7D Mark II Video Tested By Gizmodo

[Northstar]

It's pretty obvious that the 7D2 is for fast action stills shooters first and foremost...not cinematographers.

With that said, this camera finally gives fast action still shooters the ability to capture video (that isn't constantly out of focus) using the dual pixel AF capabilities.

This camera is great for sport/action photographers that want to add some quality video to their coverage of a game/event....and this is all it's supposed to be. Go elsewhere if you're a dedicated video shooter.

And if they'd included, or especially added to the 3x digital video crop mode that's already in the 70D, it would have been even better for sports and wildlife videos.

The lack of it has me considering whether I want this camera for the speed and focusing or the 70D for its video features and WiFi (which I'd use for camera control).

3X crop mode would have been nice for sports..you're right.

 

[Ebrahim Saadawi]

What are you talking about? The 7D mk II took a significant leap in image quality over the 7D. It eliminated moire and aliasing, and has 1.5 to 2 stops increase in high-ISO performance.

It's now the leader in video image quality compared to the entire competition under 5000$ C100/FS100 league, markedly in low-light performance (D7100, K3, A6000).

The only aspect of the image that is not better than the competition is resolution. While it's similar to the D7100/A6000/K3/5D it is markedly worse than the GH4. If resolution is your main concern the GH4 is better at that specific aspect, yet the 7D mk II is much better in colours, lowlight performance, dynamic range, dof control (s35 vs m43s), AF, and many others.

The 7D mk II seems like a great videography camera only falling short of the competition in resolution, and while resolution is important, it's not everything.

 

[Tugela]

What are you talking about? The 7D mk II took a significant leap in image quality over the 7D. It eliminated moire and aliasing, and has 1.5 to 2 stops increase in high-ISO performance.

It's now the leader in video image quality compared to the entire competition under 5000$ C100/FS100 league, markedly in low-light performance (D7100, K3, A6000).

The only aspect of the image that is not better than the competition is resolution. While it's similar to the D7100/A6000/K3/5D it is markedly worse than the GH4. If resolution is your main concern the GH4 is better at that specific aspect, yet the 7D mk II is much better in colours, lowlight performance, dynamic range, dof control (s35 vs m43s), AF, and many others.

The 7D mk II seems like a great videography camera only falling short of the competition in resolution, and while resolution is important, it's not everything.

Compared to what? The original 7D?

I seriously doubt that anyone is going to buy the 7D2 as a serious hybrid video shooter over competing products. That is not to say that people won't use it for that purpose because they happen to have the camera, but these days no one who is informed is going to buy one if that application is part of their purchasing criteria. No one.

Perhaps people will be able to do a ML hack on it to get performance out if it that should have been included at stock. But relying on some nerd living in his mom's basement to write some hack to get reasonable video performance is one hell of a business plan for a camera that costs this much. I expect that functionality to already be in the camera when I buy it.

The fact that ML even exists and elicits so much interest in the enthusiast community should tell you something, a message Canon evidently is not getting.

 

[Lee Jay]

I seriously doubt that anyone is going to buy the 7D2 as a serious hybrid video shooter over competing products. That is not to say that people won't use it for that purpose because they happen to have the camera, but these days no one who is informed is going to buy one if that application is part of their purchasing criteria. No one.

Think so, huh?

Just had a pro videographer here for a paid shoot. He came from out-of state with tens of thousands of dollars in camera equipment, lights, props, etc. He was here for a full week shoot with, guess what? A 7D. He had, I'd say, 25-30 lenses for the 7D, not to mention tons and tons of video accessories for it (screens, recorders, rails, external batteries, etc.). He also uses 5Ds, but was using the 7D that week because the 5Ds were off at Canon.

I really can't envision a guy like that switching systems. Asked him, and he really had no interest whatsoever in even looking at other manufacturers.

 

[skp]

I want to speak up against the whole "go buy a camcorder" sentiment that I keep seeing popping up on here, but first a few caveats:

1) I started investing in Canon DSLR equipment primarily for video, but a side effect of that is that it has really led me to get way more into shooting stills.
2) I think the Canon 7D MkII is a great camera for it's obviously intended purpose: sports and wildlife. I'm seriously considering buying it as a stills body for wildlife.

The 7D mkII is also certainly an improvement in terms of video, but it's not what I was hoping for. That said, I'm not going to go buy a camcorder for video because I don't know if any of you noticed, but the 5DII video revolution didn't just impact photographers, it changed the market for video equipment under $10,000.

Right now my non-DSLR choices as a video shooter are as follows: cheap 1/4" single-sensor handycams that go for just a few hundred dollars, "prosumer" video cameras between $1500-$5000, and then from there I can go up into more professional 1/3" broadcast cameras or the newer digital cinema lines like Canon's Cinema EOS line.

The problem is that the "prosumer" segment of video cameras has kind of fallen apart since the introduction of DSLRs. Lately the trend has been toward putting consumer level AVCHD and 1/4" sensors into bigger more ergonomic bodies.

DSLRs filled in a nice middle option between handycams and professional broadcast equipment. I can't spend $10,000 on a complete system, but I don't want to settle for a Vixia camcorder (which I also own, and IMO has terrible optics).

Again, I'm not knocking the 7DII. I'll probably buy one, but I'm just worried about the signal it is sending that Canon doesn't seem to be interesting in making a product for that middle part of the market that they were originally responsible for completely upending with the 5DII.

BTW, on a different tangent, I also want to reiterate that I got into Canon DSLR gear as a video shooter, but I just recently bought a new 600EX RT flash and a trigger. If you're paying attention Canon, you definitely can money off us budget video shooters by keeping us from going to Sony.

 

[jrista]

What exactly are we supposed to see here? Or want to see? They all seem pretty identical, the only clue telling otherwise is the slight changes in perspective when switching out cameras. Is there something missing that a "videographer's camera" would have?

There is a lot more noise in the 7D II and 70D clips than the 5D III clips. The 7D II demonstrates less noise than the 70D until you get up into the much higher ISOs, probably thanks to DIGIC 6.

The easiest way to see the difference is look at the background behind the bottles...on the crop cameras, you can see artifacts and noise jumping around. On the FF camera, it's much cleaner, even at higher ISO.

 

[CarlMillerPhoto]

It's [7d mk II] now the leader in video image quality compared to the entire competition under 5000$ C100/FS100 league, markedly in low-light performance (D7100, K3, A6000).

Are you trolling?

The 7d mk II is at the BOTTOM compared to the competition, and it just came out. The 7d has mushy, detail-less footage like the rest of the Canon DSLRs. The A7s, GH4, A600, A5100, Black Magic Pocket Cam...they all destroy this brand new camera. Yes, it might have better ISO performance, but who cares when the image looks like crap anyway. And what about focus peaking, zebras, c-log, etc? They're all absent, and I'm so over depending on Magic Lantern to make Canon's viable for video.

Unless Canon has something up its sleeve for an affordable Cinema EOS cam, they're letting all their budget-minded filmmakers go to other brands. Tugela said it perfect:

It is possible that Canon think that maybe they can get people to buy two separate cameras, and therefore get revenue from that customer twice, but I doubt it is going to work if that is their plan. The people who want both functions want cameras that can do both, they don't want to carry two completely separate kits around with them. Professionals might, but consumers and prosumers generally will not. And since cameras such as the 5 and 7 series are marketed at the consumer/prosumers, Canon are basically shooting themselves in the foot and literally handing market share (for those who want both functions) over to competitors like Panasonic, Sony and Samsung. And make no mistake, those companies are going to use the opportunity to get their foot in the door, and once that foot is in, the rest of the body is sure to follow.

 

[CarlMillerPhoto]

Here is my take on Canon and their video DSLR.

If Canon want to do the smart thing they will bet some money on Cinema EOS line. Where I am from the C300 has been hugely popular among production companies and broadcasters.

The main reason I think is that it bridged gap between the DSLR and the large sensor camcorders. If you have worked with a ENG camera, you know how a camera should feel and work, if you want to an effective tool.
We want to use all our Canon glass with a large sensor, but the DSLR hassle can get tiredsome. The answer have been C300 for the most part.

If think Canon have a good chance to cement their position in this market if they make an effort with the Cinema EOS line.

On the other hand, if the 5d Mark IV is a complete game changer, it might turn out different, but I wouldn't get my hopes up just yet. .

The thing is, the market for video DSLRs and the market for the Cinema EOS cameras are not the same market. They never were. A dude may stretch his wallet to get a 5D to shoot some short films, but there was no way that guy was ever going to pony up $15 grand for a C300.

Literally all Canon had to do to own the micro budget marketplace was to take all of the existing components of a 5D and put them into a more video-centric ergonomic body, and throw in the Magic Lantern video features as software. That's it. That's what people have been begging Canon for these last four or five years. They didn't have to create new sensors or even 4k recording, any of that. But they never built it. Instead they came out with cameras that had most of those features but priced $10k above people's reach, so only actual production companies could afford it.

Now, even if Canon did come out with a Cinema 5D tomorrow, it would be too late. The tech has moved way beyond it, way beyond what even the Cinema EOS line is capable of, and for far less money. There isn't a single thing that the 5D or 7DII can do with video that isn't done better by somebody else, for the same price or less.

That's the bottom line.

This. +1