With the 7D You Might Just Be Forced to Use Your Filmmaking
Saturday, September 5, 2009 at 11:05PM In my announcement day post I made an argument in favor of the new Canon 7D, a camera I haven’t even seen or used, and for which there is no Reverie video to erase all doubts about its capabilities. For balance, here’s the real quick case against the 7D.
I said of the 5D Mark II that “Buttons and features and resolution charts just had their asses handed to them by sex appeal.” In other words, the video that comes out of the 5D Mark II can be so emotionally stimulating that we forgive its rather egregious shortcomings.
The 7D has many, but not all of the same shortcomings as the 5D Mark II. And while an APS-C sensor is lovely for filmmaking, in that it is so similar to a Super 35 film frame, another way of looking at the 7D sensor is that it is an adequate size for filmmaking, where the 5D’s is excessive.
The 5D Mark II’s excessive sensor size allows excessive sex appeal (in the form of shallow DOF). Enough, for some, to outweigh its downsides.
The 7D’s about-right sensor size means that its shortcomings, such as rolling shutter, poor resolution, excessive compression, and video-as-afterthought features and ergonomics, will stand out much more than they have with the 5D.
You can’t drench your 7D shots in sultry shallow DOF delight quite as easily as you can with the 5D.
So you might actually have to start doing some filmmaking.
The 5D has prompted a ton of “beauty reels,” but not many narrative films. I’m guilty of this too, calling my first 5D short a “camera test” to let myself off the hook for not telling a story. Maybe the 7D, with its more conservative sensor size, will make it less tempting to create another seven-minute boke-porn reel (bokake?), and remind people that audiences want to know what happens next, not what’s going to be marvelously out of focus in the background next.
Reader Comments (31)
For me, the issue is whether Canon has made improvements with respect to moiré pattern and other aliasing and aritfacting issues. I've had some nice shots ruined by that. We saw on the grill of that truck in your sample shot on the blog, too.
I'm hoping that Philip will shoot some zone plates side by side with the 5D2, to see how much work Canon has put in to solving this issue.
A very excellent post. I went from a Sony EX1 to a Mark II. I found that while we still produced a lot of content (including narratives), it was hard to actually have any control over the shallow dof.
I can't wait to get my 7D :)
I look forward to proper frame rates in the 7D, especially 60p. And the lack of uber shallow DOF shouldn't be a hindrance to anyone. BTW, I think it's sad that you think a real film is one that tells a story. We need to fight this conflation of filmmaking and storytelling! Narrative filmmaking is just one type of kind of filmmaking.
Hey Tom, check out Rob's sample videos from the 7D (especially Reggae):
link, scroll way down
While the rolling shutter has definitely improved, the aliasing looks to be exactly the same as the 5D (and noticeable worse in 720p mode).
With the 7D, you can use fast FF35 primes like the 24 1.4, 35 1.4, 50 1.2, 85 1.2, etc, so I can't imagine that DOF is going to be an issue. It should be really nice.
Hi Stu,
I enjoyed Philips little shaving ditty (both on my 24: here at home and on projector at his F-Stop Academy class yesterday in Dublin). It didn't particularly lack shallow depth of field, but still, the 5DII would've been shallower.
Holding the 7D in hand, it feels really similar to the 5D. Putting it beside my own 5DII, they looked very similar in size. I suspect Philip might get to use this in anger tomorrow at his Urban Cinematography class. That said, using it with a Z-finder was a delight. Wish I could've snuck in a CF card!
Eugenia,
You've made some good points to support favorability of the 7D over the 5DmkII, but I don't think it was Stu's intent to make excuses for the 5DmkII.
Users shouldn't need to do that, that's the manufacturers job every time it's required they issue a firmware update.
Let's not forget the bottom line here, the 7D will likely solidify itself among indies to be the camera of choice, however the 5D used to wear this same crown too. And even though it's lost some of that momentum it once had with indie filmmakers. The 5DmkII still produces a unique picture (regardless of frame rate) that I don't think the 7D will be able to actually top.
Other than that, I just don't know how much longer 5DmkII owners can hold out asking for the 24p update. IMO, Canon's got an update, and they're simply charging $1700 for it.
Just a quick note, since Stu deleted my previous post. I will keep it to the point this time. The 7D uses more bitrate than the 5D (48 vs 40 mbps), it has less rolling shutter, and its video mode is less of an afterthought than it was in the 5D (since it has more frame rates). In my opinion, the 7D is an excellent purchase for the price.
Stu, you made, what I really thought was, a brilliant, to the point post.
GET BACK TO THE FILMMAKING.
Maybe I was wrong there, but while two cameras were mentioned, I saw nothing there that could even spark a debate between these two cameras. Again, I prefer to disagree with you, if only to keep from looking like a kiss ass, but again, you knocked it out of the park.
I found myself in the middle of a production meeting tonight, on a project someone wanted me to direct, where I was put face to face with someone that I then learned was to be my DP. It was then learned the only reason he was brought on was because he had a 5DII and the team putting the film together wanted to use that cam. After stating I would not make a film with the 5DII, and then arguing with the "DP" about the difference between 24p and 30 - he says there is no difference, I asked why they were so set on using that camera. The "producer" said "After seeing what that camera can do, all I know is that I want a lot of DOF. Period." I told him I'm out.
I wont waste a single second on a production where their single most important necessity is "a lot of DOF". And I'm only slightly annoyed he couldnt word that properly. I like shallow DOF as much as the next guy, but there are at least 99 more important things to worry about, and while 35mm adapters caused the masses to go retarded gaga over the need for shallow, the DSLRs are doing it even worse. And Philip's beautiful videos aren't helping any.
Filmmaking.
Shallow DOF is only a minor part of that, and it's a 100% expendable part.
I suspect the 7D will be a decent stopgap while waiting for the scarlet to come out. I do wish RED would give a thoughtful informative statement about it along with a release date. Jannard's original thread was deleted and I think I know why. But at around $1800 the 7D should be a good value. I expect to order one as soon as a few reports come back.
On the codec issue, I expect it to be fine for most shots but lacking a little for effects shots. I'm hoping the color space is decent, at least 4:4:2. I also figure I'll transcode to prores before editing.
It's bokeh! Haha!
Great post. I agree with u 100%!
It's not about the camera...it's what story or emotion u can evoke!
Call me a sceptic, but to my eye the 48kbps of the 7D looks worse than the 35kbps of the Sony EX1, so I would be cautious to put too much hope in "high bitrate" and "the superiority of the mp4 compression".
Well said Stu, the DOF fetish is becoming increasingly shallow to my opinion. Pretty pictures, sure, but let's not go overboard like HDR in photography.
LOL @ bokake :)
Brian: I enjoyed reading your story, thats a very unhealthy start to a project.
Well... While I agree on the fact that sometimes people can overuse the 5D's shallow DOF and replace storytelling with beautiful images, it's nice to know you can still do the same with the 7D. Of course you need a fast lens, but it's not like you're shooting with a 2/3" sensor, so it's still pretty easy to achieve:
http://philipbloom.co.uk/2009/09/04/my-first-short-shot-with-the-canon-7d-shaving-it-back/
Stu you have mentioned 16-35mm lens, which is very expensive, but that's only 25-56mm lens, I don't find it to be a big range. I really don't have time to be changing lenses + hanging around with a loose lens while I use another one, let's say on a stabilizer. Wouldn't you rather prefer canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS, that's 25-88mm respectively. And then also, tamron just announced 17-50 f/2.8 VC which is about 60% cheaper than the canon. Wouldn't be tamron 17-50 the best choice then for 7D. Is the canon 60% better then the tamron?
David: Every DP and every photographer on earth will have his own preference in lens kit. I suspect Stu was just suggesting a particular lens - ifg that lens doesnt meet your needs, simply choose another.
As for the Canon lens being 60% better than the Tamron or not, I have shot Canon DSLRs for a decade, using both expensive L glass as well as affordable Tamron glass. I'm sure the Canon glass is 200% better than the Tamron, not just 60% better. That means little, though, if you only have enough money for the Tamron.
Use what you NEED, WANT, or can AFFORD. Others will do the same. But there are always trade-offs to every choice.
Excellent post Stu. This is a commentary about storytelling, not about cameras. You're exactly right. There's a lot of DP's out there, but very few true storytellers. If you can tell a story you should be able to do it with your iPhone video capabilities, sure it might not be as pretty, but if the audience is affected by it - you've done your job as a filmmaker -much better than a guy with a 5D and a lot of blur with nothing to show for it.
"you might just be forced to use your filmmaking" Quote of the month! I really love hoy you've thrown down that gauntlet at the dvrebel collective, and many of us are actually willing to move the conversation from camera specs to the use of visual language and grammar itself.
Totally agree to your point of the 5D's Vistavision excess. Now instead of arguing I'l link to this post :)
Also this post will go down in history for the coinage of the word bokake. That was epic.
The reason why technological improvements hold the attention of filmmakers is that it is far easier to discuss the specs of latest cameras than dig into your soul to find good story material. It is just another form of escapism, I believe. DV is still good enough a format to make a feature length film if you have a solid story.
Just realised i posted a comment to the wrong post... My concern about codecs are surely misplased under this topic, and was meant for the first post about the 7D. Sorry about that.
a new oscar: best screenplay of an adapted bookeh
Great points for sure. Butcha know, it sure is fun to think that we're actually so mezmorized by the technical capabilities of these cameras that the f/1.2 "camera tests" are actually watchable, they're fun! They invoke a sense of wonder!
Watching these clips is like watching an old eddison kinetiscope reel, where the thing on screen was there just to show off the fact that the photo was MOVING, that was the whole point. In the same way, the vDSLRs have invoked an entirely new artform devoted just to showing off what the camera can do. That we're willing to watch the camera tests and be impressed by them proves a point, then, which is that we're just at the very beginning of what low cost, hyper-portable, low profile cinematic filmaking can be.
Very fun time to be a broke filmaker!
Now lets all go out and make some really good (looking) movies!
Hi Stu-
I hope my criticism of your well executed 5DMkII 'camera test' didn't upset you. You really are my hero.
Thanks for all the sharing of knowledge you have done. Amazing Grace, Stu. Amazing Grace.
Now. Let's talk story...
-Cy
David, I wanted to address your thoughtful comment about lens choices. For the 7D, especially for video, I'm sure the lenses you list are wonderful alternatives to the expensive 16–35. But when I'm shopping for 7D lenses, I'm also planning on using those lenses on my 5D Mark II for stills (and possibly some video as well). The full-frame, high res chip on the 5D2 really shows off any shortcomings of even the best lenses.
The Tamron is an APS-C-only lens. I'd be curious to compare the wide-end performance of the 17–55 against the 16-35 on the 5D Mark II. The 17-55 might just be a perfect walk-around lens for the 7D though — I'd love to try it.
Thank you Stu for your detail answer.
Great things to put into perspective before you buy!
On the same matter, I found this article:
http://techthoughts.org/2009/09/04/dslrvid/
Stelios Koukouvitakis,
filmmaker
Can anyone explain to me why the Canon 7D will enter the market with a price of $1699 on the U.S. and £1699 (british pounds) in the UK. It seems a huge difference in price since $1699 (US dollars) converts to £1050 (british pounds) approximately and not £1699.
It seems a bit cheeky from Canon to me.
>Can anyone explain to me why the Canon 7D will enter the market with a price of $1699 on the U.S. and £1699 (british pounds) in the UK. It seems a huge difference in price since $1699 (US dollars) converts to £1050 (british pounds) approximately and not £1699.
It seems a bit cheeky from Canon to me.<
It's called "The Market".
A great post on the pre-eminence of the story. I'd like to put forward a great short I saw on vimeo that was shot in the Phillipines on the 7d. The tech info is in the notes for the film.
http://vimeo.com/6487566
Its also a great demo of what the 7d can do.
http://vimeo.com/6487566