Snags & shortcomings..?

[Daniel Browning]

Originally Posted by Dylan Couper

Funny you bring that up, I was just looking at old footage from my HVX200, HV20, and HD100, and was impressed by how much more resolution the 5D2 had... although the HV20 was too close to call. (Edit, retraction: just realized I was shooting the HVX in 720p and the HD100 is 720 as well.)

My preference is to go by the amount of resolution a camera has before aliasing affects the image (e.g. shooting a test chart such as a zone plate). According to that definition, it's possible that they had more resolution even in 720p mode.

[Dylan Couper]

Originally Posted by Daniel Browning

My preference is to go by the amount of resolution a camera has before aliasing affects the image (e.g. shooting a test chart such as a zone plate). According to that definition, it's possible that they had more resolution even in 720p mode.

Put that way... fair enough.
...but I'd still rather have a truck load of beer and a little bit of poison.

[Chris Barcellos]

Daniel:

When referring to other cameras, I was probably, in my mind, but failing to state, that I was considering their use with 35mm adapters, to achieve similar images. And my experience with adapters is limited to the Letus FE and Letus 35a, and some other concoctions of my own. However, in comparing even "un-adapted" footage from these cameras to the limited footage I have shot with the Canon 5D, the "apparent" resolution I am seeing still seems to be better than the FX1, Z1, HV20 or the HVX200. All this, of course, depends on lens choices, lighting conditions, and etc, etc.. and I have not shot test charts to confirm my impressions.