. Barry Green (Panasonic test shooter) has done the same comparisons with basic Canon glass and his Zeiss Compact primes and come to exactly the same conclusion. In video mode, these camera simply cannot use the resolving power of that kind of glass.

Now that said, good glass brings less chromatic aberration, less barrel distortion, more contrast, perhaps better color rendition, maybe less flare, etc. But it terms of sheer optical quality, it's a waste. In fact, REALLY sharp glass like the Canon "L" glass or other, actually create some problems with these cameras.

There's a lot to learn about glass getting into this game, but you absolutely do NOT need to spend a boatload on glass to get nice video. At least not getting started. The basic kit lens is probably optically as good my EX1's lens.

With that being said, is there a primary resource somewhere on the web that goes thorough all of the Canon lenses and actually shows which lenses are lower quality "kit type" lenses, and which are upgrades to mid-range or higher quality.

If you are looking for Canon only, their own lens site on "Canon Camera Museum" is a pretty good source: Canon Camera Museum | Camera Hall - EF Mount (http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/lens/ef/telephoto_zoom.html) (pick the lens category at the top).

Keep in mind though, there's a myriad of vintage non-Canon lenses out there that will work perfectly on a Canon body (using a converter ring). Sure, you'll lose the auto focus, but if the lens is mostly used for video work, who cares? One thing to look for though, is that the focus pull ring goes the same direction as Canon's lenses. This is the reason why I now stopped using my Nikkor lenses -- they spin the opposite direction (feels like driving on the left side of the road).

Although I have a few L lenses that I mostly use on boring corporate gigs, I always tend to end up using my quirky vintage Carl Zeiss' et al. for more artistic/private work. Also remember that a good lens will most likely last you a lifetime, at least outlive the camera itself -- hence, I suggest that you pick wisely among the robust & higher end lenses, not necessarily Canon. If I would've thought of this a few years ago, I would have saved myself a chunk of money by avoiding all those cheap plastic lenses that I ended up buying back then. Live and learn, I guess.

-- peer

Perrone,

Thanks for boiling that down for me and saving me some time on lenses. So, if the better glass and sensor will resolve for stills in RAW, then is it the video processing on these DSLRs that doesn’t allow for the better lens to resolve completely on video? Now, when you say “resolve”, are we mainly talking about the improved sharpness of the higher quality lenses (enabling you to get complete glass-like sharpness on someone’s eyes, for example)? You did mention that the better lenses would possibly provide “improved chromatic aberration, less barrel distortion, contrast, color rendition, and flare reduction”, but not enough to validate the price increase (at least for someone starting out like me). Very good information to know.

I’ve been watching more video (limited to YouTube – not ideal), but every time I see the 5DMkII clips, I just get that feeling or “mojo” when watching (and I’m talking about clips of someone just testing it out at an outside café at night without any processing, in addition to well made short films). The image it produces in low light conditions is quite striking versus what I’ve seen from the 7D or T2i. Do others see this too? It just creates a very distinct mood in low light, and I don’t know if it’s just a coincidence of the clips I’ve watched or whether it really is the difference in the camera sensor. As much as the T2i makes sense with regards to its value, the 5DMkII is still pulling me in. What’s up with that? 

The other thing I’ve noticed when watching these clips is how much more I enjoy clips shot on Prime lenses (I think this is obvious to most reading this). Again, likely due to nicer prime lenses being faster than most zoom lenses, and working better in low light. To my untrained eye, it seems as if cameras and lenses that work better in low light and create a mood capture my attention much more than anything else (I call it the Kubrick mood, which is apparent in many of the low-light shots in his films).

Thanks for everyone’s input.

Perrone,

Thanks for boiling that down for me and saving me some time on lenses. So, if the better glass and sensor will resolve for stills in RAW, then is it the video processing on these DSLRs that doesn’t allow for the better lens to resolve completely on video?


Yes, it's the video processing. The small cameras are not powerful enough to use the entire sensor, then process that on the fly down to 1080p or 720p. If they were, these cameras would be a match for the RED.


Now, when you say “resolve”, are we mainly talking about the improved sharpness of the higher quality lenses (enabling you to get complete glass-like sharpness on someone’s eyes, for example)?


Yes, I mean resolve detail. Like eyelashes, or other very fine details. In stills mode, the camera can easily resolve it. In video mode.. no. But the glass is the same. It's not the fault of the glass, that's for sure.



You did mention that the better lenses would possibly provide “improved chromatic aberration, less barrel distortion, contrast, color rendition, and flare reduction”, but not enough to validate the price increase (at least for someone starting out like me). Very good information to know.


For some people it's MORE than enough to validate the costs. Real Cinema glass is in the 5-figures range. Clearly, they feel it's worth it. And cinema zooms are in the upper 5-figures range.



I’ve been watching more video (limited to YouTube – not ideal), but every time I see the 5DMkII clips, I just get that feeling or “mojo” when watching (and I’m talking about clips of someone just testing it out at an outside café at night without any processing, in addition to well made short films).


I've seen well shot work on a variety of cams. And honestly, they just all look like well shot work to me!



The image it produces in low light conditions is quite striking versus what I’ve seen from the 7D or T2i. Do others see this too? It just creates a very distinct mood in low light, and I don’t know if it’s just a coincidence of the clips I’ve watched or whether it really is the difference in the camera sensor. As much as the T2i makes sense with regards to its value, the 5DMkII is still pulling me in. What’s up with that? 


The 5D is clearly superior in low light conditions. I don't really consider that much for narrative work, because the light levels are being strictly controlled in most cases. Frankly, I think you just want a 5D, and there's certainly nothing wrong with that.



The other thing I’ve noticed when watching these clips is how much more I enjoy clips shot on Prime lenses (I think this is obvious to most reading this).


How do you know it's a prime? If you've watched any major movies recently, you've likely seen a mix of both primes and zooms. Even most good shorts, music videos, etc.



Again, likely due to nicer prime lenses being faster than most zoom lenses, and working better in low light.


While primes are often faster than zooms, most primes in films are used at F-Stops that zooms can reach. Occasionally this is not true, but for daylight work, it's nearly always true.



To my untrained eye, it seems as if cameras and lenses that work better in low light and create a mood capture my attention much more than anything else (I call it the Kubrick mood, which is apparent in many of the low-light shots in his films).


Cool.. well keep looking at stuff you like. And try to find out how it's lensed. I'm sure you'll learn a lot from that.

I think there are advantages to both chip sizes. I started out with a 7D but moved to the 5D because of the availability of high quality wide angle and fast primes. The downside to a fast prime is that if you are shooting in low light wide open, your depth of field is so shallow on the 5D that it's very difficult to shoot without a focus puller who is good.

While i shot for almost a year with the 7D with nothing but a rails system for handheld work and a 3X Hoodman, the first time I did a dolly shot with the 5D i ordered a follow focus system that night. Of course with the 5D you can boost ISO higher than with the 7D before noticing it, and often you have to do that to maintain enough DOF for the shot, unless you can light it properly. I've found that an f4-5.6 on the 5D is about the same DOF as f2.8 with the 7D, all other things being equal.

So in that regard the 7D is definitely easier to use. On the other hand, if you want a really shallow DOF, you are always going to be working wide open with zoom lenses (if you want wide angle), and wide open is where most lenses seem to show up problems. (Canon does have a nice 14mm f2.8 L lens, and I would have bought that had I kept the 7D, and it is supposed to be decent.) Point is, both cameras have advantages and disadvantages. The 5D gives you better resolution, but it's not enough better to make that the reason for spending more money. For me, HDSLR shooting is all about lenses. If you saw the Zacuto tests, in comparison to 35mm film I thought the 5D looked a lot like Kodak stock, while the 7D looked a lot like Fuji stock, and in their chroma key tests, I thought the 7D came out just a tiny bit better.

While it's true the 7D chip is very close to Adademy 4-perf motion picture film, it's also true that people shooting 35mm film usually use very fast primes for many cases, and those fast primes aren't readily available for HDSLRs (although it's just a matter of time, probably, before you'll be able to get PL mounts for the 7D at big rental houses).

I know one person here who is shooting with both a 7D and a 5D and intercutting them at will. He has only two lenses, an f1.4 35mm L and an f1.2 85mm L. But with both cameras he can switch bodies and, in effect, have the equivalent of four lenses. In looking at his footage, I can't tell which shots were 5D and which 7D. In my own footage, I have used 7D footage from previous films intercut with new 5D stuff and nobody sees any differences. Sure, the differences are there, but you have to be one of those high end cinematographers sitting in the theater watching the Zacuto tests to really tell any serious difference.

A friend of mine shoots with a 7D but he prefers to use Twixtor for slomo because the 7D's slomo is only 720p. I never shot any slomo when I had mine, so I haven't seen the difference in person. I think it would probably be acceptable because generally when you go to a slomo shot it's so different from what comes before and after that you can get by with a different look.

As far as ergonomics, the 7D has the on/off switch up on top where it should be, and I like the way the grip is moulded better. I think the 5D is just a tiny bit heavier, but the 7D feels heavier because it is smaller. Some people were talking about focus...I never had any focus problems with the 7D and don't with the 5D, in terms of getting critical focus quickly. I rarely use a monitor. And most of the times if there's a focus pull, I'm doing it myself, watching the grease pencil marks on the Cavision.

Always enjoy your well reasoned posts Bill. I am loving shooting with my 5dM2 for interviews and b roll - both at super shallow depth of field. 85mm 1.2 and 35mm 1.4 are so pretty. Use their bright 24mm fairly often as well, 14mm once in a while.

I don't have 15 years video experience to comment on all video lenses but at least with regard to photography no other non-prime Canon lenses come close to those above. All I know is that with video they give my pieces a unique bright and shallow look that everyone really likes, me included.

As far as focusing during shooting, my DP1x is so crazy sharp that its a breeze. Granted my subjects are relatively stationary, no cars chases for me, but that monitor is amazing. I would never rely on the lcd on back of the 5d but the DP1x, wow, even at 1.2 no gimicks required, just look and focus.

Miss true slow mo with my 5d though and shooting it with my EX1 gives such a radically different look that its not much of an alternative. Your friends 5d + 7d combo with slow mo and double your lenses idea has me thinking.

Call when you are coming thru St Louis and we'll do lunch :)