Hey, I'm looking to get a 7D rig, but I'm wondering if I should wait until the next edition? I have two XHA1's and a film adapter. I'm selling one of the XHA1's and the film adapter to upgrade to a DSLR. I'm keeping the other cam, but I'll no longer be able to do two cam shoots for clients until I get my DSLR rig. I just don't want to buy a 7D if it's due for an upgrade soon. Also, if I was to purchase a couple of lenses (based on popularity I was thinking Tokina 11-16mm, Canon 50mm f1.4), would there be any risk of them changing the sensor size on the 7D? I guess it wouldn't make sense to get the lenses before the body, but I wanted to start piecing together the kit. What do you all think?

What do I think?

1. Get the camera. What do you possibly think they are going to change in an update that would be waiting for? RAW?

2. Change the sensor size? They use that sensor in a dozen cameras. It's a standard for them and they have an entire line of lenses built around that sensor size. It's not going anywhere.

3. Plenty of people buy lenses in anticipation of cameras. Nothing wrong with that at all.

Go get your camera and get shooting.

I was thinking the 12 minute time limit, overheating, 2k native res, manual audio, 60p not in 720p, etc.

I was thinking the 12 minute time limit, overheating, 2k native res, manual audio, 60p not in 720p, etc.


12 minute limit is there on purpose because of EU tax regulations. I don't see that changing.

Overheating issue plagues all these camera. Unless they take the mirror out, I don't see this changing any time soon.

2K native? No camera in their entire lineup goes beyond HD. Not even the $5k+ 1DMk4. Can't see this going into a mid-level model before it comes to the high dollar hardware first.

Manual audio is a possibility. But you can't put decent pre-amps in a body that size, so even if they did add it, the audio still wouldn't be good enough to actually use for a decent production.

60p in 1080 would make the overheating WORSE. Can't see that happening.



I say buy the 7D and call it a day. If I was buying right now, I sure as heck wouldn't be waiting...

I love your tough love, Perrone. You are wrong on one count, however. The more expensive cameras aren't necessarily the most up to date. The 5d mkii focusing system is apparently miles behind the 7d, for example.

In the EOS product line, the most expensive camera (the EOS 1Ds Mk. III) is actually the *least* up to date. It's the next one due for replacement.

They use that sensor in a dozen cameras. Incorrect. They use 18MP APS-C sensors in at least three models (the Rebel T2i, the EOS 60D and EOS 7D) but the sensor in each model is unique to itself... in other words, the 18MP APS-C sensor in the 60D is not the same as the one used in the 7D, which is not the same one in the T2i. Each one is different, despite the fact that the size and number of pixels is the same.

3 of those 5 things you want are already present in the upcoming GH2 (no 12 min limit, audio levels & no everheating). The 60d too has manual audio.

2k in DSLR's is probably a long way off - there's not even any pro camcorders cheaper than Red that do 2k that I know of.

It's hard to know how far off a 7d replacement is because it's an entirely new line, but my guess is a 5d update will be here before a 7dmkII.

In any case, don't plan your purchases around cameras which may or may not be coming out in the near future, otherwise you'll never be happy with what you've got. Do your research based on what's already on the market and if you need a new camera now, buy it based on definitive information rather than speculation.

In the EOS product line, the most expensive camera (the EOS 1Ds Mk. III) is actually the *least* up to date. It's the next one due for replacement.


That's why I said 1DMk4. My mistake, I thought it had been released already.


Incorrect. They use 18MP APS-C sensors in at least three models (the Rebel T2i, the EOS 60D and EOS 7D) but the sensor in each model is unique to itself... in other words, the 18MP APS-C sensor in the 60D is not the same as the one used in the 7D, which is not the same one in the T2i. Each one is different, despite the fact that the size and number of pixels is the same.

Yes, my comment wasn't meant to mean that each of the sensors was the same, merely the same SIZE, as his concern was that the size of the sensor might change. And unless I am mistaken, the rebels, the 7D, the 60D, etc. all use APS-C, right? Excepting the 5D and 1D..

I love your tough love, Perrone. You are wrong on one count, however. The more expensive cameras aren't necessarily the most up to date. The 5d mkii focusing system is apparently miles behind the 7d, for example.

And my T2i has a better screen than the 5D and 7D. Yes, features are implemented on newer cameras before older models are replaced. But before a shift in primary technology takes place (like going from 1080 to 2K) I'd make a rather LARGE wager that won't happen in the mid rage cameras before the top end ones.

Well, did you think about waiting for the next 5D? Whatever it might be called (5D MKIII?)...

In the EOS product line, the most expensive camera (the EOS 1Ds Mk. III) is actually the *least* up to date. It's the next one due for replacement.

Incorrect. They use 18MP APS-C sensors in at least three models (the Rebel T2i, the EOS 60D and EOS 7D) but the sensor in each model is unique to itself... in other words, the 18MP APS-C sensor in the 60D is not the same as the one used in the 7D, which is not the same one in the T2i. Each one is different, despite the fact that the size and number of pixels is the same.

How is the sensor different? I've never heard that? What are the differences?

You don't want to keep waiting for the next 7D or 5D upgrade. It could be coming soon, it could be a while, who knows? (the people that do know won't say)

I heard Vincent Laforet himself speak in a session today and I completely agree with his advice: pick a camera, get it, and start shooting. Otherwise everyone else will be shooting and learning while you're not. Keep up with the game :)

Coincidentally someone did ask him about news for any new camera upgrades, and he would not say a word about it :P

Let your business dictate your purchase.
Do you NEED the camera now?
If yes then purchase a camera, if not then wait.

IMHO, with technology changing so rapidly, and with camera prices for said technology so low,
I tend to look at the new crop of HDSLR cameras as throw-aways.

I put together a nice lens collection which I can use with just about any camera I choose to use...
Red, AG-AF100, GH1, 7D, T2i, 5DII, so forth and so on. All the focal lengths I tend to use from 11mm to 300mm are covered, so that expense is out of the way.
If my business dictates I need another camera, I purchase it and then write it off at tax time.
If my business dictates I need to use a camera for a shoot, but it does not make sense to purchase it,
I simply rent the camera and charge the client.

Good Luck!

Just to add another thought, if you look at the big trend, the thing that may make DSLR shooting so yesterday could be 3D video/filming. The content that wows viewers the most these days is the new shutter based 3D content. Visit any big electronic retail store and you know what I am talking about.
There are already 3D ready video cams on the market. All they do is simply having a shutter lens adaptor and sensor that will sync with the shutter. Its quite conceivable that customers will pay a premium for 3D content rather than the shallow DOF look which most viewers do not even pay attention to. And 3d cameras will probably be the rage in the next few years rather than HD DSLRs.
If 3D videocam is the future, which we don't need Canon to tell us, then large sensor based videocams may be at a disadvantage in creating such content, since in 3D you actually need deep DOF to bring out such 3D effect.
So maybe just when videographers have mastered the techniques for DSLR, they may be using them less and less due to market demand for 3D.
Going back to OP's question, I think with T2i body selling for less than $600, it is probably worth for replacing the film adaptor if for nothing else.

But before a shift in primary technology takes place (like going from 1080 to 2K) I'd make a rather LARGE wager that won't happen in the mid rage cameras before the top end ones.


In video, resolution is measured vertically, thus 1920 x 1080 is called 1080. In the film and digital cinema industry resolution is measured horizontally, so 2K is 2048 x 1080, not such a huge difference...

So I've been doing some research and it seems the Panasonic GH2 is leaving the 7D in the dust. Any thoughts?

The point is Perrone, mixing video terminology with film terminology will confuse many people - You make it sound like there is huge difference between 1080 and 2k when in fact they are very similar - definitely no leap in technology required as you claim earlier.

In video, resolution is measured vertically, thus 1920 x 1080 is called 1080. In the film and digital cinema industry resolution is measured horizontally, so 2K is 2048 x 1080, not such a huge difference...

2048x1080 is not 16:9 though.

That is a huge difference.


So I've been doing some research and it seems the Panasonic GH2 is leaving the 7D in the dust. Any thoughts?

It's still too early to tell because it's not available world-wide yet, but it certainly has some interesting features. Full HD 4:2:2 HDMI output and 1:1 crop mode will be big selling points for some people. And the picture quality is supposedly better than the hacked GH1 - ie it's what the GH1 should have been!

The point is Perrone, mixing video terminology with film terminology will confuse many people - You make it sound like there is huge difference between 1080 and 2k when in fact they are very similar - definitely no leap in technology required as you claim earlier.

For many, the difference is more than 10%. 2K and above necessitates a film workflow for me since my, and other NLEs do not do 2K on the timeline. It constitutes a paradigm shift in how we work. Also of note is that digital cinema is 2K, not 1080, so delivery can also be vastly different.

Peronne, maths isn't my strong suit, but I make that a 6.6% difference - remember you only measure the horizontal.

FWIW I've projected a 1080p project uprezzed to 2K and it looked great. I've seen it in 16:9 and 1.85:1 and I've seen it on one of the biggest screens in London. It wasn't difficult to do and I didn't need new editing software either, nor did I need a film workflow - I simply edited in 1080p as normal and changed scale on export. You can use pixel mapping software to eek out as much resolution as is possible if you want (I've done that with 4K projects before), but in this instance it was all pretty straightforward. Sure, if it was camera original 35mm scanned to 4K it would have looked better, but for what it was it looked great and that's my point - quality no longer has a prohibitive price tag, it's available for everybody.

2048x1080 is not 16:9 though.


Nope, that would be 2048 x 1152 and if you are projecting in a theatre your aspect ration would more than likely be 1.85:1, which in 2K is 2048 x 1107, still not a million miles from 1920 x 1080.

In the EOS product line, the most expensive camera (the EOS 1Ds Mk. III) is actually the *least* up to date. It's the next one due for replacement

Canon U.S.A. : Consumer & Home Office : EOS-1D Mark IV (http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/slr_cameras/eos_1d_mark_iv)

Wrong camera. I was talking about this one:

Canon U.S.A. : Consumer & Home Office : EOS-1Ds Mark III (http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/slr_cameras/eos_1ds_mark_iii)

I'm not sure why you're bringing up the 1D Mk. IV because that's not what I was referring to. In an earlier post, Patrick Janka had said that the more expensive cameras aren't necessarily the most up to date. I was reinforcing his statement by pointing out the fact that Canon's most expensive D-SLR, their current top-of-the-line EOS flagship -- the 1Ds Mk. III -- is also the least up to date by virtue of its age. As I said, it's the next one due for a new version.

I'm not sure why I have to point out that the 1D is not the same thing as the 1Ds, but there it is.

I'm not sure why I have to point out that the 1D is not the same thing as the 1Ds, but there it is.

Because I missed the "s" on the end of the name.

Patrick...if Canon's product line doesn't serve your needs, spend your hard earned dollars with another manufacturer. There's plenty of good cameras on the market. Brand loyalty only benefits the manufacturer, not you.

Yes, the GH2 is a good one to look at as is the AF100. The EU limit is 30 minutes not 12. Neither the GH2 nor the Sony HD DSLRs have the 12 minute limit that the Canon's do but the EU model has a 30 minute limit.

Also, the micro four thirds design throws out the mirror which gives some advantages for the videography not the least of which is the plethora of inexpensive fast glass with a simple mechanical adapter. Here's the lens lineup:
Digital Interchangeable Lenses | PRODUCTS | LUMIX | Digital Camera | Panasonic Global (http://panasonic.net/avc/lumix/systemcamera/gms/lens/index.html)

There's some reviews coming out now that it is starting to ship. The flip out screen and focus tracking is nice too. There's good info in the Lumix GF/GH Series group on DVInfo.... this just in today:
http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/panasonic-lumix-gf-gh-series/487859-phillip-bloom-gh2-voigtlander-25mm-f0-95-a.html

And a pre-review on dpreview:
Panasonic DMC-GH2 Preview: 1. Introduction: Digital Photography Review (http://www.dpreview.com/previews/panasonicdmcgh2/)

The EU limit is 30 minutes not 12. Neither the GH2 nor the Sony HD DSLRs have the 12 minute limit that the Canon's do but the EU model has a 30 minute limit.Just a note here, Les is correct, the EU tax limit is indeed 30 minutes of video recording, not 12. The Canon D-SLR's do not have a 12-minute limit as is so often suggested around here. What they have is a "30-minute time limit or 4GB file size limit, whichever comes first." In standard definition video recording, the Canons run into this limit at 30 minutes. In HD video recording, the Canons run into this limit at 4GB, which usually occurs around 12 minutes, but may happen sooner than that -- or, depending on conditions, it will record HD longer than 12 minutes. Either way, it is *not* a 12-minute limit. It is a 30-minute or 4GB limit, whichever comes first.

... Either way, it is *not* a 12-minute limit. It is a 30-minute or 4GB limit, whichever comes first.

That's interesting information but it comes down to a 12 minute limit for HD which is something that the GH2 and others don't have. It's a bit of a head scratcher that the limitation hasn't been fixed in even the recent models cameras. This is perhaps what the OP is concerned about: plunging ahead with a current Canon model that finally soon gets rev'd with that major annoyance fixed.

Patrick...if Canon's product line doesn't serve your needs, spend your hard earned dollars with another manufacturer. There's plenty of good cameras on the market. Brand loyalty only benefits the manufacturer, not you.

Yes, the GH2 is a good one to look at as is the AF100. The EU limit is 30 minutes not 12. Neither the GH2 nor the Sony HD DSLRs have the 12 minute limit that the Canon's do but the EU model has a 30 minute limit.

Also, the micro four thirds design throws out the mirror which gives some advantages for the videography not the least of which is the plethora of inexpensive fast glass with a simple mechanical adapter. Here's the lens lineup:
Digital Interchangeable Lenses | PRODUCTS | LUMIX | Digital Camera | Panasonic Global (http://panasonic.net/avc/lumix/systemcamera/gms/lens/index.html)

There's some reviews coming out now that it is starting to ship. The flip out screen and focus tracking is nice too. There's good info in the Lumix GF/GH Series group on DVInfo.... this just in today:
http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/panasonic-lumix-gf-gh-series/487859-phillip-bloom-gh2-voigtlander-25mm-f0-95-a.html

And a pre-review on dpreview:
Panasonic DMC-GH2 Preview: 1. Introduction: Digital Photography Review (http://www.dpreview.com/previews/panasonicdmcgh2/)

Hey, Les, thanks for the response. This is all so overwhelming. It's not that the Canon wouldn't serve my needs, but the 7D seems to be nearing the end of its life cycle. The Panasonic seems to have fixed a lot of the moire/aliasing/verticle banding/artifacting problems of the current Canons, as well as the GH1. It seems the Canons have more available lenses, but is the mirrorless design where these things are headed? The Canons have a bigger sensor, but apparently the GH2 gets a better picture. The Panny doesn't shoot in 30p in full HD, and it shoots 60i instead of 60p. They give the highest bit rate to 24p. Why? Overall it seems Panasonic seems to have designed this camera with a lot of consideration to the video function with the articulated lcd, uncompressed HDMI out, etc. With the 7D the video was an afterthought. I'm hoping the next rendition of it is designed in part with the filmmaker in mind. The GH2 seems attractive, but I think I want to hold out to see Canon's response.

btw, I've done stand-up comedy and filmed other comics at the New York Comedy Club on Glades. I'll try to get a date back next year.

I think the way to look at it is that video DSLRs are still cameras with video added. My interest in a video DSLR is as a b-camera not a main camera. The frustration at Canon for continuing to put out 12 minute cameras is only because of a false expectation that they replace a traditional camcorder. They aren't and they don't. I think the GH2 is the best of the lot as far as video goes but as you point out, it has compromises too.

As a sub $2000 DSLR with video, like any camera, there are going to be compromises. A large sensor camera that has the flexibility, record modes and other features of a pro etc is not going to be priced at the same point as the 7D, 60D etc. All that engineering comes at a cost. Frankly, in this economy, and given it's late entry style, I don't expect Canon to lead in this DSLR as a replacement for a camcorder space. Time, of course will tell.

I actually think the hey day of the video DSLR is pretty much over with the AF100. That will siphon quite a bit out of the market which will, in turn, restrict/slow development.

The AF100 looks nice, but I want the traditional form factor of a still camera. The DSLR thing got me interested in photography, to be honest.

I actually think the hey day of the video DSLR is pretty much over with the AF100. That will siphon quite a bit out of the market which will, in turn, restrict/slow development.

I don't agree. I think the market segment who really wants a video camera, but didn't want to, or couldn't afford to, fool iwth a 35mm adapter will return to the traditional camcorder now. And i think the market for whom these DSLRs was originally designed will continue to use them in large numbers. As will those filmmakers for whom the limitations are not a large concern.

Perrone, I didn't make that statement; it was made by Les Wilson. I don't mind debating the finer points of the industry with you, but it would be helpful if you quoted me, not someone else:)

Nope, that would be 2048 x 1152 and if you are projecting in a theatre your aspect ration would more than likely be 1.85:1

But really, if you are planning on projecting in a theatre, why would you be shooting on a $2000 camera made for stills?

To look at it from a different perspective Liam, you say yourself it is only a 6.6% difference from 1080p. So, is that 6.6% difference in resolution worth the effort and pain of having a resolution/aspect ratio that is not compatible with many standard NLE's or any consumer TV's?

Not really, so why would we expect or want to see 2k in camera which, 99.999% of the time, is going to be shooting for projects where the output is going to be either 1920x1080p Blu-ray, 1280x720p web videos, or even standard definition DVD's?

"if you are planning on projecting in a theatre, why would you be shooting on a $2000 camera made for stills?" Who said it was planned? The fact that it ended up in the cinema and it looked great is all that's important.

As for your second point; 2k can be any aspect ratio you want - the measure is just the horizontal, you simply alter your vertical resolution to make whatever aspect ratio you like. Also, more pixels is usually a good thing, particularly in post where FX and grading are important. Indeed, no one ever complained that 35mm film had too many pixels, even when it was destined for a standard definition output. Anyway, there are ever increasing options available for quality 1080 capture.

The resolution between 2K and 1080p is no big deal. You just resample the image as needed for the required delivery.

One source of confusion relates to some analysis of ATSC (broadcast TV in the US) 1080 vs. 2K. Broadcast TV is heavily compressed, it's 1080i, it's 8 bits-per-pixel, and it has reduced color resolution (4:2:0). 2K shot for film is progressive, is lightly compressed if compressed at all, and it has lots of bit depth and color resolution (4:4:4).

But that's a bogus comparison. One shouldn't compare a delivery format with a capture format.

1920 is so close to 2048 that you wouldn't be able to tell the difference with real-world shots with the naked eye - especially since no theater shows the different formats side by side or back to back.

The real key is that you want reasonably high resolution with high capture quality and good photographic techniques. The 7% resolution increase of 2K wide over 1920 wide isn't significant.

On the other hand, shooting at 3K, 4K, or 5K can allow you to shoot wide and crop, composite with fine accuracy, and then downsample to 2K or 1080p with full quality. This isn't a big deal for a documentary, but can be a lifesaver for highly processed special effects films.

Perrone, I didn't make that statement; it was made by Les Wilson. I don't mind debating the finer points of the industry with you, but it would be helpful if you quoted me, not someone else:)

LOL! Sorry, the multi-quote thing got me!

Who said it was planned? The fact that it ended up in the cinema and it looked great is all that's important.

I was talking hypothetically, not about your specific example. What percentage of footage shot on DSLR's is destined to end up projected on a large screen? 0.00000001%? Are Canon going to implent 2k just to satistfy that tiny minority who's footage might end up being displayed on a big screen - espescially when that tiny percentage would still buy the camera anyway because their primary concern is budget, otherwise they'd be shooting on RED or film?

As for your second point; 2k can be any aspect ratio you want - the measure is just the horizontal, you simply alter your vertical resolution to make whatever aspect ratio you like. Also, more pixels is usually a good thing, particularly in post where FX and grading are important.

Even if you have 2k at 16x9, you're going to be throwing away the extra pixels somewhere along the line anyway - if your NLE can even drop the files on the timeline in the first place, that is. So much extra effort for so little reward. Yes, you'll get sharper, cleaner images if you shoot at higher resolutions and downconvert later, but remember, we are only talking about a 6.6% difference - not the 400% difference between HD and SD.

Indeed, no one ever complained that 35mm film had too many pixels, even when it was destined for a standard definition output. Anyway, there are ever increasing options available for quality 1080 capture.

That's because people shooting 35mm film use a completely different workflow - 4k scans, offline/online editing, proxies, etc. Plus they are doing it on hardware far more powerful than what the average Digital Video editor - let alone consumer/hobbyist - is using.

And my argument was never that 2k has too many pixels, rather that the extra work involved outweighs the benefits - both in terms of R&D versus sales for the company, and extra work/processing versus final product for the film-maker.

"I was talking hypothetically"

Ah, I get you John. I agree, no point in having 2k in a DSLR when there are better alternatives right around the corner.

"Even if you have 2k at 16x9, you're going to be throwing away the extra pixels somewhere along the line anyway"

Yes, but cropping is part of many workflows - it's no big deal. When I was a film editor, every frame was finessed in TK.

Hey, I'm looking to get a 7D rig, but I'm wondering if I should wait until the next edition? I have two XHA1's and a film adapter. I'm selling one of the XHA1's and the film adapter to upgrade to a DSLR. I'm keeping the other cam, but I'll no longer be able to do two cam shoots for clients until I get my DSLR rig. I just don't want to buy a 7D if it's due for an upgrade soon. Also, if I was to purchase a couple of lenses (based on popularity I was thinking Tokina 11-16mm, Canon 50mm f1.4), would there be any risk of them changing the sensor size on the 7D? I guess it wouldn't make sense to get the lenses before the body, but I wanted to start piecing together the kit. What do you all think?

Hi Patrick,

I agree, if you wait you never start shooting. That is true, but if you decide to wait... read this article I recently wrote:

WANNABEn Filmmaker: 3K43K... 3k for 3k? RED Scarlet... (http://wannabenfilmmaker.blogspot.com/2010/12/3k43k-3k-for-3k-red-scarlet.html)

Just a thought...

Have a great week you all!!

Thanks, Ben. I'm leaning pretty heavily towards the Panny GH2 now. It seems Canon may not release an update to the 7D or 5Dmkii for a while.

BTW, in case you have discovered it, the GH2 has a 1:1 mode called ETC Mode.

This bypasses the filtering and scaling that happens when the whole chip is used. It results in another 2.8x magnification without loss of light and according to tests, is as noise free as the equivalent optical zoom using the whole sensor. Here's more:
Panasonic GH2 1:1 Mode Revealed (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/panasonic_gh2_11_mode_revealed.shtml)