quick advice if possible

[Dan Wake]

Hello, I hope you can help me. I have some hours to decide. I have to choose between a Canon 7D used (10'000 photos) with 2 batteries, one third used party battery grip, 2 cf cards 16gb at 730 euros.... or a canon 600D new with 18-55 at 420 euros. 

 

I wish to know if it'is worth to spend 310 euros difference to take the 7D instead of the 600D. 

 

I need the camera to shoot videos like short films and maybe ("long films"), spots. for professional use. But I have not so much money. 

 

310 could be used to buy Arri lights for example.... I need lights to learn how to light.... (I'm studying).  I do not know what to choose.

 

I wish to know if 7D is sharper than 600D or are the same considering that (if I'm not wrong) they have the same sensor. 

I wish to know wich is the max clean Iso (with or without ML) for 7D and wich is for the canon 600D considering professional use.

 

The pro of the 600D is the 3x crop zoom that destroy -any aliasing-. Do the 7D have some similar implementation with ML?

 

 

With my budget I could buy (2 options).

 

 

Canon 600D + 18-55 + sd card, new

Sachtler ACE new

Arri lights (only one Fresnel 650w or 1000w).

 

or

 

Canon 7D used + 2 cf 16gb used + 2 batteries and one third used party battery grip

Sachtler ACE new

 

 

I wish to learn how to light.... for me this is important but maybe I do not need professional light equipment, maybe you can give mo some advice about it.

 

thanks!

 

 

edit.

 

please can you tell me wich is the max ISO usable for 7D (for professional use) and wich is for 600D? It's ok also the magic lantern ISO if it improves the image quality (I wish to install it).

[Andrew Reid]

Unless you really need the articulated screen on the 600D get the 7D.

 

Will you be shooting raw video? 7D is much better for that.

 

ISO performance is similar on both, maybe very slightly better on the 7D.

[Nikkor]

About the 3x zoom without aliasting, you can do that on the 7D but only in raw (maybe also h264 but can't guarantee that). It was 30fps only but maybe they already fixed that.

Personally I would go with the 7D, raw is amazing.

[Dan Wake]

About the 3x zoom without aliasting, you can do that on the 7D but only in raw (maybe also h264 but can't guarantee that). It was 30fps only but maybe they already fixed that.

Personally I would go with the 7D, raw is amazing.

 

I know that 7D is 1729x972 RAW. this is a sub hd output and I do not know if it useful for professional use.

but RAW have better detail than h264.do you believe that 1729x972 RAW upscaled to 1920 is better than a native 1920x(X valor) in h264 native? or the image is less sharper, blurred?

 

thx for help.

[Damphousse]

I know that 7D is 1729x972 RAW. this is a sub hd output and I do not know if it useful for professional use.

but RAW have better detail than h264.do you believe that 1729x972 RAW upscaled to 1920 is better than a native 1920x(X valor) in h264 native? or the image is less sharper, blurred?

 

thx for help.

 

RAW requires a ton of resources and a hacked camera.  You can do some amazing things in post with raw but the downside is if you want to shoot something quick and drop it into a timeline that is not possible.  I have a love hate relationship with raw.  I would not shoot anything lengthy on a deadline with raw.  Having said that for short clips it is great.  I use a 50D and shoot short clips at full HD.  The process on the 50D for full HD is very kludgy.

 

Search google for 7D raw clips and judge for yourself.

 

As fare as the stuff included with the 7D you will need speedy and big cards to record even high bitrate h264 videos.  A couple of slow 16 GB cards are fine for photography but won't be much use to you for high end video.  A battery grip is nice for time lapse but third party grips are dime a dozen.  I would just consider the deal as a 7D with 10,000 on the shutter.  Getting new high capacity speedy cards and and fresh batteries will probably be your priority.  And you will probably ditch the battery grip to make it less unweildly on a tripod or glidecam.  Although the battery grip would be useful for an extended time lapse.

 

The 3x zoom thing is handy on the 600D.  You could also get the 600D and a VAF-TXi filter to help eliminate moire.  If you haven't worked with these cameras before you may want to consider saving some dough and getting the 600D and the filter.  If I wasn't doing any raw I would get the 600D and a VAF filter instead of a 7D.  A 600D with a VAF-TXi filter shooting h264 is just more versatile than a 7D with no filter shooting raw.  With time and the right subject matter and more Magic Lantern development the 7D will stomp all over the 600D filter or no filter but the question is is it practical in your production environment.

[Julian]

I know that 7D is 1729x972 RAW. this is a sub hd output and I do not know if it useful for professional use.

but RAW have better detail than h264.do you believe that 1729x972 RAW upscaled to 1920 is better than a native 1920x(X valor) in h264 native? or the image is less sharper, blurred?

 

thx for help.

 

1920x1080p H264 is up-sampled by the camera... Raw is much more detailed and sharper, even with the 'lesser' resolution.

[Axel]

This is what I wanted to add too. As mpeg4 (H.264) VDSLR the 7D never was near FullHD. Not an unpleasant image, but very soft (many said muddy), and where not soft, quickly showing moire. Nevertheless, some great TV docs have been shot with the 7D, but other EOS DSLRs seem to be better for that.

[Dan Wake]

1920x1080p H264 is up-sampled by the camera... Raw is much more detailed and sharper, even with the 'lesser' resolution.

 

 

This is what I wanted to add too. As mpeg4 (H.264) VDSLR the 7D never was near FullHD. Not an unpleasant image, but very soft (many said muddy), and where not soft, quickly showing moire. Nevertheless, some great TV docs have been shot with the 7D, but other EOS DSLRs seem to be better for that.

 

 

1920x1080p H264 is up-sampled by the camera means that the "true resolution" is?

do you mean that h264 1920x1080p is sub HD but upscaled at 1920x1080p? I want not buy one of this cameras if this is true, can you explain it better? thanks.

 

thx

[Nikkor]

1920x1080p H264 is up-sampled by the camera means that the "true resolution" is?

do you mean that h264 1920x1080p is sub HD but upscaled at 1920x1080p? I want not buy one of this cameras if this is true, can you explain it better? thanks.

 

thx

That sounds ridiculous, you wanted to use h264, what quality were you expecting anyway?

 

Look at this list, there you can see the actual resolution of the sensor read outs https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AgQ2MOkAZTFHdFFIcFp1d0R5TzVPTVJXOEVyUndteGc#gid=5

 

until now it was pretty simple, everycamera that skips lines records it's full sensor x and y resolution divided by 3. That output is taken and upscaled to 1920x1080.

 

The only camera that does real full hd are the gh2 and gh3 (and I'm not really secure about that).

[Dan Wake]

I'm seriously going in the 7D direction (my indecision between buying 7D or 600D) but I wish to ask you first one last question please if it's possible. it's about moire and aliasing during RAW shooting on 7D (without cropping) are aliasing and moire the same that we can see with h.264 or are them worst? more ugly? 

 

for aliasing I mean those two effects:

 

 

and is that true that shooting with 5x zoom eliminate aliasing and moire for 7D RAW? 

 

how many gb heavy is 10 minutes videos in raw?

 

 

thanks. :)

[Nikkor]

You should really read through the thread at magic lantern to get the idea. In non crop mode, the aliasing and moire are as bad as in h264 or even worse because raw is a lot sharper, therfore more noticable. But you can fix it in many ways. You can avoid it by filming with lot of blurred backgrounds, buy an VAF filter for the 7D, or just deal with it in post (it works to some degree).

 

In crop mode there is no moire, but keep in mind crop mode has a 4x crop factor when compared to a full frame camera. (2.5x compared to aps-c canon)

 

Anyway, if it's your only camera I'd rather go and buy a gh2 which is cheap and works nicely, so you don't have to rely on magic lantern fixing issues. The moiré is never going away on the 7D, its a phisical limitation on the camera.

[Dan Wake]

You should really read through the thread at magic lantern to get the idea. In non crop mode, the aliasing and moire are as bad as in h264 or even worse because raw is a lot sharper, therfore more noticable. But you can fix it in many ways. You can avoid it by filming with lot of blurred backgrounds, buy an VAF filter for the 7D, or just deal with it in post (it works to some degree).

 

In crop mode there is no moire, but keep in mind crop mode has a 4x crop factor when compared to a full frame camera. (2.5x compared to aps-c canon)

 

 

thanks but sorry I have not understand what the meaning of the graph. 

 

about the VAF filter have it been already tested when shooting RAW? does it works for sure with this?

I know that in h.264 VAF works in 1920x1080 but it does not work in 1280x720. If I'm not wrong.

RAW shooting is not 1920x1080 so I wonder to know if it has already been tested by someone.

 

thanks for help

[jgharding]

Personally, I think if you want RAW in a Canon get the 5D MKiii cos that does it without all the caveats (aside from huge storage requirements). If H264 is fine the 600D and VAF filter is awesome. The 7D is an old camera with a shit screen, no crop video mode and so on so I'm not a fan of it.

 

If you're up for fooling around to get aliased raw or non-alisaed raw with a tiny sensor crop (kinda defeating the point of shooting with a large sensor slr in the first place) then go crazy with the 7D! Stick a VAF 7D in it and perhaps it's better though! But that's more expense...

 

You can do a lot without raw, remember 5Dii footage is still all over the place. Don't kill yourself for it ;)

[jgharding]

Though to be honest, looking at budget etc, and the fact you're only getting a kit lens, maybe the Sony RX100 is better for you than the rest.

[Dan Wake]

I do not see very well the Sony RX100 on the Sachtler ACE.... eheheh

[Dan Wake]

Personally, I think if you want RAW in a Canon get the 5D MKiii cos that does it without all the caveats (aside from huge storage requirements). If H264 is fine the 600D and VAF filter is awesome. The 7D is an old camera with a shit screen, no crop video mode and so on so I'm not a fan of it.

 

If you're up for fooling around to get aliased raw or non-alisaed raw with a tiny sensor crop (kinda defeating the point of shooting with a large sensor slr in the first place) then go crazy with the 7D! Stick a VAF 7D in it and perhaps it's better though! But that's more expense...

 

You can do a lot without raw, remember 5Dii footage is still all over the place. Don't kill yourself for it ;)

but the problem is that mine would be not a 5DII footage, it would be a 600D footage. Can I do a lot also with a 600D?

 

What I want to do?

I wish to learn about how to direct photography, using lights (read heads, arri, bouncing lights), I wish to direct shorts soon, and make spots. 

[Bioskop.Inc]

Remember that there is Tragic Lantern (a part of ML) for 600D, which gives you a higher bit rate for H264 & so more possibilities.

http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=6913.0

 

ML Raw is only really worth it on the 5D3, but for all other cameras, don't get fooled by this feature, it is nice but not very practical - actually its a huge headache!

H264 is still an ok codec & using it really is a challenge, but it also makes you learn loads of things about shooting.

 

If you're really worried about image quality get a secondhand GH2, apply the hack & you're set - it MFT, so a little bit smaller than the canon choices, but that mount means your choice of glass is enormous. 

 

Basically, if you're still learning then don't go splashing loads of cash about, as by the time you get good there will be better cameras to choose from - if & when you need to make the step up.

[Axel]

When you are just starting, lesson 1, let raw be lesson 101, second volume. You can start with just about every camera. If I lost my whole equipment in a fire and just had so much money, I'd be torn between those choices:

 

1. GH2, used (latest biddings in € on ebay), 500 €, with SLR magic 12mm and SLR 25mm, cheap tripod, cheap but well chosen shoulder rig, Tascam audio recorder or the like.

2. BlackMagic Pocket, new, 880 €, SLR magic 12mm (wait for other aproved lenses), cheap tripod, cheap but well chosen shoulder rig, Tascam audio recorder or the like.

 

and, if I was into photography in earnest:

3. 5D M2, used, with kit lens 24-105, ~1800 €, external EVF via HDMI, able to zoom in the 5D's output, peaking, that means Zacuto or this price class, ~800 €, Sachtler ACE, 550 €, relatively cheap, but VERY well chosen shoulder rig (let's say, 300 €). Tascam or the like.

 

Why not the ACE in any case? 

 

Because, I wrote this before, the main duty of a tripod is to stand motionless. Many tripods under 100 € will do with light cameras. Only if you wish to make very good, smooth pans, the fluid head needs to be of high quality. And still it's a craft only mastered by few, most pans have either the wrong speed or are unnessesary und uncinematic.

 

But why the ACE for the 5D then? Because it is relatively small and lightweight, yet built well enough to carry the 5D. You get heavy weight, low duty junk for ~150 €, but it's not worth the shipping costs. And besides this, the head allows for good pans.

[jgharding]

I do not see very well the Sony RX100 on the Sachtler ACE.... eheheh

 

Perhaps, but you don't pick the camera to suit the tripod, that's the wrong way round!

 

The stabilisation is so good in the RX100, you'll only need a handle screwed into the bottom ;)

[HurtinMinorKey]

Perhaps, but you don't pick the camera to suit the tripod, that's the wrong way round!

 

The stabilisation is so good in the RX100, you'll only need a handle screwed into the bottom ;)

 

Most people will use their tripod longer, especially if it's a good one.