Do you honestly believe this? I own an EX1 and shoot it every week. In fact, I just shot it last night in a roller rink with maybe 30FC on the floor. Wanna see what it looks like?

720/30p (levels brought up in post):

Capital Punishment Practice Skate (uncut) By Perrone Ford On ExposureRoom

Same Location, previous day 720/24p (levels adjusted in post.. ignore jerkiness please):

Lowered lights indoor test By Perrone Ford On ExposureRoom


I am buying a T2i *JUST FOR THESE SITUATIONS* and let me tell you the EX1 isn't even in the same league. When I drop a 35mm F1.4 on that camera this will look like it's sunlit.

(by the way, these are both at gain +6 on the EX1 which is as high as I dare go)

In terms of resolution the XHA1 is so much sharper than the T2i. I even have L glass on the T2i and it doesn't hold up. I'm sorry. The resolution is not there. Now the T2i has very nice color, better dynamic range, awesome lowlight with fast lens, and beautiful DOF. The resolution again is not there compared to the XHA1 and sure not anywhere near the EX1. The videographer has no need for resolution or else he would not have sold his video camera.

Okay so just a thought here. If your outputing to DVD everything gets compressed to the same low bitrate. For me personally I would rather have more dynamic range with the illusion of a sharper image from the DSLR than highly compressed footage from a 3CCD camera.

hey, believe me, i'm with you in theory- that's why i bought this thing, because it seemed to potentially blow everyone away at a fraction of the price. But as to my experience, so far, yes, I believe that there's a reason why the sony's costs 9 times as much. I've cranked the gain on that thing all the way with barely any noise. I've shot in super high contrast daylight with deep shadows and found detail in both, beyond what I expected for a camera of that price. Now, these DSLR's have the advantage of lens swapping, so the potential for them to blow away the EX-1 is there, of course, since EX-1 is stuck with the lens that it has, and I am sure that this kit lens is half the problem... I just don't know if it's ALL the problem. Your footage doesn't look half bad, considering you're shooting really fast motion under horribly ugly low light. I would love to see the t2i in that same exact scenario- and I don't mean that as a taunt- I would honestly LOVE to see just how well it can perform in that scenario. I just dropped some big cash on this camera, lenses, and other accessories, so I WANT to believe. Believe me!

The only point to my posting is simply that I did not expect the kit lens to look as bad as it does- that's all. I expected everything that I'm hearing from people, but not to that extreme. If it really is simply a matter of what lens is on that thing... well, holy crap, that's an amazing thing to me, that a lens can make THAT much difference. I didn't expect much from the kit lens, but I expected a bit more than totally unusable crap! I might as well use a flipcam!

My friend with the 7D will be back from vacation in a few days. I'll try to shoot this exact same thing next Sunday with the 7D and we'll see how it goes. Only problem is that he has slow glass. F4 may be the best we can do with his glass. I'll have to see.

And what if you're required to deliver Blu-ray? If it's a DSLR shoot only then there is nothing to compare to. If you have a XHA1 in the mix you will see a difference immediately in sharpness. My only point is that if sharpness is the original posters complaint which it partly is, the answer is to get a real camcorder. If sharpness is not what you need these dslr's are incredible tools for the money.

Why, again, are we comparing a $799 camera body and kit lens (read: garbage) with a dedicated HD camcorder with fixed lens that costs 4X as much?

This just in: the Sony XDCAM series looks waaaaaay sharper than my Flip Mino HD.

Anyone who needs proof that the T2i can produce beautiful HD imagery either doesn't know what they're doing or isn't looking hard enough on Vimeo.

We're comparing so that we can understand better what, exactly, this $800 camera can and can't do. The original question was pretty simple- not "why does this not look as good as an EX-1" but "should these images look as bad as they do, given the settings and lens?" Given the right conditions, I can make your Flipcam look pretty impressive. So what? As explained, I've seen what the 5D can do, I've produced some beautiful, sharp (or "sharp-seeming-but-technically-not-actually-sharp") images with it, and I was a bit surprised that the t2i performed as poorly as it did, even taking into account all the factors. If the answer lies mostly in the kit lens, I'm fine with that. If the answer is that the camera, regardless of lens, performs poorly in low light, this I wasn't expecting (not to that degree anyway) and it would definitely give me pause. Obviously opinions on DSLR's run the gamut from "they suck" to "they're the second coming" but I don't see much point in arguing our tastes and biases- I was just looking for some objective feedback to better understand what it is I'm holding here.

Thanks to all who have done just that.

You've seen some good footage from it, but have you seen any good footage like the way you set up? no, nobody shooting book case like that with deep dof like you did and can make it looks good, the only way to make this scene looks good is shoot in from an angle and focus on only a few books or cd and blur out the rest by taking advantage of your shalow dof, you are comparing it biggest weakness to other smaller chip strongest feature, this camera is not for that, it is best use for shalow dof, strong point is good low light if you have fast lens, artisctic, cinematic is what it is best at, not video type shooting style.

That's a good post, Khoi. I view these cameras as a way to fill some gaps that my video cameras have, not to replace them completly.

I would be inclined to blame the kit lens, though I freely admit I've never even attached mine to the cam. Went straight for the 50mm 1.4 and the 24-70mm 2.8. And as I pointed out in another thread, a 7D film just won the jury prize at SXSW, probably the second biggest film festival in the nation. So depending on your needs (and your ability to control your shooting environment), the T2i/7D cams can be a workhorse even when your work goes to the big screen -- it's not just speculation anymore.

To answer the original question, and echoing other comments, the kit lens works "OK" in good light, but that's about it. I believe the stock 5D kit comes with a 24-105 f4, which would be an immediate advantage in light gathering and sharpness, which is probably part of what you saw. Going to even faster lenses would be even better. I think you will be more comfortable when you get your other lens in.

That said, I like what Pham mentions above. Would any camera produce better results in that setting/framing/look? Also, if you are trying to make comparisons, it would be better to see the same shots with the EX-1 or 5d to see what performance other cameras achieve that the T2i is not.

thanks koi and mando for your responses...then my real question...am i going to get less aliasing and a considerably sharper picture with a canon xha1 than any if canons dslrs. i am talking about a wide angle shot of mountains, ocean waves hitting the rocky coast at sunset, slight movement in panos? having sold the xha1, would one of the smaller canon vixia hf s1 do just as well with iQ? and skip the rebel?

To answer your question William I actually get aliasing in my footage with my XHA1 depending on what I shoot with it. Typically it only happens with siding on houses and not bricks. It's really weird. I don't see moire for the most part until down-converting as I do see it immediately with my T2i. So yes you will get less aliasing with the XHA1 and a sharper image than a Canon DSLR. If you're shooting scenery why not just do timelapses with the T2i? You can shoot jpeg and yield some very high quality sharp images to use as a timelapse. If full video is required and you have only the T2i/7D/5D just shoot with it. No one knows what is missing until you compare it to something else. If you are pretty set on the DSLR I say go ahead and pick one up. Grab some fast lens and start shooting. Just understand you maybe disappointed if the image is not a sharp as you may anticipate it to be. It has disappointed me, but I just work around it. Hope this helps.

Yeah no doubt my XH-A1 has more details and sharper than my 7D or T2i, and from the shot that you described it would be the right camera with sharper and almost undetectable aliasing, the newer consumver vixia should do just as good if not better than the XH-A1 especially outdoor when you have good light, from test review in the past I believe the A1 is around 900 lines and 7D is around 700 + aliasing/moire artifacts.