aeon

Thank you,

The Vulcan I used Final Cut Pro for the editing and color correction and MpegStreamclip for all the conversions.

Abrak the result you saw is really compressed and at 640x360 pixels, the master video is full hd and it has better colors and sharpness, and the 7d is the only camera that can shoot video I own right now, so no doubt I shot with that and that the master is much better than that.

For your question I don't own the 5d and gf1, I played a bit with the 5dmk2 and video features are better on 7d including an higher bitrate of video files, however I think you get very awesome results with 5dmk2 as well.

5d mk2 I think will work a bit better in low light conditions as I was in when I shot that video, but I am quite happy with the result as I didn't need very high ISO because I was working in the range of f1.8 to f5.6

As I like very much the film look I prefer to shoot at 24fps, and on the 5d mk2 till now is possible to shoot only 30fps (next month I think they will fix this with firmware update and 5d owners get 24 25 and 30 fps but not also 50 and 60 as in 7d). Anyway is possible to convert 30 to 24 but is longer process and results are good but not same as shooting at 24fps.

The 5d mk2 has also lower bit rate on video files, but it has the advantage of being full frame, that is not always an advantage for example with long lenses, as in a 7d you will get a more shallow "perceived" DOF with long focal lengths.

If you need extremely shallow DOF then 5d is the way to go, but I doubt you may need that for narrative film, is way too shallow, you will put your subjects in abstract worlds, that is more pleasant in still photography as you have your time to watch your photos, on film would be more disturbing.

With 7d I feel quite comfortable, of course you need to use fast lenses and open the aperture wider than you would do on a 5d mk2, but everything is I think a matter of how you want your shot to look like and you can find your way to achieve it.

The firmware update for the 5D2 has now been released.

I think the previous firmware update for 5dmk2 was to enable the camera to use manual functions in video mode (as the first release had firmware that allowed only automatic settings), but officially these days has been released the new firmware update and allow 5dmk2 users to shoot full hd at 24 25 and 30 fps, and other features as well especially for audio settings. If you are looking for slow motion video capture, then 7d or better 1dmk4 are the way to go. Another good point of using these last 2 cameras for pro video is because the hdmi output send full hd signal and can be recorded on external devices without being compressed by the h264 codec of the native quicktime file generated by the camera, on the 5dmk2 the hdmi signal drop down to 480p resolution while filming even with the new firmware update.

Thank you neverdie.

I never tried singh ray filters but it seems to happen even with that brand of nd filters, I did a quick search on google (key words: singh ray nd magenta cast) and there are many pages of forums describing the same problem when stacking dense nd filters together. The problem as I said before seems to be the sensibility of the camera sensor combined with the limitations of the filters to filter infrared colors.

I replaced the file with one at hd quality (720p) and playing full screen is much better: http://vimeo.com/9752113

for me happened that they try to sell protection filter when I asked for nd filter. I agree not many choices here and more expensive. I saw imported brands filters here for 1100 thb while in other asian countries I bought for 400 thb. About the Polarizer yes I carry it all the time and use in high light conditions.

thanks to you all

I just experienced something weird by adding more than 1 nd filter (particularly when adding the nd8) it seems there is a magenta color cast, but the filters if used one by one visibly they don't cast any color. I thought was the nd8 that wasn't so neutral but I was wrong. I did some research and the phenomena seems to be related only to digital cameras (on film this doesn't happen) and seems related to the nd filter that is unable to filter infrared colors together with the other colors of the spectrum, and also the infrared filter of the camera sensor, so the light is stopped down but more you stop down more the infrared color are prominent. Anyone has experienced this? how did you managed to work out this? White balance could help but is annoying to do everytime I add more filters.

I also add that 7d has a new auto focus system, built in wireless trigger/transmitter for external flash, dedicated button for video, face recognition focus for video (anyway a serious videographer won't use it).

Anyway I am curious to wait a next generation of 5d and maybe get it as well.

By the way I found something interesting about iso in 5d mark 2 but I suppose is something that happen on 7d as well, something strange with noise levels such as 640 iso is less noisier than 160 iso, of course photos has less dynamic range at higher iso, but... check it out: http://forums.canonphotogroup.com/showthread.php?t=2541

they are both great tools no doubt, but to judge on small resolution photos and without the same conditions/light/subject/setting/lenses I think is an impossible task. On many things 5d mk2 is better than 7d, in few things 7d is more advanced, there is no doubt on this point.

Does the 7d have an image stabilizer for the video?

it uses the IS from the lenses if it is enabled

What lens did you use?

Nothing fancy:

I used a 35mm f2.8 old nikon lenses with adapter (extremely cheap in the 2nd hand market but very sharp and quite fast) the good thing is also that is a lens created for manual focus and the gear is very good for that, then a 50mm f1.4, a 15mm f2.8 and a very cheap and light 55-250mm IS all from canon.

Thank you,

The Vulcan I used Final Cut Pro for the editing and color correction and MpegStreamclip for all the conversions.

Abrak the result you saw is really compressed and at 640x360 pixels, the master video is full hd and it has better colors and sharpness, and the 7d is the only camera that can shoot video I own right now, so no doubt I shot with that and that the master is much better than that.

For your question I don't own the 5d and gf1, I played a bit with the 5dmk2 and video features are better on 7d including an higher bitrate of video files, however I think you get very awesome results with 5dmk2 as well.

5d mk2 I think will work a bit better in low light conditions as I was in when I shot that video, but I am quite happy with the result as I didn't need very high ISO because I was working in the range of f1.8 to f5.6

As I like very much the film look I prefer to shoot at 24fps, and on the 5d mk2 till now is possible to shoot only 30fps (next month I think they will fix this with firmware update and 5d owners get 24 25 and 30 fps but not also 50 and 60 as in 7d). Anyway is possible to convert 30 to 24 but is longer process and results are good but not same as shooting at 24fps.

The 5d mk2 has also lower bit rate on video files, but it has the advantage of being full frame, that is not always an advantage for example with long lenses, as in a 7d you will get a more shallow "perceived" DOF with long focal lengths.

If you need extremely shallow DOF then 5d is the way to go, but I doubt you may need that for narrative film, is way too shallow, you will put your subjects in abstract worlds, that is more pleasant in still photography as you have your time to watch your photos, on film would be more disturbing.

With 7d I feel quite comfortable, of course you need to use fast lenses and open the aperture wider than you would do on a 5d mk2, but everything is I think a matter of how you want your shot to look like and you can find your way to achieve it.

Hi there here is a short I shot using a 7d during the last chinese new year festival in bangkok: http://vimeo.com/9752113 comments are more than welcomed.

Zoom lenses are very versatile and very useful in situations where you can't predict which focal length you may need or when you can't walk to go closer. I find zoom very useful in urban/street photography. Of course zoom lenses tend to be less fast, less sharp, and not all are able to maintain the same aperture on all the focal range. So they have some more limitations and some advantage. Personally I prefer zoom lenses that include only tele focal ranges, I found them very versatile lenses and with higher quality results in terms of sharpness (tend to have less aberrations compared to zoom that include wide to tele focal length). If your need is sharpness and/or shallow depth of field and/or low iso in low light then probably you need prime lenses.

it seems that nikon is coming with a misterious new product http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/01/mysteri...on-speculation/

I am curious now, I will take a look as I have a chance.

I never used a micro 4/3 but I would like to know how they behave in low light conditions, as being smaller sensor should be noisier, am I right?

For me if I have to carry more than one lenses I prefer dslr.

I don't own a micro 4/3 camera so I can't say a proper opinion, this is what I found as general information on wiki, that makes quite sense.

Advantages of Micro Four Thirds over DSLR cameras

Smaller and lighter cameras and lenses

Contrast detect autofocus can be more accurate than the phase detect systems usually employed in entry-level DSLRs

Shorter flange-focal distance means that practically all manual lenses can be adapted for use

Brighter electronic viewfinder in low light

Electronic viewfinder can provide real-time preview of exposure, white balance and tone

Absence of mirror eliminates "mirror slap" noise and vibration

Smaller sensor size allows for cheaper, smaller and lighter telephoto lenses

Shorter flange-focal distance allows for cheaper, smaller and lighter normal and wide lenses

Disadvantages of Micro Four Thirds compared to DSLRs

Fewer dedicated autofocus lenses available (so far)

Due to the absence of a mirror and prism mechanism, there is no ability to use a through-the-lens optical viewfinder. The electronic viewfinder or a separate optical viewfinder must be used instead.

Changing lenses can expose the sensor to dust, compared to DSLRs which have both a mirror and a closed shutter protecting the sensor (although all Micro Four Thirds cameras include an effective dust reduction system)

Image sensor located closer to lens mount and not protected by a mirror/shutter, thus more susceptible to accidental damage

Contrast detect autofocus is generally slower than the phase detect systems used in most DSLRs

Advantages of Micro Four Thirds over compact digital cameras

Greatly increased sensor size (5–9 times larger) allowing improved low light performance and greater dynamic range

Interchangeable lenses

Shallower depth of field possible (e.g. for portraits)

Disadvantages of Micro Four Thirds compared to compact digital cameras

Physical size (camera and lenses are both larger due to increased sensor size)

Extreme zoom lenses available on compacts (such as currently available 30× models) are not available on large sensor cameras due to physical size, cost, and practicality considerations

I use ND2 ND4 ND8 (respectively they reduce light by 1stop 2stop and 3stop) they are neutral color so they will not affect the white balance, but be careful to buy a good one, most of the shops here in thailand sells a chinese brand

I also have been pondering for quite some time about buying or not ND filters, the light is just too bright in Thailand.

Where did you buy them Aeon? In Thailand?

What brand would you recommend?

not much choice of filters in bangkok, the ones I bought here are from a french brand called cokin, they are ok and price is ok too, and I bought them at capa at fortune mall. Just avoid nd from tyan or thayn or similar chinese brand, they are cheap but tint everything very strongly. If you are looking for highend brands such as tiffen etc, I had no luck in bangkok, but if you can find please recommend me where.

Dude we answered at the same time

I use ND2 ND4 ND8 (respectively they reduce light by 1stop 2stop and 3stop) they are neutral color so they will not affect the white balance, but be careful to buy a good one, most of the shops here in thailand sells a chinese brand that has very cheap ND filters but they are not so neutral, meaning that unless you get rid of it through custom settings on the white balance, you will get that tint.

The polarizer stop down but of course it reduce some reflected lights, and this effect can be unwanted on some case, but if you use the circular polarizer you can "minimize" the effect by turning it 90 degrees, however I think it stop down just around 1 stop.

I heard there are filters combined such as ND+CPL together so you get much less light and get rid of polarized reflections, very nice for watery images.

The GND is the gradual neutral density (it comes also in different strength as ND), and it has a gradient from dark to transparent (top to bottom) normally used to stop down the sky. Soft or hard is the way the gradient is distributed over the surface of the filter, soft means bigger gradient, the hard one it tends to grade from dark to transparent just in the middle.

Hope it is helpful.

Give a thousand monkeys a typewriter and an infinite amount of time and they will reproduce the work of Shakespeare

to be or not to be, that is the station... station?!? dam_n monkeys!!

try canon 70-200 f2.8 (they sell 2 models with and without IS) if needed add a 2x tele converter.

I am another 7d user, but since I bought it (less than 2 months ago) I took very few photos with it, I was caught by the video feature.

now this is amazing at night, no only in bed

Unless you are the New York Times this is already how it works anyway except the part about paying the government a fee.

The two industries I work in online both have rampant photo stealing. Even if there is a watermark or something on it people just crop that out. Very difficult to prove that sort of thing. Again this is for small to medium sized websites and blogs - not huge corporations. They would be opening themselves up to too much liability doing that.

I know is something that happen, but that make the user a thieve and the author has rights to get compensation in the more optimistic case, if not damage. That law instead will make the user of the stolen photo, not at fault and he has the rights to use that photos for whatever he likes without permission from the author, and "if" the author discover this he can claim a small percentage of the fee to the government agency.

Let say someone does a negligent search and found a photo of my sister in a sexy dress (luckily I don't have one) and decide to use her face to promote an erotic website, I can claim only few dollars from the agency maybe less, and I can get sued by my sister for her own image damage. And both of us can't prohibit to use that image on the website. I hope there will be limitation of usage of recognizable people and properties.