DSLR vs "Straight" Camcorders

T

TomHS

Hello everyone,
I was hoping you could do me a big favour...
For my final year project at university I made a series of promotional videos using both Digital SLR's and HDV camcorders. In my report I need some secondary research... That's where you guys come in.

Basically all I need you to do is watch this video which shows the Canon 7D and the XHA1 in a series of test shots. Then pick which camera you felt performed best overall and why.

http://youtu.be/sI3KSEy6SKs

You'd be helping me out a lot and if there's anything I can do to return a favour I will!

Thanks!
Tom.
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
TomHS said:
Then pick which camera you felt performed best overall and why.
Click to expand...
It depends upon what subjects and environments you feel like you'll be shooting the most of.

The 7D clearly captures brighter image, especially in low light, but the shutter roll is horrible - but that single sample was at a shutter speed of 250.
The XHA1 captures terrible low light images but better high light images, the shutter roll is better, but who in their right mind wants to shoot anything at a shutter speed of 250? For the money spent on either camera get a ND filter and run that SS back down to 50 or 60 THEN perform a sensible test.

And again, for the money spent on either of these no one who knows what they're doing is going to use the on board mic - unless they're forced to, so that's not any determining factor for determining "best overall."


It depends upon what subjects and environments you feel like you'll be shooting the most of.


This comparison test is FUBAR.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
If you had experience shooting anything other than rivers and trees then you'd know that at 1/50 or 60 is still pretty blurry when shooting fast paced motion with these cameras. This is a test about the cameras performance with no added features (ND, external mics etc.) so... just no.
Thanks for being the first difficult person on all the forums I've posted this on.

PS. WHO USES THE WORD FUBAR?!
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Well, if you WANT choppy shots THAT'S how you get 'em!

So, then what are you going to shoot primarily?
Wrenchs and pliers. Two different tools for similar but different jobs.
What's good for one job isn't good for another, but either is good for some jobs.

I'm not being difficult.
The comparison provided is LIMITED. Better?
You never stated anything about "no added features" but who wouldn't know that to use these tools effectively...

Aw, forget it.


Best wishes with your very scientific performance test and promotional videos.

GS-BB-ELS1.jpg
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Actually Tom, most people do use a 180degree shutter when shooting for a cinematic/filmic image. so Ideally, if shooting 24fps, a shutter speed of 1/48 is ideal.

When you start using a faster shutter speed, for example 1/250, you end up with the look of the beach storming sequence in saving private ryan. Sure, it works for some things, but for most things, it's not ideal, it makes the image look much different.


That said, in this particular test video, with the settings used, the 7D performs better.

BTW: Plenty of people say fubar. ;)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
TomHS said:
If you had experience shooting anything other than rivers and trees then you'd know that at 1/50 or 60 is still pretty blurry when shooting fast paced motion with these cameras. This is a test about the cameras performance with no added features (ND, external mics etc.) so... just no.
Click to expand...

And if you had experience shooting anything other than camera tests you'd know what the industry standard shutter speed is - regardless of the on screen motion. Shooting "rivers and trees" may be common in forums focused on cameras and camera tests, but this isn't one of those forums - there's a lot more real-world filmmaking experience here. And in real world use, using standard shutter speeds, the dramatic difference in rolling shutter (that's shutter 'roll', not 'role', by the way) is rarely as apparent - specifically because the motion is blurry.

I shoot on a 5DmkII, but I used to have an XHA1. I kept it for nearly two years after I got the 5D - and used it twice in that time, in situations where I needed a second camera that could run unattended for live events. It's been more than two years now since I sold it and I haven't really missed it. It's a great camera, but for real-world use it's primary advantages over a DSLR are for things like recording events where long run times and automatic functionality might be necessary, or for sports where the rolling shutter may be a problem. That doesn't tend to be the type of thing people on indietalk are shooting though, so it's inevitable a lot of people around here are going to prefer the 7D in your test.

As for testing the camera's performance with no added features like external mics, again that has little bearing on real-world use. I can't remember a time I used the built in mics on the XHA1 other than for reference audio, even when shooting with an on-camera mic I'd use a higher-quality shotgun. Yes, the built-in mic is worse on the 7D, but neither is particularly well suited to any real-world production need.

Even from a pure camera test standpoint though your test is problematic, because in the low light test (normally considered a strength of DSLRS) you lock the 7D at f/5, then increase the ISO. On the XHA1 you don't report the gain setting, and you ramp the aperture down from f/22 to f/2. Why don't you test both of them at f/2, and simply ramp gain/ISO on each to show the difference in exposure and noise? At f/2 on the 7D you should be getting 8x as much light as you currently are, so I expect it would look dramatically different than it does in your current test.

Between that test, and the high shutter speeds in the motion tests, it looks like you're trying to minimize the 7D's advantages while emphasizing it's weaknesses - I don't know if that's your actual intent, but that's the way it comes off.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
The whole test is flawed:

Depth of Field test
This is an unfair test. You've told me what lenses the cameras have, but you don't tell me what focal length they're set on - you could be comparing the 7D at 250mm, and the XHA1 at 45mm. To really test this properly, you need to set both cameras at the same aperture, and at the same focal length. Realistically, the 7D would likely win anyway due to its large sensor, but I would not be surprised if you could achieve similar results on the XHA1 by zooming all the way in and opening the aperture all the way.

Portrait Test
Again, this is an unfair test. I actually think both cameras look very similar here, and if you'd opened the aperture more, or increased the gain on the XHA1 somewhat to get similar exposure, you would have a very similar image, especially if you graded them to look the same. There's not as apparent DOF in the closer portait shot on the A1, but that's to be expected. Overall, I think in a fairer test the image would be very similar.

Low light test
The low light test is where the 7D should shine. You compare them oddly though - why are you ramping the ISO on the 7D, but not ramping the gain on the XHA1? To my eye, the f/2 on the XHA1 is not dissimilar to ISO800 on the 7D. But, f/2 on the XHA1 would not be anything like what f/2 would look like on a 7D.

Indoor motion test
The XHA1 suffers here because it's not as light sensitive, but the image is pretty similar. Why the shutter change here?

Outdoor motion test
Why is your shutter speed 1/1000? Immediately, the rolling shutter on the 7D is apparent. It looks awful. There's nothing about the 7D image i can like, especially at 1/1000.
The XHA1 actually looks better here. It captures more detail in the road, and seemingly a somewhat sharper image. Its CCDs allow it to have no rolling shutter which looks 100x better.

Moire test
The 7D is also awful here. The XHA1 holds up a lot better, and overall gives a similar image, just with much less moire. Not sure why we've changed to 1/60 shutter for this one (instead of 1/50?)

Rolling Shutter test
Of course the 7D is going to lose out to a CCD camera.

Audio test
This seems like a pointless test to me, to be honest. I'd be much more interested to hear the same mic in each camera to hear the comparison between the preamps, rather than the difference in on-camera mics.

Realistically though, this seems to be a biased test with all but the rolling shutter tests designed to make the 7D look better than the XHA1. Tests like this are pointless, unless you're Canon and trying to prove that the 7D is better than the XHA1 (which Canon wouldn't do anyway, as the XHA1 is much more expensive).
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
Guys, all he's trying to do is get opinions for aforementioned "reports". I don't understand why you have to be so difficult. Ray, you especially. I've found on a number of threads you resort to outright hostility, or quick, unhelpful posts. I don't see whats so difficult about this. I mean, yes, please do help him conduct better tests, but at the same time we have no idea why he conducted the tests as he did. Sure, they're not totally scientific, or fair to either camera. I can understand you being frustrated from this standpoint. However, this is like the OP asking you to pick option A or B and you pick C and throw in an insult for good measure.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Artorius said:
Guys, all he's trying to do is get opinions for aforementioned "reports".
And I provided exactly that: My opinion. For his report. And that his "measuring tools/criteria" are flawed.

I don't understand why you have to be so difficult. Ray, you especially.
I sincerely don't understand where I'm being difficult.
Although we get a pointless soundtrack to distract us from the boredom (OMG! It's only five minutes long! Quit it with the soundtrack!) what we really need are A) longer review samples, B) better apples to apples comparisons, and C) a broader variety of conditions examples.
I fail to see how either considering what the OP DID provide for us to formulate our A-or-B opinion or considering what the OP DID NOT provide for us to formulate our A-or-B opinion is being difficult.

I've found on a number of threads you resort to outright hostility, or quick, unhelpful posts. I don't see whats so difficult about this.
The test samples provided are FUBAR.
The test isn't any good.

Is this the professional standard by which you would like to receive medical treatment by? For your family?
The standard law enforcement should apply to your community?
How about food inspections? "Which of these two pieces of meat is more safe to eat? A or B?"

IMO, what's NOT helpful is to let people go tr-la-la-ing about their lives with flawed evaluation criteria.
A REAL friend tells you you're AFU.
A REAL good guy tells you you're whack in the head.
A REAL peer tells you "Dude, you're looking at this the wrong way - and here's how... "

A CRAP friend SEES something wrong but doesn't want to upset you by telling you you're fly's undone and you've a fuzzball hanging off your eyelash.

I mean, yes, please do help him conduct better tests, but at the same time we have no idea why he conducted the tests as he did.
I did.
Agreed. No we don't.
But I've already seen this... evaluation standard perhaps many more times than you have. My advantage.

Sure, they're not totally scientific, or fair to either camera.
Bingo.
Or to himself.
Pointing out the Emperor has no clothes is how we DO help.

I can understand you being frustrated from this standpoint.
I'm not frustrated.
No sweat off my bal... back.

However, this is like the OP asking you to pick option A or B and you pick C and throw in an insult for good measure.
Re-read my OP's reply to the OP: The 7D is good for some things, the A1 for others, the test is FUBAR.
I didn't suggest using camera "C".
Click to expand...
I hope you, the OP, and others can see the differences between what has been suggested vs. what is actually there.

:cool:


Ray



Will Vincent said:
or for the lazy, framerate x 2, then slap a 1/ in front of the result.. :lol:
Click to expand...
Well... SURE!
Anyone can do THAT! :lol:
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
rayw said:
I hope you, the OP, and others can see the differences between what has been suggested vs. what is actually there.

:cool:


Ray
Click to expand...

Glad we came to an understanding. Surprised you actually took the time to come back and formulate a response. I never questioned your expertise, or lack thereof, just the way in which it was presented. Look, not trying to ruffle any feathers, just trying to understand why you came off as so hostile. Maybe it was just the word FUBAR. Or perhaps reading emotionless text caused me to project aggression onto it. I don't know. What I do know is I perceived your response to be more downright critical than constructive. If that was not your intention, I apologize.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I'll cop to being critical of the test, but not of the OP.
I made NO assessment of the OP.

One thing I'll always promote is for people in the creative biz to ALWAYS disassociate the person from the product.
Berate the product (if you must), but never the person.
TWO. DIFFERENT. THINGS.

Not every product I make is gilded marble, but I remain the same person as I am whether I made gold or goop today or any day, and I extend that same courtesy to everyone else.

The "test" was flawed.
Severely. Critically. It failed to perform it's given task. Like a rubber crutch or Boeing 787 Dreamliner lithium ion battery.
In the military (former USNavy, here) there's a specific term for such a product.
It's called... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FUBAR#FUBAR

The OP is a cool cat, as far as I'm concerned.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
TomHS said:
This is a test about the cameras performance with no added features (ND, external mics etc.) so... just no.
Click to expand...

What does that even mean? :huh:


PS. WHO USES THE WORD FUBAR?!
Click to expand...

I was gonna go with retarded, but fubar will do.

Your tests are inconsistent and meaningless, dude. Especially the jello-effect one.


I made a series of promotional videos using both Digital SLR's and HDV camcorders
Click to expand...

Is the rest of the series online? Only found this one, which is totally hung up on sensor size.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLZUIvwRdp4

You can get stunning imagery out of either camera, with proper attention to all those external factors that you'd rather not address. Heck, in that last link you could produce almost identical footage if you'd lit the actual test scenes properly in that initial "portrait" test.

Cameras can only do so much - everything that makes the image really look great happens outside of it, far away from that sensor.

Don't get bent out of shape that people are pointing out flaws in your test methodology. There is simply no "best", especially given the inconsistent settings.


You'd be helping me out a lot and if there's anything I can do to return a favour I will!
Click to expand...

You're welcome. :cool:
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
rayw said:
I'll cop to being critical of the test, but not of the OP.
I made NO assessment of the OP.

One thing I'll always promote is for people in the creative biz to ALWAYS disassociate the person from the product.
Berate the product (if you must), but never the person.
TWO. DIFFERENT. THINGS.

Not every product I make is gilded marble, but I remain the same person as I am whether I made gold or goop today or any day, and I extend that same courtesy to everyone else.

The "test" was flawed.
Severely. Critically. It failed to perform it's given task. Like a rubber crutch or Boeing 787 Dreamliner lithium ion battery.
In the military (former USNavy, here) there's a specific term for such a product.
It's called... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FUBAR#FUBAR

The OP is a cool cat, as far as I'm concerned.
Click to expand...

Sure. And I understand what FUBAR is. I myself come from a military family. Both parents, grandparents, uncles etc. Thanks for serving. Anyways, yes, the OP's tests were flawed. I did agree with that in my original post.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Zensteve said:
You can get stunning imagery out of either camera, with proper attention to all those external factors that you'd rather not address. Heck, in that last link you could produce almost identical footage if you'd lit the actual test scenes properly in that initial "portrait" test.

Cameras can only do so much - everything that makes the image really look great happens outside of it, far away from that sensor.
Click to expand...

At the risk of hijacking the thread, I recently saw a couple of shorts by an Oscar nominated DoP. This guy has a saying...

(With a comedy Italian accent...) "You can shoot with anything if you light properly. I could shoot a movie on a f:"{ing iPhone if the scene is lit properly."

I saw him get unbelievable visuals out of a 5D MkII. Absolutely incredible. Blown up to a big screen, I saw cinematic visuals and had to double take as I am just about beginning to understand how he achieved such stunning results. Frankly, I am ridiculously inconsistent in comparison and I realised what a world class camera operator is capable of.

Why I am posting this here is that when I consider any test, I also consider operator skill. if you gave me a Red Epic and gave him an iPhone, he would probably get a better shot!
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I agree with Artorius' original point. And I know I'll get dog piled on for this too, but the OP was simply asking people to watch the video he prepared and give their opinion of the camera based on his video. He wasn't asking for you to point out why and how his methodology was flawed or how to make the experiment better.

He clearly stated this was a report he was writing for a class, so it doesn't have to be a completely scientific experiment. He can make it as biased as he wants, as he only needs opinions of others to supplement what he's writing. I completely agree with the points being made, but those points are moot based on what the OP is trying to accomplish.

Why not just help in the way he's asking, or choose to not reply to the thread at all?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top