# Upgrade from 7D



## rockyduderino (Apr 19, 2015)

Hello!

I've been working on a project where I shoot video at 50 fps, mainly at dawn and dusk, for a while. I've now more or less decided that my 7D have too many downsides and would like to shoot the last third of the project with a better camera. I want better picture quality (1080 at 50/60 fps will give this?), better low light capability and want to get rid of the aliasing / moire.

How much is the 7D Mark II improved from 7D in the areas that I need improvement? I've been reading some reviews etc but it's quite hard to get a good overview. I've heard a lot of good things about the Sony A7 and the Panasonic GH4, how do they compare to the 7D Mark II in the areas that matter for my project?

Thanks a lot

Ingemar


----------



## Tinky (Apr 20, 2015)

All of the cameras you mention have their caveats.

I would either buy a c100 mk1 at a knockdown price, or I would rent a c100 or c300 for the remainder of your project.

The moire issue is down to pixel size and sampling. The best way to combat it is to use larger pixels and less of them. Although every camera has it's magic pitch. 

If you don't need the shallow depth of field look I would also consider one of the XF cameras. Even the cheapie xf100 xf105 are ok for certain kinds of work. Although I would filter ND using screw ins and disable the cameras built-in nds...


----------



## rockyduderino (Apr 22, 2015)

Hey!

Thanks a lot for your input.

I would rent if I could, it's just that I have to bring the camera on long journeys so it wouldn't make sense.

I think the c100 would be a very good choice, it's just a little too expensive since it would be only for this project and I already went beyond the budget.

Does the 7d Mark II still have the aliasing?


----------



## Marsu42 (Apr 22, 2015)

Tinky said:


> The moire issue is down to pixel size and sampling.





rockyduderino said:


> Does the 7d Mark II still have the aliasing?



This should be fixed on the 7d2 as well as on the 5d3 as they use pixel binning and/or a way better algorithm than moiré-ridden cams like the 6d.

Still, I'd be very, very hesitant to get a high-fps, sealed & sturdy wildlife/sports crop body like the 7d2 for video, at this price level there have to be no ends of better choices - either old (like 5d2 with Magic Lantern), newer dedicated video products or non-Canon dslrs having neither moiré nor the price tag of the 7d2.


----------



## Tinky (Apr 22, 2015)

5D2 wont solve the fps issue. I can't think of any reason why a higher fps would give you better low light, if anything the opposite is true as the exposure time is necessarily at least halved.

The 5D2 will give you better results at ISO 800+ but it also runs out of steam quite quickly compared to newer cameras in this regard (would you be better buying wider aperture lenses? f1.4s?)

A 5D2 will at least use the cards and batteries you've already invested in.

Maybe if you could be more specific about the problems you are having.

In picture style settings you can turn the sharpness down on the 7D, which can help with the moire.


----------



## rockyduderino (Apr 23, 2015)

Thanks both a lot for trying to help!

From what I've heard, read and watched the last days I'm also starting to suspect that neither 7D or 5D will do much of a difference. Even though it's annoying to have to change my accessories as well.

How much difference will a 1.4 instead of 2.8 do?

I shoot with flat settings already!
Is it partly those that make the picture kinda soft? How can I quickly check this in Premiere, just turn the sharpness up?

I shoot landscapes so a big problem is the sawtooth pattern that often appear on the horizon. 
And always quite a lot of noise, even at ISO 160.

Thanks again


----------



## Marsu42 (Apr 23, 2015)

rockyduderino said:


> How much difference will a 1.4 instead of 2.8 do?



Well, kind of double the light intake (roughly, since the 1.4 probably has less t-stop) but much more out of focus 



rockyduderino said:


> I shoot landscapes so a big problem is the sawtooth pattern that often appear on the horizon.
> And always quite a lot of noise, even at ISO 160.



Shooting with a high-res dslr exclusively is not the most clever thing to do (unless you dual-use it for stills), the whole system is built for photography and they've added video starting with the 5d2 because it's basically free. Better look at dedicated video cams that have lower resolution, but more fps and less moire, at least my 2ct.


----------



## Tugela (Apr 23, 2015)

Marsu42 said:


> rockyduderino said:
> 
> 
> > How much difference will a 1.4 instead of 2.8 do?
> ...



As long as the camera does a full sensor read and doesn't line skip, the resolution of the sensor is irrelevant. Ideally you want sensor resolution quite a bit higher than the nominal resolution of the footage you are shooting due to the loss of resolution during debeyering.

The video orientated MILCs from Sony, Panasonic and Samsung do full sensor reads. Any modern DSLR at a minimum SHOULD be capable of this and shooting HD video without significant issues unless the manufacturer is using obsolete tech (as Canon tends to do).

A current high end camera should be expected to be capable of producing moire free HD at effective resolutions of ~1000 lines. If your new camera cannot do this, the manufacturer is short changing you.


----------



## Tinky (Apr 23, 2015)

In your edit workflow make sure everything is set to progressive at every stage, if aliasing occurs then a .5 guassian blur can go a long way to ironing it out without making the footage soft.

As with stills, don't obsessively pixel peep or you'll never be happy with any camera.

If you are having particular issue I would look at any filtration, ditch a polariser for a ND.. don't use faders.


----------



## rockyduderino (Apr 24, 2015)

Thanks again for discussing this. A lot.

I wish I did more research before I started shooting for this project but I got advice from a friend and it wasn't that serious in the beginning. I've just been shooting and and I didn't really realize the problems until now.

I'm hoping I will be able to edit some problems out, yeah. I thought that blur could maybe help but since I'm a real noob at post I haven't tried this out yet. Which software would you use for this, so I can try it out.

I really feel like a new DSLR should be enough for me, I'm looking towards Sony A7s now. Either that or a c100. It's just that I've already gone beyond the budget..


----------



## Tinky (Apr 24, 2015)

Both Premiere and Final Cut will allow to apply a gaussian blur at the edit stage.

N.b. The difference between f2.8 and f1.4 is actually quadruple the exposure, not double as stated erlier in the thread. 

You probably wouldn't want to shoot wide open but thats true of most lenses, so it becomes more a working choice between f2 and f4, which is still a two stop difference.


----------



## crazyrunner33 (Apr 24, 2015)

rockyduderino said:


> (snip)
> 
> I really feel like a new DSLR should be enough for me, I'm looking towards Sony A7s now. Either that or a c100. It's just that I've already gone beyond the budget..



I use the C100 sometimes as a B camera to the 5D Mark III with ML RAW, I tend to think of it as a news or ENG camera rather than a "cinema" camera. The viewfinder on it is terrible and the codec used in it feels like it belongs in 2008. If you're looking for a camera that will give you a super quick turnaround with professional audio, it's not bad. But if you're looking to upgrade your camera already, then the A7s will create a much better image and will not become obsolete as fast. However, the A7s does require a nice external recorder to take advantage of the 4K image.

I recommend the GH4 if you need something that'll work right now since it can shoot an okay looking 4K image in camera since the A7s only shoots 1080 in camera with a bit of aliasing. Another great choice would be the Samsung NX1, it has a phenomenal APS-C sensor on it and shoots beautiful 4K in camera. However, the H.265 is difficult to edit with at this time.


----------



## Tinky (Apr 24, 2015)

The a7s has a really horrible form factor, even by DSLR standards. Doesn't take EF lenses natively. Loses the portability advantage when you add your recorder and audio interface and screen...

I would take a c100 over an a7s, even with all the gubbins, any day of the week.


----------



## rockyduderino (Apr 26, 2015)

Cool, thanks, will experiment a little with gaussian blur.

I don't understand how one f-step can quadruple the light when the picture gets just a little lighter when you do the step on the camera? But then again I'm not very smart.

Wish I could just borrow both the a7 / a7s and canon c100 to do some test.
Will try to find a way to decide which one, if any of them are worth the price, will give me the most of what I need.

I'm a bit nervous that the pictures will be "too good" to combine with the pictures from my D7. Since I've already shot for this project with my D7 for two years I have to use those..

Thanks again


----------



## Tinky (Apr 26, 2015)

rockyduderino said:


> Cool, thanks, will experiment a little with gaussian blur.
> 
> I don't understand how one f-step can quadruple the light when the picture gets just a little lighter when you do the step on the camera?



F-st*o*p. f1.4 to f2.8 is actually 2 stops. You are halving or doubling the area of the (assumed circular) iris each stop. So two stops is a quarter or quadrupling.

Areas are measured as squared, which is where it can trip folks up, if they are thinking in linear terms.

On a lot of cameras these days you see an exposure compensated video display, and as all canon EOS cameras have full aperture non-stop down metering, you won't see a difference through the viewfinder unless you use the stop-down preview button, or are using adapted manual lenses, or those by the likes of Samyang.


----------



## rockyduderino (Apr 28, 2015)

I meant that it's one step on the knob on my camera. I think I understand but yeah, I'm tripping, that's for sure. Not just by this, but by ALL the technical stuff. I was naive enough that I wouldn't have to get into that and just shoot as I got instructions from a friend before I started. I didn't understand that the instructions were more like opinions and however are not relevant anymore because of the technical evolution.

Now I'm looking at completing this 4 year project with my shit camera or shooting pictures that will make what I have done so far look if not mediocre, at least very different.

How do you think the picture style of C100 would compare with the D7 that I've shot with?
Better than A7s I assume?

Also, any other tips on handling aliasing in post, like jagged horizons, mountain crests, sand dune crests?
I tried a bit with gaussian blur but it blurs the whole picture too much. Or is there a way to apply blur only in parts of the picture, kind of a like vignette of blur or something?

Thanks so much for the input! For real.


----------



## Tinky (Apr 28, 2015)

The c100 has bigger photosites and less noise per iso.

I wouldn't get too hung up on this. Shoot the new footage the best you can, not trying to match an older inferior camera.. you can add things like guassian mono noise in post if you feel it needs it.

Do keep everything progressive though... the c100 has interlaced modes. Interlaced mixed with progressive has the potential to jar, with combing effects etc.

If you want to isolate an area then duplicate the video layer, do the blur on the upper layer and garbage matte out the bits you don't want.

If you aren't getting on too well with blur then try the marvels plug-in.

Also, as with pics. Use a real world viewing environment.. no pixel peeping. Things can look terrible on a monitor which look great on a conventional tv.


----------



## rockyduderino (May 5, 2015)

Thanks for your input, it means a lot!

Yeah I'm at a big crossroads. I'm choosing between 

- buying a D7 Mark II anyway which would be a compromise to finish the project with a camera that is not too different (lenses / picture profiles etc) but still (considerably?) better regarding aliasing and noise. And then sell it when the project is finished early next year.
- doing what you suggest and just shoot the rest with a new camera, most probably a sony a7s. Though I'm a bit scared that I won't like the style of the good quality of the new cameras, especially not next to my material from the D7. i have got the feeling the footage may become less filmic?

I borrowed an A7 from a store just to feel it out and was panicking from how different everything was. Settings, systems, file format but especially the picture profiles. It is very hard to find a picture profile (or creative style as sony calls it) that matches the ones I used on my D7. When I turn everything down as flat as possible it looks very different (sooo much flatter than the flat settings on my canon!) and when I use the existing 
It's also hard to compare since the A7 has . All that made me want to run back to canon with the tail between my legs.. For a new project it would be different but being in the middle of one makes it hard to handle the changes.

I think I feel that the c100 is partly too heavy and partly too expensive.. And it will still probably be as tough to match with my old material..

Thanks for the advice on keeping everything progressive! So no 50i then, right?

Which marvel plug are you talking about?

Yeah, I know, then again 99 % will probably watch it on a computer / phone anyway..


----------



## Marsu42 (May 5, 2015)

rockyduderino said:


> i have got the feeling the footage may become less filmic?



If you want "film look" rather try a ff camera like the 5d2....



rockyduderino said:


> I borrowed an A7 from a store just to feel it out and was panicking from how different everything was.



Indeed it is, one of the main reason Canon probably doesn't worry too much of people jumping ship because the competition has the better specs. Whenever I handle a Nikon or esp. Sony (with evf) in a shop I come to realize how blindly/quickly I handle my Canon equipment by now. If you're in the middle of a project, I'd say rather don't take the risk.


----------



## Ebrahim Saadawi (Jun 7, 2015)

7D MKII vs your 7D

-60p at 1080p 
-No aliasing or moire
-Much improved low light performance (closer to 5D3)
-Dual Pixel Autofocus, brilliant piece of technology
-Clean HDMI output with full Audio and Timecode for external recording to ProRes 
-Headphone jack to monitor your audio whilst recording
-Better, less compressed codec, 90mbps ALL-I vs 30-mbps Long-Gop
-29:59 minutes recording time vs. 12 minutes on the 7D
-Internal Timelapse mode (intervalometer)

I think it's the best choice for you to mix with the footage from a Canon DSLR (same picture styles and colour science) and since you're uncomfortable with learning an entirely new system.

The 7D mk II is the best Canon DSLR for video right now, as while the 5D3 gains a bigger sensor it lacks many new features on the new 7D mk II.


----------

