My two cents....

If you are a younger, low budget "video" guy , you're gonna get tried of the 7D real fast. If you're used to 16mm and 35mm motion picture film, you are gonna love the 7D. The middle ground is gray, depends on your innate abilities, client, and budget.

The unspoken dirty little secrete is that alot of video people (and still photographers) hate DOF and exposure and lens selection, etc. They secretly want auto-everything, all the time.

And so do I... if I get low-balled into some dogmeat production. Why screw around with DOF if your clients are blind and cheap?

It seems most Red owners usually end up buying a run 'n gun video camera.

lol i do agree tho, wisely said

Just don't ignore the aliasing issues that you will encounter with the current Canon DSLR's. Unless you can be sure that your backgrounds are going to be well out of focus aliasing will come and bite you. See the attached pixel for pixel frame grabs to see just how bad it can be. Not only is the aliasing all over the brickwork but its also visible in the bushes and grass in the full frame. T2i at the bottom, EX1 at the top.

The Canon DSLR's are IMHO specialist cameras for shallow DoF, artistic work, the EX is a good all-rounder.

Alister,

It's a shame that the EX1 doesn't capture the beautiful blue and red lines that were painted on those homes.

;) ;) ;)

its called anti aliasing....lol

Maybe I'll paint blue and red wavy lines on my house, just to freak out imaging experts. :)

ROFL!! -thanks for giving me my first crack up of the day!

I'm amazed that no one has come up with a replacement optical low pass filter for any of the Canons. For astronomy applications you can replace the Ir cut filter with one that let's through a broader spectrum. Until the aliasing is sorted out with a new optical LP filter the only types of shot these cams are suitable for is shallow DoF faces. Even the you see aliasing in hair, teeth and clothing. You can't fix it in post as the image is recorded full of moire. You could use some light diffusion in front of the lens to soften the image, but the amount needed will vary according to the focal length and aperture. What's neede is a behind the lens diffuser or LP filter.

What is the math behind this that instead of rendering thin lines of black over whit for instance into a mish mash of grey it introduces this bluey greeny rainbow pattern?
Its not just dslr cmos but other dedicated cmos consumer video cameras, like the sony hd1000 shoulder mounted camera?

Most of the people who own this camera don't share this sentiment.

Agreed, Brian. 85% of this video is from my 7D. Lot's of shots of bricks and straight lines.
YouTube - Downtown Longmont Event: Girls, Get your Spring On!

Is it perfect video? No. Is it a horrible mass of moire and aliasing. I don't think so. Even on the native files. Did the client complain about any image-quality issues? Not once. In fact, they loved it. And they were amazed I was able to grab all of that b-roll in a couple of afternoons. I don't think I could have done it with a big video cam. And I certainly would have attracted a LOT more attention shooting downtown.

i agree, the 7d is an amazing piece of hardware, and i love mine!

Alister does raise an interesting point: the feasibility of adding an OLPF. I didn't realize it's something you could conceivably jury rig to a 7D.

All camearas make compromises in design and functionality. The bottom line is, you can produce exceptional images with this funny little camera, images you simply can't produce with a camcorder.

I'll completely disagree with that. But I will agree that you can't create them with a camcorder at anywhere near the price of these cameras. Though there isn't a DSLR available at ANY price that can provide what a EX1 can out of it's SDI port.

So there ya go.

I agree
 

"Though there isn't a DSLR available at ANY price that can provide what a EX1 can out of it's SDI port. "

I totally agree with you on that. I just finished Episode 4 of the The Santa Fe TV Show.
EX-1 and 7D are now side-to-side almost in every shoot. I have learned to match quite well the look the 7D with the EX-1. The definition and flexibility of the Sony is still unmatched by any HDSLR, in my opinion. And the Sony can provide you with beautiful shallow DOF as well, just have to work differently. Again, 7D great creative tool, EX1, great all around camera, still unbeaten at that price range.

Carlo Zanella
The Santa Fe TV Show

You'd have to use a lens adapter on the EX1 to do the type of shots I'm talking about - which is so last year...

The EX1 is a great camera for the money, no doubt. The 7D can get great images, no doubt either.

I am not talking about an EX1, and I am not talking about using an adapter. There are numerous cameras with sensors the size of the 7D.

Perrone, half the people in this thread are talking about the EX1, I mentioned camcorders. There aren't numerous camcorders with a sensor the size of a 7D and you can't slap a Canon 85mm f1.2 or a Canon 45mm T/S lens on just any old camera - that's what I'm talking about...

Ahh yes, very true.

there are just certain things you can do with them as a team, having just one or the other is limiting, they each do their own...

having both on your set is a blessing....

my question is, what is the advantage of recording out of the hd sdi slot on the ex1? and how can i acheive that once i get an ex1?

also what about recording out of the hdmi on the ex1? if i am connecting the ex1 to a 12 ft hdmi cable to a monitor for the director to watch can i still see my lcd or viewfinder?

i wish there was a solution to this on the 7d....

Yeah, on the EX1 you can use one of those nanoflash gizmoids and get a high data rate 4.2.2 image. Great for keying. The Nano is about $4,000 I think.

The EX1 delivers an uncompressed HD signal out of the SDI port. If you're interested in the comparison of bit rates:

HDV = 25 Mbps
AVCHD = 17-24 Mbps
XDCamEX (EX1) = 35Mbps
SDI port = 1,500 Mbps.

It's a whole new world and it is SUPER clean.

The NanoFlash, made by Convergent Designs reads that high quality signal and allows you to record it at 50Mbps, 100Mbps, all the way to I believe 220 or 280Mbps. Much, much cleaner than recording it in the camera. The unit costs $2995.

There is no HDMI on the EX1. There is on the EX1r. This is also an uncompressed HD video signal. And you can connect an HDMI monitor, an HD-SDI recorder, and S-Video screen for the focus puller, and still see your LCD just fine. I believe the EX1r can drive 4 external displays or recorders while still giving you your LCD display.

an hdmi recorder would be the ideal quality way to record right? i am purchasing a ex1 really soon....so i was just wondering..

I don't think it would be because you'd be tethered. There has been talk of an hdmi recorder option, nothing on the radar yet however.

is there somewhere i can view a video sample of something recorded with the ex1 via the hd sdi port so i can see what it looks like?

I would guess there is probably not much to find online, since uncompressed 10-bit 1080p/24fps footage runs at 124MBps. Anything else would be recompressed anyway. But if you can find some SxS-recorded footage from an EX1 it will look nearly identical up until you heavily grade the footage, just imagine the same thing but with less chance of block artifacting, higher bit depth and more color resolution (you probably wont see the difference without viewing color channels separately or really pushing the image around or maybe pulling a chromakey). I would hardly call XDCAM EX footage from an EX1 not-clean, though.

I know the EX1 with external hd-sdi recording has been used for some major motion pictures for example public enemies where I understand it was used as a B-camera and was recorded to HDCAM SR. I'd be careful using that for evaluation of this recording method though since clearly it also had professional color grading etc.

I would probably say an external hd-sdi recorder is overkill unless you are shooting lots of greenscreens or lots of things that are really tough on your codec like snow storms or rippling water or if you have extra time and money you are dying to invest in more gear.

I'll disagree in one instance. And that is for broadcast. If you are trying to use the EX1(r) to meet HD Broadcast muster, then the external recorder becomes necessary in some instances. And honestly, for the $3k of the Nanoflash, if you're at this level of the game, it's a paltry sum to pay for the capability.

Yes it certainly does depend very much on the intended uses of the camera and on budget. Nanoflash is a steal for what it does if you need it, no question. I just assumed if the 7D was being talked about this was a professional but low budget circumstance, I didnt realize HDTV broadcast was the intended output in this case. In that case, an EX1 with nanoflash is probably a great alternative to a much more expensive broadcast camera, with a smaller size/price and more flexibility. However, compared to a 7D, an EX1 is already many times the price and a nanoflash by itself is an additional 2x the price of a 7D.

I don't know that broadcast is the target. But the OP mentioned weighing a 7D against an EX3. If an EX3 is in the budget, then and EX1 with Nano is going to be quite close as well and the capabilities, stunning.

All true from a pixel-peeping nerd's perspective (like myself), but from an artist's POV the EX1 is severely limited due to the lens.

The lens is the single most important component of any camera system, that's why the 7D and the 5D rock, despite their obvious failings.

"All true from a pixel-peeping nerd's perspective (like myself), but from an artist's POV the EX1 is severely limited due to the lens."

Sorry to disagree. Any camera is a system and a lens is just a part of that system. The same lens in front of a 35mm Arri, Red 1 or 7D, will produce totally different results.

EX1 has a very good sharp lens that will cover most of the shooting situations. Additional wide angle adapters are available. Furthermore, the original question was about 7D vs EX3 - not EX1. And EX3 is interchangeable lens, so...

Nanoflash is great if you intend to shoot a feature, but otherwise EX1 produces great images right out of the box (at 35mbps). Besides, when Canon finally comes out with it's 4:2:2 camera, Sony might just issue a firmware update to allow the EX cameras to shoot at 50mbps... (if Sony had any sense of humor, this is what they would do...)

Bottom line: as many have said, 7D and EX are very different tools. IMHO there's no doubt that EX is much more versatile and useful for the video. Figure out your needs or, if you can, just get the two.

There's no audio-out capability for headphones, though there is audio-in as a mic port. It's better to record to a second audio source and sync in post.

More generally, I own a HG20 and a 7D. The 7D is a pain in the butt to work with. If I don't have a lot of time to set-up the image and I don't have a lot of control with the environment, the HG20 produces the better picture. If I have time and control of the environment, the 7D produces the better picture.

Senad, if you are shooting with a 7D or 5D you are doing so to produce a certain look. That look is primarily governed by the size of the sensor and the characteristics of the lens being used.

The lens on the EX1, though very good for what it is designed for cannot do what lenses designed for the Canon system can do. There's a world of difference between having a good sharp lens that produces a nice clean image and being able to slap on an 800mm f/5.6 telephoto to shoot the moon, then swap it out for an 8mm fish-eye to shoot your buddy's contorted face.

Audiences don't care about data rate, but they do care about artistry and that's my point.

Also, your point that the same lens in front of an Arri, a RED1 or a 7D will produce different results is a misnomer. Film and RED will have more detail and more color depth, but optically they will look very similar. BTW, I shoot film, I shoot RED, I own an EX1 and a 7D. I agree with you that the EX1 is a great camera, more than good enough to accomplish what most people need.

do you feel that for the price the 7d is comparable to the red? also i own a 7d, and i am finishing the rig up, and i am purchasing a ex1r, do you think this will be a good set of cams to work with? i also looking at the ex3 but i dont think i can muster up another 2 grand extra...

what do you think?

If going the DSLR route, I recommend the T2i over the 7D for video (I have a 7D and T2i). For movies I find them essentially equal, none of the conveniences of the 7D are worth the extra $1,000 in my book. In fact, I'd say get two T2i's rather than a single 7D. The 7D is tougher, but you'll be more apt to "risk" the T2i for a great shot since you have less to lose. You also won't feel so bad when you upgrade to the inevitable better equipment coming down the pike in the next 18 months. Unless you are going to be shooting staged footage only, and can only get one camera, get the EX or another dedicated cam. The DSLR's have limitations that will be problematic if you are depending on them exclusively unless you are looking only at artistic work or static interviews, for instance. The DSLR route can give you phenomenal results if camera movement, focus, and aliasing can be controlled. Even as a hobbyist, I often choose an XHA1 over the 7D/T2i for many applications and the EX1/3 is considered by most a step up from the A1. If you can control around the limitations of the DSLR, say for a seated interview, a landscape, leaves changing, or a tripod shot of a train going by...., the 7D/T2i looks like a much more expensive camera and the look can be quite stunning. Add to this the DSLR's portability and their ability to take great still pictures, which are an important element in many of my video pieces as well.

So now I find myself with using 3 genres of cameras, a dedicated prosumer video camera for dynamic work, a DSLR for creative work, and a minicam in my pocket for fun. I'd be hesitant to rate any of the three "better" unless carefully defining the use. It's a great time to be a alive with so many powerful options!

You could achieve both of those with adaptors (2x and fisheye) on the EX1. In both of those instances, the advantage of a large sensor would be irrelevant. Obviously there is an optical advantage to using stills lenses vs the video lens plus adaptor, especially in the telephoto situation, but depending on what type of shooting you do, these may be considered exotic circumstances.

I am a little uncomfortable with the assertion that shallow depth of field=artistry, because many are taking it to an extreme these days and it has become the go-to visual cue to the point of distraction. Don't get me wrong, I'm investing heavily in DSLR technology as I like having the flexibility to use depth of field just as I always have shooting 35mm film, but I think a true artist is one who can make beautiful results with any gauge of media, which has everything to do with lighting, framing, camera movement (or lack thereof) etc. rather than control of focus.

Can't resist the grammatical cheap shot, but using the term "misnomer" in that sentence is itself something of a misnomer! You were debating an argument, not a label...

Liam, I think you clarified your original argument ("The lens is the single most important component of any camera system") to some degree in the subsequent post, but because it may cause some confusion, let's clarify it further: if one is championing the depth of field characteristic of one camera over another, the single defining factor of this will be the sensor size, not the lens itself. Mounting a 50mm still lens (via simple mating adaptor) onto a 1/3" camera will not produce a result significantly different than setting the stock zoom to 50mm, particularly in regards to field of view and depth of field. That same lens mounted on a large sensor camera like a 5D/7D will have the same depth of field but a much wider field of view.

While I enjoy the benefits of a large sensor camera, I do feel limited by some of the current issues with the DSLR's, such as the ability to ride the iris, the unpredictable rendition of skin tones, the limited overcrank rate and associated issues with shooting 720p which relate to the biggest one of all: the aliasing/moire issue, which can force one to have to modify a perfectly good shot. Talk about limiting one's artistry! Even though it has its limitations, the EX1 wins out in most if not all of these areas.

Charles, I wholeheartedly agree that a true artist will make any gauge of media work for them and I also agree skin tones suck on the 7D and there are many other failings.

Also, I'm not arguing the case for Shallow depth of field per se; indeed going through the rushes today of a shoot I did on Friday I really like the look produced by the Tokina 11-16mm - wide, sharp and crisp.

Don't get me wrong, there're plenty of reasons not to shoot on a DSLR, but it is worth noting the good points too. Like the wide availability of quality glass and the larger sensor allowing for a more pleasing perspective - and not having to use an adapter.

I agree shallow depth field is overdone these days and often used poorly or lazily, but I also know that when I have two minutes to light and frame an interview I can quickly achieve stunning results with a Canon 85mm f/1.2 and a window.

I'm getting my EX1 out of its bag less and less these days as I learn how to consistently get great results with the 7D. In fact, I doubt I'll be taking the EX1 on a shoot in Pakistan and Indonesia next month and will go with two 7Ds and a 5D instead - though I'm still debating if I'm mad or not. I guess you can decide that:)

What are you seeing in the skin tones? Is it a color balance issue? Too warm/cool/green/magenta? Or is it a noise reduction issue with a plastic feel? Is it better/worse in daylight/tungsten/fluorescent?

I have my own feeling about it, but I haven't seen much discussed and would like to hear about what others are seeing - especially if they have strong opinions about it.