Is the T2i in the same league as the MarkII?
 

And I mean only regardly the video recording capacity.

I know the Mark II is better in low light and overall resolution - but could you match footage between the two?

Or would it smack you in the face as wrong?

john

Tests have shown that footage from all EOS cameras is extremely similar in terms of look. The main point of difference with the 5D is that it uses a full-frame sensor, which changes the aesthetics of the image somewhat due to the difference in FOV. The 5D performs about one stop better in low light. The 5D does not have better resolution in video mode. Actually, the 5D doesn't even offer the best video resolution among DSLRs. The Panasonic GH1 does slightly better in that area.

The bottom line is that the 5D is only better for those who must have a full-frame sensor and every little bit of low-light sensitivity (without going to the 1D Mark IV).

The other aspect about the 5D2 and low light is that you can use fast, wide primes on the 5D2. If you want to shoot wide at night, the 7D and T2i won't offer the same options. Also, the 5D2 will give a shallower DOF at the same settings.

Aside from that, the quality and look are quite similar.

Another thing: Since Canon's APS-C sensors are almost exactly the same size as a regular 35mm motion picture frame, crop-sensor cameras like the T2i and 7D are technically better for reproducing the vaunted "35mm movie" look.

Interesting - was expecting totally different responses. So, different DOF and one stop of sensitivity eh?

And I suppose ease of use would goto the T2i...

jdv

IMHO, the 7D wins the ease of use battle. It has more knobs and buttons for easy access, and is weatherproofed.

@John Vincent:

It is more complicat.

The 5D II is 1 stop better in lowlight - but especaly in Lowlight Situation the smaller DoF of the 5D II can make problems.

And if you will use the same DoF on a 5D II and a 7D / T2i you must close the aperture on the 5D II for about 1 2/3 stops or use a 1 2/3 stop higher ISO setting.

So the better lowlight performance of the 5D II is only given if the extrem shallow DoF of the 5D II make no problems for focus.


Only the 1D IV have a real advantage in lowlight situations.


Daniel

From what I gather, all of them are quite similar in terms of video (as someone here already said) so your main question should be... Should I go for the 7D, or settle for the 550D?

If you want video, there is no reason to buy the 7D unless you can really afford it. It is a better camera with a better build and more control, but if you strictly want it for video and especially if you are new at this, I don't think you should spend almost double the price on something that overall gets the same result. That, of course, if that's what you're asking -- what camera you should get.

You get what you pay for. The 7D is big, beefy and hefty for a D-SLR. It's actually slightly chunkier than the 5D Mk. II. Only the 1D class of cameras are larger. Meanwhile, the 550D / Rebel T2i is a lot smaller, a lot lighter and not nearly as robust. It has a polycarbonate shell as opposed to magnesium allow on the 7D and 5D. The difference in terms of physical characteristics is fairly substantial.

And one of the most important things to consider: The 5D is more than three times the price of T2i. Nobody will say that it's a three-times better camera. But it does have advantages that could be deal-breakers/makers for some. Considering all of the other things that one could buy with that money, the argument over trade-offs and benefits needs to be extremely compelling for a prospective buyer to consider it.

I didn't shoot in extremely low light situations with the 5D, but in the situations I did use it for it was great- really great- and that wasn't even at a super-high ISO. So the 1-stop difference on the Rebel, in practical terms... it seems like it still can go pretty darn dark without much noise- a typical indoor apartment at night with only a 60 watt bulb, for example... I mean, obviously it's going to look like what it looks like, but in terms of being able to get an image without a ton of noise, if the Rebel is only a stop darker (plus the speed of the lens of course) that doesn't seem like a big loss in 90% of the situations one might find oneself in...

...but I don't have enough experience to say this with certainty...

My thoughts:

A lot of people are talking about the build quality of these cameras. People nowadays consume electronica like food. Most of us will buy a new camera again in 1-3 years. So I don't think the build quality is that important anymore. Unless you film like wildlife and are outside a lot in wet and humid conditions or your gear takes lots of abuse (climbing etc.). Handling is more important. But I am not sure if I like the 7D (bigger, easier to handle) or 550D (smaller, more stealth) to shoot video while travelling. Also, none of our videocameras are weatherproofed either.

The most important thing is that image quality is more or less the same in video mode.

Seems like any DLSR is small when compared to a reular video cam. The lightness/smallness of the T2i would seem absolutely perfect for run and gun....

And I suppose when you trick out the T2i, it'll look close enough to its bigger brothers.

What I wnt is a cam small enough at it's core for run and gun, and big enough when ticked out to make "normal people" think that a "real" movie is being made.

john

I want to shoot an independent movie with my (upcoming) T2i, and I think the fact that it doesn't look like a video camera will help me. I'll obviously go all guerrilla so a photo camera attracts way less attention than a normal sized camcorder like a Z1 or EX-1 or the likes.

I reckon the actors will think it's a joke at first, but I'd much rather spend a bit of time explaining to them how good it is than having to explain to police why I'm filming a movie without a permit :D

It will def affect actors - some in a good way, some bad. Some actors want a big-ol camera in their face; helps them get geeked up. Others are 180 dergees the other way.

It also influences the crew, most of whom in indie flicks are working on spec.

But I think there's enough extras for DSLRs now that you can make it as big as you want too(rails, mate box, etc).

john

Let's not forget the Kiefer Test!

^ Hahaha, that is brilliant. Imagine the fit he'd throw if the production on 24 would switch to 7Ds :P

Well, Rodney Charters, the DP, is a fan of the Canon HDSLRs, so you never know!

Well, he's the most (in)famous example for sure, but he's far from the only one. Actors are such finicky creatures, you never know what will set them off.

The one really nice thing about the JVC 100/200's is that they look like a movie camera, but remain relatively small.

john

Can you please elaborate for those who don't know what you're talking about?

Read under "Fun Facts": http://www.buddytv.com/info/kiefer-sutherland-info.aspx

Just finished shooting with the 2Ti and find it very similar, if not exactly equal in image quality to the 7D. No slouch here. 7D is a little more convenient and definitely has more substantial build quality but the 2Ti is very nice and the lightness to me is a good thing for many applications. Having both cameras, had I not already purchased a 7D, I would be perfectly comfortable with the 2Ti for both video and stills. I rarely need to shoot 8 frames per second and try not to drop my cameras whenever I can help it. I do like the extra controls on the 7D, but it is a minor thing.

The T2i is an incredible bargain and coupled with the Tamron VC 17-50mm f2.8 lens, I find it very capable.

550d vs 7D
 

Roger S.

Thank you for your impressions on the 7D vs 550d. I was able to test the beta of the 7D and I figure that it should basically be the same as far as video goes with the 7D. It's nice of you validating that. I'm just now in the process of selling my 400d kit and the 55-250 IS with the bg-e3 to raise at least half the funds to get the 550d. :-)

Like you, I also plan to get the tamron 17-50 f2.8 di-2 VC. I already have the non-VC and it is very good optically. It is also smaller and cheaper compared to the 17-55 IS. I also have the 50 f1.4 usm, 70-200 f2.8L IS, 100 f2 usm. So as far as lenses go I am set. But I'll get the T2i with the 18-55 IS kit lens as it will be some time before I can afford the 17-50 VC, unless I sell the non-VC.

Let us know your other comments as on your camera as you use it.

So why wouldn't you sell the non-VC?

17-50 tamron
 

Fei Meng,

It's a sharp copy with no AF problems. Also partly sentimental reasons as I've used this lens for about 3 years with all sort of projects and it is rock solid. Hard to find something like it and the only weakness is lack of VC.

Also, if the photo-video with a prospective partner pushes through in the province, we are going to need a good lens for that branch. Might as well use the non-VC for those projects as fast lenses other than the kit is going to be needed. I'll keep the VC with me and the non-VC will go to the branch.

Fei and Mel,

Here's a take on the Tamron VC 17-50 (I have 2):

Pros: Very, very sharp. Great images. Focus reasonably fast in good light, has to hunt a while in marginal light. While not cheap, it's a bargain compared to Canon 17-55 and has a much more generous focus ring for video. Color is great. Bokeh is good, but not great.

Cons: Both copies exhibit a slightly sticky focus ring. When trying to make very small or slow focus adjustments the focus ring is a little jumpy. No problem for fast focus pulls.

The VC is effective, but quite noisy on the camera's built in audio (not very noticeable to the ear while shooting, so I think its the vibrations inside the camera and the tight proximity and mechanical connectedness of the mic). I haven't yet tried it with the Rode videomic, but I imagine it will greatly reduce or eliminate the noise.

The VC also turns off for stills, so every time you adjust the shutter button after being idle for more than a few seconds, the VC kicks in, the image "wobbles" for a fraction of a second, then all is good. This isn't even worth mentioning unless you are a pro photographer and have the skills to point, focus, and shoot your camera instictively in less than 1/2 a second. Sounds crazy, but a few cover pages are exactly that. I'm not there, so a 1/2 of a second wobble is worth $400 in my pocket. For video the VC runs constantly, so turn of camera between long pauses to save your battery.

If I made my living at this, I'd want to look at the Canon lens more carefully.

tamron 17-50 VC
 

Roger,

Thanks for posting your impression on the tamron 17-50 VC. Looks like a winner to me. I just have to note what you have written there about the limitations I have to work around with.

Thank you again!

Can anyone comment on how important IS is at 17-50? The non VC version of the lens is obviously cheaper but is the VC worth it for video?

Cheers

Fergus,

For tripod work, VC isn't needed and is even slightly negative. For hand held work, assuming you aren't using the internal camera mic, VC effectively helps take out the small shakes, especially on the long end. Heavier and more expensive but I've also heard the VC model has some slight improvements in Bokeh over the non-VC lens.