Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Canon 7D looks quite Nice

I have the Zeiss ZF's 28/35/50 & 85 and they are just beautiful lenses. Even though I use EOS cams I got them for a letus adapter as well (manual iris), but they work fine with my Canon 40D with adapter ring. I'm planning on using them with a new 7D too. And they are poised to get on the front of a scarlet when it becomes available for shipping (when??? please be soon). What I've seen out of the 5DmkII and 7D with Zeiss primes absolutely stomps the piss out of my letus/HVX pain in the arse rig. 5D/7D Zeiss combo would be great for low budget commercials and music videos.
 
Roberto Lequeux said:
How do you think they would cut in with the Canon zooms?
Click to expand...

Good question. I haven't tried that. But I do see a difference in "feel" of the images between my Zeiss & Canon lenses. I will also be looking to intercut between Zeiss Primes and Canon zooms when I get the 7D. I'll be using the Canon 16-35 f2.8 L series. I'm hoping the L series glass and the Zeiss primes will cut together okay. I'll know as soon as I can get my 7D!
 
Very cool, nice kit! Too bad the 16-35 doesn't fit on the Red.

You could shoot a little test, and hopefully put it on Vimeo or something if you felt like helping us out (please). I am very interested in finding out how it would look ungraded.
 
This article was posted in another thread - it's called the "Good Enough Revolution"

http://www.wired.com/gadgets/miscellaneous/magazine/17-09/ff_goodenough?currentPage=1

I think this concept scales to what the 7D is offering rather well. There are these tricky points in every product market where benefits no longer have great value.

You have to wonder where something like the 7D and Scarlet fall along that line respectively. I think it's a totally fair product comparison because of the "Good Enough Revolution" concept. And Scarlet doesn't exist but the 7D is imminent.

RED is a product of the Good Enough Revolution. Many agree film is still superior but they look at RED and say "that's good enough!" - and it's cheaper and more convenient. 7D could have the same reaction going for it. It is recording a higher bitrate than a Sony EX1 and I'm not seeing much jello in the footage. Food for thought.
 
This is a bit misleading, you could say that about
anything; Mozart for example, was good enough.
But good enough for what? "Good enough" generally
suggests compromise, but what would have compelled
so many great filmmakers to shoot Digital if
compromise were the only thing it had to offer?
For sake of argument, let's say there is D7 " good enough"
and Scarlet "good enough"- worlds apart if we are
to trust the specs, and more compelling, the source. Time will tell.
 
Bill Anderson said:
but what would have compelled
so many great filmmakers to shoot Digital if
compromise were the only thing it had to offer?
Click to expand...

Well, right. People decided pure image quality wasn't as important as shooting quickly, shooting multiple cameras, smaller form factors, easier post, less expensive etc.

So that's why I don't think pure image quality wins as an argument at almost any price point even when arguing about Scarlet or EPIC vs. ARRI. The image quality has to reach a certain threshold (which each buyer decides for themselves on). Beyond that someone may say, "I'd sacrifice a little image quality if I can buy 2 cameras for the price of one and shoot multiple angles."

Some people around here are sold on full frame. Other on high data rates. Others on the codec. I suspect a lot of people want good enough for as inexpensively as they can get it. Might be the 7D. Might be Scarlet. I'm unsure... but they definitely are competing for the same dollar.
 
But don't delude yourself into thinking that D7 "good enough"
will compete with Scarlet "good enough" if what you really
require is Scarlet. And that is what is going on for the most part:
Choosing gear to suit one's budget is nothing new- but the "good
enough" claim does nothing to alleviate making informed decisions
if one's budget/needs do include the added quality of a Scarlet or an Epic.
However, good enough is way too nebulous a term to be
considered by anyone but the individual. How would you define good enough?
Where is the cutoff point between good enough and crap?
 
Bill Anderson said:
This is a bit misleading, you could say that about
anything; Mozart for example, was good enough.
But good enough for what? "Good enough" generally
suggests compromise, but what would have compelled
so many great filmmakers to shoot Digital if
compromise were the only thing it had to offer?
For sake of argument, let's say there is D7 " good enough"
and Scarlet "good enough"- worlds apart if we are
to trust the specs, and more compelling, the source. Time will tell.
Click to expand...

For me its "good enough" if it can support itself in the market place. If its not deemed, "good enough" by enough people to justify its cost to the producers, it won't exist for long. If it sticks around, then it's apparently, "good enough."

Very much agree with the previous poster that I'm totally willing to sacrifice sheer firepower of image quality for compositional freedom. If I was forced to shoot with either a Red One camera or a Canon 7D for a simple narrative piece for the web, using a light camera like the 7D would mean that I can actually afford a merlin for it and create camera movements I wouldn't be able to do with a Red One because it weighs ten pounds and would require a full steadicam suit I wouldn't be able to afford.
 
Joe G. said:
You can try orienting the polarizer horizontally or vertically, to see the effect.
Click to expand...

It only makes the aliasing worse, not better. (The OLPF in Canon cameras is a sandwich of 3 polarizing filters, one linear for the vertical direction, the second to convert to circular, then a third linear for the horizontal direction.)
 
And it's surely one of the more important "IF's" that all of us, as "filmmakers, will have to consider when making equipment choices.
 
First it's a revolution, next it'll be called a renaissance.
Good enough is the new standard. The universal yardstick.
The more shoddy the good enough, the more double-plus
good it will be. Good enough made millions for X,
it is bound to do the same for you.
Why pay more for more when you can pay less for less?
We've had enough of the good, it's the good enough that we want.
And by god we're going to get it. Run her up the flag pole lads,
wait till the breeze of indifference blows up her skirt,
then you'll see what we're talking about. ((((( :
 
The fact that we're even debating over 1080P at such a high bitrate not being good enough to something else shows that we're truly in a new era.

10 years ago, there wouldn't have even been a debate because none of these tools even existed. Heck, 5 years ago, heck, 3.

We've come a long long way in just a few short years, think of where we'll be in a few more.
 
Wesley Scoggins said:
The fact that we're even debating over 1080P at such a high bitrate not being good enough to something else shows that we're truly in a new era.

10 years ago, there wouldn't have even been a debate because none of these tools even existed. Heck, 5 years ago, heck, 3.
Click to expand...

The artifacts in the 7D are worse than cameras from 5 years ago, and the alias-free resolution is barely up to the level of SD, if that.
 
Bill Anderson said:
But don't delude yourself into thinking that D7 "good enough"
will compete with Scarlet "good enough" if what you really
require is Scarlet. And that is what is going on for the most part:
Choosing gear to suit one's budget is nothing new- but the "good
enough" claim does nothing to alleviate making informed decisions
if one's budget/needs do include the added quality of a Scarlet or an Epic.
However, good enough is way too nebulous a term to be
considered by anyone but the individual. How would you define good enough?
Where is the cutoff point between good enough and crap?
Click to expand...

When I was but a rookie shooter ( still not movies) I thought I knew the answer to the what is the cut off. The answer was it depends on the delivery platform and channel. But with time I discovered that there is no hard and fast rule.
I've shot with consumer caliber gear and still produced results that rival the cream of the crop- not for absolute image quality (ie resolution, color gamut)
but for TOTAL PRODUCTION VALUE.
A lot of people in search of resolution and color depth nirvana, seems to miss that point.
My definition of good enough is:
"If the majority of the target audience, failed to notice the shortcomings of your image quality or cinematographic nuances because they were so distracted and awed by the total production value of your piece, you've succeeded in fulfilling the "good enough" to pass requirement" with respect to those relatively minor shorcomings. There are some heuristics though. Audio. Audio is king. Get the sound portion of your program into stratospheric quality levels and a D7 or even my cellphone will FEEL as good as Scarlet footage with a mediocre audio track.
 
Daniel Browning said:
The artifacts in the 7D are worse than cameras from 5 years ago, and the alias-free resolution is barely up to the level of SD, if that.
Click to expand...

Ok... Don't use a 7D. Go shoot a feature, assuming it's a cinematic style, on a DVX, HVX, XH-A1. It will look like s**t.

Film looks like "a movie", Red looks like "a movie", 7D looks like "a movie". If you are trying to make a feature these are all good enough. If you're trying to make something like 300, 7D probably isn't good enough. For a cinematic-looking film, even a low-bit rate 35mm format camera, stomps the piss out of a small chip camera, even if it's a RAW 1/3". Sub 2/3" chips look like garbage for anything other than interviews or docs. 7D, RED, Scarlet, all good enough for features, audiences don't care about artifacts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top