"Cello" Short Film Shot With the Canon EOS 7D Mark II

[stein]

Touch screen

I bought a 100D for my 13 yrs daughter thinking it was a "toy" good enough, finding the video is a lot better than my 5DIII due to the touch screen. Watch the scene and put your finger to it and it shifts focus just in a sec.
This should have been a part of a new 7DII as well, or even better than the tiny 100D.
For us doing all on our own in field (video, sound, photos++) it could be a real help!
BUT no doubt 7DII is a great camera, it'll do the job for most of us.
Stein, Norway
http://tromsofoto.net

 

[Tugela]

Re: \

And btw, with respect to CR's OP, maybe Canon posted the video on Youtube on Oct 10, but in fact that particular video has been available on Youtube since mid September:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4s-QvnxpE0

For what it is worth, the resolution on that clip is not that great, so the 7D2 is going to have the same fuzziness that other Canon cameras have.

 

[Besisika]

Re: \

For what it is worth, the resolution on that clip is not that great, so the 7D2 is going to have the same fuzziness that other Canon cameras have.

If I understand, you are referring to all Canon cameras, right? Or if just some, please provide example. I just want to know.
I don't have good eyes in recognizing fuzziness.
I like my 1DX, so if it is as fuzzy as 1DX it will be a great camera for me. But I do understand, it is not for you.
Thanks,

 

[Tugela]

Re: \

For what it is worth, the resolution on that clip is not that great, so the 7D2 is going to have the same fuzziness that other Canon cameras have.

If I understand, you are referring to all Canon cameras, right? Or if just some, please provide example. I just want to know.
I don't have good eyes in recognizing fuzziness.
I like my 1DX, so if it is as fuzzy as 1DX it will be a great camera for me. But I do understand, it is not for you.
Thanks,

The effective resolution on Canon prosumer camcorders in HD mode is around 800 lines. The consumer/prosumer DSLRs are considerably lower than that, and that is true for all Canon consumer models up to the 70D. I don't know specifically what the effective resolution in professional level cameras such as the 1DX is, it might be higher for those. The output from the 7D2 does not look to different from that from the 70D, both are unduly soft compared to competitor cameras.

It does not have to be that way of course, Panasonic prosumer camcorders have been getting close to true HD for some time now, and the newer Sony cameras, such as the RX10/100 series, are pretty close to true HD as well. I have an RX100M3. It blows pretty much all consumer Canon cameras, no matter which one, out of the water in terms of quality within the confines of the lens attached to the camera.

When you are paying thousands of dollars for a modern premium camera that has video as one of its selling points, it had damned well better be achieving an effective resolution in the 1000 line range, because there is no reason why it should not other than the manufacturer using obsolete technology in the thing.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Re: \

When you are paying thousands of dollars for a modern premium camera that has video as one of its selling points, it had damned well better be achieving an effective resolution in the 1000 line range, because there is no reason why it should not other than the manufacturer using obsolete technology in the thing.

Magic Lantern RAW shows that they get pretty good res and a natural look off the sensor for video. Something goes wrong later on. Clean HDMI out to Ninja not looking crisp shows that it is not the video codec that ruins it.

Either:
1. DIGIC is very poor at image processing and produces a soft waxy look (not that they did not use DIGIC for Cxx line but a much older Canon DV chip from their camcorder line instead, so perhaps this is the reason?)

2. DIGIC is OK but marketing has them program it with very amateurish settings, low details, tons of DNR even at ISO100 especially in areas of shadow or low contrast

3. DIGIC is OK and they program it well, but marketing has them apply some Gaussian blur filter right before sending the result to the compression codec or to clean HDMI out

(there may be a trace of softness due to the read out method from the sensor, but it's nothing compared to later losses of detail and blobbing of noise)

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Re: \

It will be interesting to see what sort of video comes out of the new Canon RX100 clone. If it is not soft and waxy then it means DIGIC can do video well so long as marketing doesn't have the quality crippled or decides to use amateurish settings. If it is soft and waxy then it won't tell us much.

I mean it's (going back to Canon DSLR video now) not that bad and it looks better than most consumer camcorders used to deliver, but now, unless you shoot a 5D3 with ML RAW the details are a bit mushy feeling and the 'grain' not so natural. Using ML RAW it's quite a nice 1080p though.

Of the Canon DSLRs the 1DX is the only one that puts a bet better detail into things without using a hack.

 

[Besisika]

Re: \

The effective resolution on Canon prosumer camcorders in HD mode is around 800 lines. The consumer/prosumer DSLRs are considerably lower than that, and that is true for all Canon consumer models up to the 70D. I don't know specifically what the effective resolution in professional level cameras such as the 1DX is, it might be higher for those. The output from the 7D2 does not look to different from that from the 70D, both are unduly soft compared to competitor cameras.

Sounds good, thanks for the clarification.
I will rent one before buying if decide to go for it. My little nice wants one but I am hesitating as I haven't done much video on a crop sensor. She would use it in Africa so mainly day light.